Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

SLT

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

50% OFF new PortraitPro 12, plus EXTRA 5% OFF code EPHZROS414.
Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139368 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
4 Sep 2012 - 1:10 PM


Quote: Its interesting you mention the Oly OM-D with its retro OM-1 styling. My local camera shop told me most of the time it does not float the younger photo enthusiast boat and most sales [not all] were to an older generation

I would have thought the main thing about the OM-D is the fact it looks like a small DSLR.... the 'OM retro' aspect will surely be lost on most potential buyers?.

For those who want to get away from DSLR styling, there's always the Panasonic, Sony NEX and Nikon 1-series. Not the mention the Canon EOS M (perhaps best left unmentioned! Grin)

Last Modified By Carabosse at 4 Sep 2012 - 1:11 PM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
4 Sep 2012 - 1:10 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mdpontin
mdpontin  96016 forum posts Scotland
4 Sep 2012 - 1:28 PM

If it sold only on its looks it would be on shaky ground, to say the least. The fact is that it's packed full of useful features, and is capable of producing excellent results. As has been said, many owners on ePHOTOzine have found that it's injected a fresh dose of enjoyment and enthusiasm to their photography, including feeling tempted to try new things. These are the things that are making the OM-D the hot item it appears to be. Many of us love the mini SLR / retro OM styling, but I for one wouldn't have splashed out 4 figures for something that merely looks pretty.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139368 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
4 Sep 2012 - 1:36 PM


Quote: it's injected a fresh dose of enjoyment and enthusiasm to their photography

I wholeheartedly agree with Doug on this. I am more inclined to take the OM-D out with me, rather than a compact, than I ever was with the SLRs/DSLRs I've owned over the years.

This is where the SLT perhaps comes a bit of a cropper. It does not offer the weight/size savings to be had by getting rid of the mirror altogether. If Sony could work on that aspect, they could have a winner. But, if that proves to be impossible, then SLT may be their '21st century Betamax'.

mdpontin
mdpontin  96016 forum posts Scotland
4 Sep 2012 - 3:11 PM


Quote: This is where the SLT perhaps comes a bit of a cropper. It does not offer the weight/size savings to be had by getting rid of the mirror altogether.

Yes, and in fact Sony's NEX range has this as an advantage over the SLT - it still uses an APS-C sized sensor, but with no mirror box (whether SLT or SLR) to contend with, it's far more compact. For many people, that's a big deal. I know that one of the biggest discouragements for me in taking my camera with me was the size and weight. Lugging an EOS 5D and a couple of L lenses is quite a lot of weight to consider, especially when you have other things to carry too.

I recently took a trip out to St. Kilda. Obviously I had to take my camera and a couple of lenses. I also had to carry some sandwiches for lunch, something to drink, and various other incidentals that being 40-odd miles out into the Atlantic make advisable to carry! I also had a fairly small HD camcorder with me. Squeezing everything into the bag without squashing the sandwiches to mush and splitting the bottle of water or juice was a tough job in itself, but the bag also weighed a ton. I'm not as fit as I was, so climbing from Village Bay up to one of the cliffs in the warm sunshine was a gruelling exercise. Not to mention the risk of turning around suddenly on the boat to get a sighting of a whale or something, and accidentally knocking somebody overboard! Wink

Now...suppose I replace the 5D, 24-70 L, 70-200 L and HD camcorder with an OM-D, 12-50, and a 75-300...a fraction of the weight, a fraction of the bulk, and I still have all the photographic and video opportunities that I had before. It's a very simple equation when looked at in those terms. Can an SLT give me an advantage on the same scale? I wouldn't think so.

Last Modified By mdpontin at 4 Sep 2012 - 3:14 PM
Steppenwolf
5 Sep 2012 - 9:02 AM


Quote: Am I living in the past, no I do not think so, all I look for is the past being taken on and improved. If I were living in the past I would say the old MX5 was better than the GT86, but it clearly is not, the more modern car with its advanced technology is better.

If the object is to achieve the best drivers' car a two-seater needs a mid-engine configuration which concentrates more mass at the centre of the car making the car much more responsive to steering input - also allows better aerodynamics. The reason the MX-5 and, to a lesser extent, the GT86 are the way they are is because they're intended to be retro. They have modern technology but their functionality has been compromised by the desire to appeal to a particular market. The Toyota MR2 II (which came out about the same time as the MX5) took a different approach and was a better car than the MX5 but appealed to a different market and didn't sell as well.

The OMD cameras are designed to appeal to a particular market but the 70's style body doesn't actually feel very good to hold, but it will sell well. Some people are afraid of innovation and making the camera look traditional helps sales. There are loads of posts on these forums where people ask which DSLR they buy. When you question why they want a DSLR they don't know but it's usually pointless suggesting that they look at a different type of interchangeable lens camera. Most people don't make buying decisions in a logical manner - they decide what they want (in one part of the brain) and then they use the concious part of the brain to justify that decision.

Steppenwolf
5 Sep 2012 - 9:19 AM


Quote:
This is where the SLT perhaps comes a bit of a cropper. It does not offer the weight/size savings to be had by getting rid of the mirror altogether. If Sony could work on that aspect, they could have a winner. But, if that proves to be impossible, then SLT may be their '21st century Betamax'.

You misunderstand the point of the SLT. There's a vast number of MAF/Alpha mount lenses out there and they're not getting any smaller in size. The SLT is designed to use these lenses while still allowing the camera to function as a practical video camera - that's basically all there is to it. The SLT provides all the advantages of the DSLR and decent video capability. The mirrorless cameras are still lacking the fast tracking focus - and the lens range is deficient at the moment. So the SLT is the best all-rounder at the moment - which is why I bought one.

Sony have already worked out how to get rid of the mirror - it's called NEX. If you want to use ALpha lenses on NEX you can buy an adaptor - one of which does phase detection AF. If Sony drop the SLTs I'd just have to get a NEX and an adaptor, so it's in no way comparable with Betamax.

mikehit
mikehit e2 Member 45775 forum postsmikehit vcard United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
5 Sep 2012 - 10:04 AM


Quote: so it's in no way comparable with Betamax.

Not quite sure why that holds just because you can put the lenses on the NEX. The NEX simply gives you the option of not having to buy into a new system if Sony ditch Betamax....sorry, the SLT.

In fact, why not buy a Sony to micro four-thirds adapter - you know you want to Wink

Last Modified By mikehit at 5 Sep 2012 - 10:05 AM
mdpontin
mdpontin  96016 forum posts Scotland
5 Sep 2012 - 10:59 AM


Quote: ...but the 70's style body doesn't actually feel very good to hold

Oh, doesn't it? I hadn't realised. Note to self - it doesn't feel very good to hold.
Tongue

Last Modified By mdpontin at 5 Sep 2012 - 11:00 AM
Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139368 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
5 Sep 2012 - 11:21 AM


Quote: The OMD cameras are designed to appeal to a particular market but the 70's style body doesn't actually feel very good to hold

Lol! Fits my hands like a glove - or, more accurately, my hands fit it like a glove! Grin

The OM-D is designed to appeal to the market which wishes to stop carrying around heavy, bulky DSLR cameras and lenses - and it seems to be selling rather well. The price is staying stubbornly at its launch price, several months ago.


Quote: so it's in no way comparable with Betamax.

The reason for mentioning Betamax is that few criticised it on technical grounds - it was (apparently) in some ways better than VHS - but nobody bought it. Smile

mdpontin
mdpontin  96016 forum posts Scotland
5 Sep 2012 - 11:26 AM

You must have a 70's style hand, CB. As must I. Wink

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139368 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
5 Sep 2012 - 11:28 AM

Ah yes, that what it must be! Grin

mdpontin
mdpontin  96016 forum posts Scotland
5 Sep 2012 - 11:53 AM


Quote: The OMD cameras are designed to appeal to a particular market but the 70's style body doesn't actually feel very good to hold, but it will sell well. Some people are afraid of innovation and making the camera look traditional helps sales.

Frankly, while this comment has some merit, it's a gross generalisation of peoples reasons for buying. In reality, most people have far more complex reasons for making a purchasing decision. For myself, I certainly wouldn't classify myself as being "afraid of innovation" - perhaps quite the reverse. And there's plenty that's new for me in an OM-D compared with a traditional SLR. Do I like the retro styling? Yes. But that certainly wasn't why I chose the OM-D. Will the styling help sales? I'm sure it will, but as I said elsewhere, it takes more than mere appearance to make a product a hot seller.


Quote: There are loads of posts on these forums where people ask which DSLR they buy. When you question why they want a DSLR they don't know but it's usually pointless suggesting that they look at a different type of interchangeable lens camera. Most people don't make buying decisions in a logical manner - they decide what they want (in one part of the brain) and then they use the concious part of the brain to justify that decision.

I don't doubt that. I won't suggest that there may be an element of this in your apparent conviction of the ascendancy of SLTs. I'm sure you have your reasons, just as those of us who are more sceptical have our reasons for disagreeing. My personal view is that SLTs are a compromise too far. Every design involves compromise, some companies opt for one set of compromises, others for a different set. The supposed advantages offered by the SLT don't fit with my needs, namely a compact, lightweight but sophisticated camera system which allows me plenty of scope for creativity and for expanding my capabilities.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139368 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
5 Sep 2012 - 11:59 AM

And let's not forget that Canon persisted with the pellicle mirror a long time. Their first model, the Pellix, was launched in 1965. Their final one, the EOS RT, only stopped production in 1992.......... i.e. 27 years later.

So it's not as if they did not give translucent mirrors a decent chance!

I cannot see anything - 20 years on from the EOS RT - that would make the public rush out and buy an SLT. It is very much a (small) niche market, on the face of it.

Steppenwolf
5 Sep 2012 - 1:56 PM


Quote: And let's not forget that Canon persisted with the pellicle mirror a long time. Their first model, the Pellix, was launched in 1965. Their final one, the EOS RT, only stopped production in 1992.......... i.e. 27 years later.

So it's not as if they did not give translucent mirrors a decent chance!

I cannot see anything - 20 years on from the EOS RT - that would make the public rush out and buy an SLT. It is very much a (small) niche market, on the face of it.

I can't see what the selling point of the pellicle mirror would have been back then. It would lose light to the film (probably also degrade the image, unless Canon had the kind of technology that Sony now have, which is unlikely) and have a dim view finder. So I can't see why anyone would want one. Like I said the main driver nowadays for the SLT is the fact that people want (or Sony think people want) a camera that can also shoot video in a practical manner.



Quote: Not quite sure why that holds just because you can put the lenses on the NEX. The NEX simply gives you the option of not having to buy into a new system if Sony ditch Betamax....sorry, the SLT.

In fact, why not buy a Sony to micro four-thirds adapter - you know you want to .

People used to hire films on video tape - it wasn't just a recording mechanism. No one rented out films on Betamax so it died. It's what's called a "bad analogy". The exact technology behind Sony's digital cameras is basically irrelevant to most users.

And the only adaptors I would bother with are full function ones - i.e. everything has to work properly - AF, tracking AF, IS etc. The only adaptor that does this is NEX/Alpha.

keith selmes
5 Sep 2012 - 4:02 PM


Quote: I can't see what the selling point of the pellicle mirror would have been back then

As I wrote earlier in the thread


Quote: The EOS RT was much loved by a niche market of people like portrait photographers, some of whom could live with the dim viewfinder so long as it gave them a continuous view of the subject, with no flipping mirror blocking the view just at the crucial moment - like a TLR, you could see just what you were taking. But for most people the trade off wasn't needed.

I thought the idea with an SLT was that it has an EVF, and only uses the pellicle for the AF control, which is a totally different thing.
From what I have read, the only reason it's not called mirrorless or milc or EVIL or whatever is that Sony want to differentiate on the AF methd, and came up with "SLT".

Or have I misunderstood something ?

I now think I hadn't misunderstood anything. The Canon cameras are not relevant, as they really were SLR where the mirror didn't move, and these SLT are MILC using the pellicle for autofocus. I gather this AF method is highly desirable for some purposes, including video, so perhaps Sony are going for a niche market, rather than trying to compete head on.

In case it isn't obvious, I might add that using an Eos RT film camera, it was rather useful being able to see the subject just at the moment of taking, as you couldn't just check the image on the back lcd. With a converntional SLR you had to wait until the film was developed before you knew someone had moved at the crucial moment, with the RT you saw it happen.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.