Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


SLT


Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
1 Sep 2012 12:14PM
Doug is right - and some premium brands are almost unsaleable if you opt for an old-fashioned clutch pedal. As for supercars, will you find a clutch pedal on a Bugatti Veyron? I think not! Wink

What were we talking about? Oh yes, SLTs. It is certainly brave of Sony to go out on a limb with a technology that Canon dropped 20 years ago. The benefits, such as they are, are not as obvious as dropping the mirror altogether. So I do wonder whether SLTs are just a phase.............. like teenage acne! Wink

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mdpontin e2
10 6.0k Scotland
1 Sep 2012 12:17PM

Quote:What were we talking about?


Quote:So I do wonder whether SLTs are just a phase.............. like teenage acne!

Grin
1 Sep 2012 1:27PM
There has been a long term argument about which is better in body IS or in lens IS.

Olympus debatably have the most efficiant of the in body IS systems especially the new OM-D E-M5 with a 5 axis sensor. For the rest, its a close run thing. Generally though in lens IS tends to be a tad more efficiant from the reports I have read.

In tests run by 'Photozone' they found on occasions that a lens fitted with IS had a lower optical score than a lens without IS and they put this down to a possible element mis alignment at the point of the picture being taken. A good case in point is the Tamron 17-50 VC and non VC version.
Its all a bit too complicated for my simple mind.

I rarely use longer lenses than my Nikon 16-85 for landscapes and I usually switch the IS off if my shutter speeds are above 200, if a lot slower, I use a tripod. All my pictures come out razor sharp.

No fighting please.

Kodachrome
1 Sep 2012 2:53PM

Quote:On cars its like dual clutch gear boxes, for powertrain designers and getting around emissions its great, and if driving is a chore it is great. But for long term ownership and driver pleasure its not so good. So great technology but watch out for year 5 ownership cost, not bother you because you keep it for less than 3 years, watch out for 2nd hand value fall. Depending on what you want its great or a not a good change.


You never learn Strawman. You're still giving your opinions on things you seem to know little about and have almost certainly never used - except possibly a test drive. You really want to try one out before you comment. These things change gear in .06 sec and computer match engine revs to the new gear ratio so you only know the gear's changed by the engine note - there's virtually no break in the power train so you leave most people for dead at the lights. You can select full manual (selectable by paddle shifts or sequential gear shift), full auto, or semi-manual where you leave it in auto but can override gear changes. The cost is 1500 new but you get all that back (and potentially more) when you sell because the manuals are harder to sell. Running costs on the early versions could be high because the technology was new but reliability is now high and repairs are no longer so expensive.

It's an interesting comparison to a new technology camera because, if you go into a dealership and try out the dual clutch box you'll be baffled by it - it takes weeks to learn how to get the best out of it. But when you've learned you won't want to go back to manual and you'll realise what a load of garbage slush pumps are.

And I'm not anti-Canon. I just object to the implication - on the part of several posters - that the pellicle mirror must be "flawed" because Canon didn't pursue it. One person was also saying that 8fps is "enough" presumably because that's the maximum that Canon can manage in a consumer DSLR. This is pathetic nonsense. The Nikon V1 shoots 60fps in full resolution and that seems like something that I could use. The A77 can only manage 12fps because of the amount of data it stores, but you can bet your life that the next version will be doing a whole lot more. When a few people begin to realise what you can do with this the rates that a DSLR can manage will be recognised as "not enough" - and there won't be anything that can be done to make them faster except put a turbocharger on the flappy mirror.
strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
1 Sep 2012 3:19PM
Doug you make a good point in that each persons personal taste dictates how much you want to do yourself and how much you automate. The same goes for photography how much do you do yourself and what do you automate.

SW I have done a lot more than drive the dsg equiped vehicle, my involvement starts before DSG and I would pick it over a conventional autogear box. but take a spin in a modern manual transmission rear wheel drive vehicle like the GT86 as an example . Like everything it has plus and minus and it is for the user to pick. But it is adifferent driving experience
strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
1 Sep 2012 3:32PM
The question on frame rate is a real good one. Would you feel a greater sense of satisfaction if for a sporting event you followed the action and framed and took the shot with one shot or if you pointed the camera in the general direction took a video then extracted a frame and cropped it. I have no doubt the technology will enable this but does it remove some of the pleasure or satisfaction. I bet technically the 60fps machine could do better than me, but would I be happy?
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
1 Sep 2012 4:45PM
Eventually we may be shooting 8K video (33 megapixels) with our cameras. Stills may then be a matter of extracting suitable frames from the video.

Different skills may be needed, but I'm sure we'll still have fun. Smile
redhed17 e2
9 680 England
1 Sep 2012 5:02PM

Quote:Eventually we may be shooting 8K video (33 megapixels) with our cameras. Stills may then be a matter of extracting suitable frames from the video.


Sounds like a good idea until you realise that you have no control over shutter speed. Wink
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
1 Sep 2012 5:06PM

Quote:Sounds like a good idea until you realise that you have no control over shutter speed


Er, why do you say that? We have control over shutter speed in video.... now.

It is true though that the ideal shutter speed for video and stills is not always compatible. But for action stuff, ultra high-res video could be ideal.
redhed17 e2
9 680 England
1 Sep 2012 5:22PM

Quote:Sounds like a good idea until you realise that you have no control over shutter speed

Er, why do you say that? We have control over shutter speed in video.... now.

It is true though that the ideal shutter speed for video and stills is not always compatible. But for action stuff, ultra high-res video could be ideal.



OK, you have some control over shutter speed, and some fast shutter speeds may not make smooth video, but anything slower than something like 1/25th sec, or whatever the frame rate is unavailable. A nice feature to have, but not something to use as the main method of obtaining stills. Wink
mdpontin e2
10 6.0k Scotland
1 Sep 2012 5:46PM

Quote:Doug you make a good point in that each persons personal taste dictates how much you want to do yourself and how much you automate.

That's certainly true. In my case, I was a die-hard manual transmission man, but a seemingly chronic health problem made me opt for an auto box - it was that or forget about driving - and so I traded in for the DSG version of my car. Now, I'm not at all certain that I'd choose manual when I next change, despite the fact that I now can drive manual transmission cars again. Driveability, convenience, and even fuel economy (to a tiny degree) all seem to be better with the DSG - as far as I am concerned.

Quote:These things change gear in .06 sec

Actually the quoted figure for upshifting is 8 milliseconds (0.008s)! But yes, averaged out over a variety of conditions, 600 milliseconds is typical. Regardless, the fact remains that gear changes are often almost undetectable, even under heavy acceleration, other than by watching the revs, and the interruption to power delivery is next to non-existent.

Err....I'm banging on about automotive transmission again! Sorry! Sad
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
1 Sep 2012 6:05PM
As in all things one person's "enjoyment" can be another's "annoyance". Wink

If you regard taking photos as a journey, to some the journey is more important - but to others the end-product is what matters.

Oh and if we are banging on about matters automotive, it has to be remembered that transmission systems reflect the adequacy or inadequacy of the engine to produce torque at given revs. Which is why many electric cars only have forward and reverse.... max torque is available from startup. Likewise if you have a petrol engine which can produce a lot of torque over a wide rev range, the type of gearbox becomes a bit of a non-issue, because you have a lot of 'grunt' (technical term! Grin) at any engine speed above fast idle.
strawman e2
11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
1 Sep 2012 7:16PM
The electronic controlled gearbox I think works best that I have driven is the geartronic system in a truck when you have so many ratios its a bonus, but the quickest I have driven was in a factory ferrari California.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
1 Sep 2012 7:22PM
Frankly, even the lastest torque-converter based autos can be as quick as the automated-manual boxes (but without the complications and, in some cases, fragility)...... as can be seen from the fact that the acceleration times are quicker than their conventional manual versions.

I would love to try something like a Fisker Karma though. It must be a bit surreal!
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
1 Sep 2012 8:50PM

Quote:I just object to the implication - on the part of several posters - that the pellicle mirror must be "flawed" because Canon didn't pursue it.


I am not saying it is flawed, but am wondering about the compromises the system has. When one of the biggest camera companies in the world (Canon) developed the technology and has done nothing with it for 20 years, you have to ask why.
When people ask about the theoretical issues about diverting light for the viewfinder and the attendant loss of light to sensor and AF mechanism I am willing to accept the reductionist answer that 'Sony must have overcome them or they would not have invested so much into the technology'.
Equally, when someone asks why Canon (nor Nikon!) has not taken it further I am also alert to the reductionist response that maybe it offers no significant advantages as a system over the 'moving mirror' technology.
And shooting at 20+fps really does not interest me especially when offset against the comparisons regards focus tracking.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.