Re: Nikon to go mirrorless

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Jul 19, 2010.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 19, 1:45 pm, Mark F <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:42:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote, in part:> As someone mentioned a few days ago, "single-lens reflex" implies the use of
    > > a mirror. It will be very interesting to see what Nikon's "new type" of SLR
    > > is, but it sounds like the sort of interchangeable-lens EVF camera we've
    > > already seen from other makers -- "mirrorless single-lens reflex" is a
    > > contradiction in terms. My guess is somebody got something wrong in that
    > > report.

    >
    > I had a "pellicle" camera in the 1960s that had a fixed mirror.  I'm
    > not sure exactly what "reflex" refers to, but I think that "mirrorless
    > single-lens reflex" refers to the lack of a moving mirror, so
    > 1. No motion of camera due to mirror movement
    > 2. Continuous view of the image, meaning
    >  a. No delay due to scan
    >  b. No time missed due to mirror raised or sensor not available
    >   due to setting up for the exposure
    >  c. No time missed due to making the exposure.
    >
    > The web page:
    >
    > http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/pellix/
    > says:
    >  "Since there was no mirror blackout, the user could see the image at
    >   the moment of exposure"
    > While this is true, when the light is dim you can't see the an optical
    > view finder or through the lens image very well, so digital view
    > can be more useful.
    >
    > (There were several Canon Pellix film camera
    > with "a fixed beamsplitting pellicle".  I got my camera as used before
    > 1975.  I'm not sure if I had the 1965 Cannon Pellix or an earlier
    > brand X model.)
    >
    > > Still very interesting, whatever it will turn out to be -- provided it takes
    > > existing Nikon lenses, of course. With Nikon's fetish for keeping the
    > > (essentially) same lens mount over more than 50 years I would expect that to
    > > be the case.



    F--- the PELLIX. 50% of the light, or so, never got to the film. It
    was a stupid design.
    Rich, Jul 19, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 19, 8:03 pm, Mark F <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:06:27 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    > wrote in part:> F--- the PELLIX.  50% of the light, or so, never got to the film.
    >
    > Actually, according to what I see on the web, about 2/3 to film, 1/3
    > to view finder.  The thing worked fine in bright light where you
    > didn't want to loose site of the subject.


    Well, a 50mm f1.4 lens would have worked ok I guess.
    Rich, Jul 20, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    Bruce Guest

    On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:03:05 -0400, Mark F <>
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:06:27 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    >wrote in part:
    >> F--- the PELLIX. 50% of the light, or so, never got to the film.

    >Actually, according to what I see on the web, about 2/3 to film, 1/3
    >to view finder. The thing worked fine in bright light where you
    >didn't want to loose site of the subject.
    >
    >I didn't do any real tests with it, but it seemed like it should
    >loose lots of resolution.
    >
    >It had a limited lens selection (I got the camera for US$30 sometime
    >in the 1967-1972 time frame) I read on the web that the pellicle
    >degraded, but I didn't use the camera after I got a real job and
    >got too busy to take photographs anyhow.
    >
    >After sitting in various boxes from 1975 to 2009 it got thrown out
    >last year - I couldn't even give it away to either of the two local
    >camera stores that actually still sell and display old film cameras.
    >> It
    >> was a stupid design.



    No, it wasn't a stupid design. The same principle was used in the
    Canon EOS 1V HS 35mm SLR and allowed a blistering 10 frames per second
    continuous shooting speed. Technology had improved and the silvering
    on the mirror lasted much longer than on the Canon Pellix.

    The same principle was also used in the Olympus E-10 and E-20 DSLRs.
    Bruce, Jul 20, 2010
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. RichA
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    313
    Peter
    Sep 8, 2010
  2. Bruce
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    940
    John Turco
    Nov 28, 2010
  3. RichA
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    687
    nospam
    Jul 31, 2011
  4. Bruce
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    789
    Bruce
    Sep 4, 2011
  5. RichA

    Canon, Nikon mirrorless = Disney and FOX on DVD

    RichA, Sep 6, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    454
    Bruce
    Sep 15, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page