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!

55% OFF new PortraitPro 12 - use code EPHZROS414.
kodachrome
5 Sep 2012 - 4:17 PM

Would it make sense for Sony to drop the SLT system/mirror entirely and go full EVF as in NEX.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
5 Sep 2012 - 4:17 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139367 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
5 Sep 2012 - 4:54 PM


Quote: Would it make sense for Sony to drop the SLT system/mirror entirely and go full EVF as in NEX.

They are hedging their bets, perhaps............ just in case mirrorless turns out to be a just a phase! Lol! Wink

As I said earlier in the thread, there will be those for whom an EVF - however good - will not be acceptable. But is the SLT an answer to a question nobody asked, or has it "got legs" as they say? Jury's out, I think.

mdpontin
mdpontin  96016 forum posts Scotland
5 Sep 2012 - 4:56 PM

We'll know the answer to that when other camera manufacturers start competing head-to-head with Sony in this particular niche. No sign of that yet, but could it happen?

Steppenwolf
5 Sep 2012 - 5:08 PM


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.

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.


That puts the comparison between the Sony SLT and the Canon pellicle in a different light - and your explanation is very clear. As you say, they're not comparable because they're trying to solve different problems.

I'm not sure that Sony are (intentionally) going for a niche market though. Sony are trying to provide a stills camera with phase detection AF that can also function as a video camera, with full AF and viewfinder capability. They never liked the fact that DSLR movie mode meant using the LCD and losing AF and never made a DSLR that had this feature "shoe-horned" in. Sony may have misread the market. I think a lot of people buy modern DSLRs and expect that the HD movie capability will be comparable with a dedicated £250 HD "camcorder", only to find that it's a different beast entirely.

It's interesting that you mention the problem of the flappy mirror blocking the viewfinder when the photograph is taken. Some of the more traditional SLR fans think that this is not a problem, and even cite the OVF as an advantage over the SLT's EVF in this regard - an example of an altercation between the pot and the kettle, maybe.

kodachrome
5 Sep 2012 - 5:10 PM

Samsung, Panasonic and Olympus all sell an EVF camera and are pioneering the move to EVF, yes, I know they are CSC's but their sales are pretty good. Perhaps its only a matter of time before others follow

I have often wondered if the big boys, Canon, Nikon and perhaps Pentax will eventually offer either OVF or EVF on the same model of camera, probably high end only to start with or better still a 'head up display' where information is over layed on the OVF screen. I heard Fuji were working on this.
Exciting times are ahead me thinks.

strawman
strawman  1021991 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
5 Sep 2012 - 10:12 PM


Quote: It's interesting that you mention the problem of the flappy mirror blocking the viewfinder when the photograph is taken. Some of the more traditional SLR fans think that this is not a problem, and even cite the OVF as an advantage over the SLT's EVF in this regard - an example of an altercation between the pot and the kettle, maybe.

If you think about it, the system being described had a full time real time viewfinder, something the SLR or Sony SLT does not offer. In the SLR there is the loss of viewfinder when the mirror lifts is it true, but the Sony SLT has a blanking time when the photo is taken and the video stream is interrupted and it has delay and refresh issues also. To be fair the SLR and Sony SLT interrupt the viewfinder to take a picture so its not like either are strong there. Pot and Kettle are black there.


Quote: 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.

I used a comment about driver enjoyment. There are many plus and minus points on various powertrain configurations, and there is the issue of how they handle and the ability of the driver. Its not for no reason Ferrari re-introduced some front engine rear drive cars as well as the mid engine cars. And it is not for no reason that BMW and Mercedes have kept cars with that configuration and Toyota, Subaru and Mazda have chosen it for particular reasons. Often what is of interest is how the car behaves in throttle on and off conditions as well as how it behaves at limits of adhesion. The technical best is not always the most enjoyable. And enjoyment is very person to person subjective.

For example the mid engine chassis does tend to hang on longer but you can get problems when the rear breaks traction, but it is not always true as the MG TF was engineered to have understeer, and one MR2 version was famous for rapid switch from understeer to oversteer. Toyota were accused of ruining the car at the time I remember, though I think it was people did not understand the respect that configuration needs. It can be very fast, but to get the most can require the best of driving abilities. Lotus work wonders with the Elise, but it may not be everyone's idea of a good car.


Quote: 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.

No they are made that way for the driving characteristics. That is different. Should all cars be front wheel drive? Are all those high tech BMW and Mercedes cars retro as well. ??? Or is it that they are engineered to give a certain style of driving?


Quote: They have modern technology but their functionality has been compromised by the desire to appeal to a particular market.

They are designed to appeal to a particular market, Toyota are chasing a younger owner profile for example.


Quote: 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 MR2 was an interesting car its a fair choice but it has different plus and minus points compared to the MR2 which as you say sold better and so to many people was the better car. I also like the MR2 but bought an MX5 for a variety of reasons but can respect why someone would buy an MR2, probably more the MKI than the II. Having driven both I found it easier to drift the 5 and I found it to be more forgiving when you get to the edge of grip each driver should make their own choice. But Toyota no longer make the MR2 and I would say the GT86 is the logical replacement. The motoring press look to love it as well. P.S The MR2 was out long before the MX5.

Oh and mid engine is very very retro. I believe Mr Benz used it in 1885. The Front rear configuration came later so does that make mid engine retro. Or is it just they are different. Its better to be more open minded, me I have front and rear wheel drive cars and can find things to like on both. For bikes I have two very different types of design, and I have four different designs of camera. Is it possible there is no one "best" but rather best choices for a particular task???

Last Modified By strawman at 5 Sep 2012 - 10:48 PM
Sooty_1
Sooty_1 Critique Team 31125 forum posts United Kingdom192 Constructive Critique Points
6 Sep 2012 - 1:12 AM

Regardless of which is advantageous...mirror, no mirror or Pellicle, I still know at least 4 people who burned holes in their shutter curtains with EOS RTs. Walking round, camera hanging by strap, lens focused at infinity - the sun burned them very quickly. 2 were even on the same day at an air show. They bought RTs precisely for aircraft, so they didn't lose sight when they panned the camera. Wide lenses are worse than long ones due to the wider angle of view and increased chance of catching the sun in the frame.

Walking round keeping the cap on, or the lens defocussed will surely slow down the process of shooting.
I can't see it being any different with new cameras using the same methods.

Nick

Last Modified By Sooty_1 at 6 Sep 2012 - 1:13 AM
mdpontin
mdpontin  96016 forum posts Scotland
6 Sep 2012 - 8:45 AM

It just occurred to me - tying the camera and car strands of this thread together in a characteristically irrelevant way - that my present car has a "flippy mirror" (conventional rear view mirror). A couple of my previous cars had automatic dimming rear-view mirrors, i.e. no flipping involved. Does that mean my present car is "retro"? Neither of them have been much use for taking photographs with though. Sad

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139367 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
6 Sep 2012 - 11:41 AM

A car with a built-in camera would be novel - given there are so many people who wish to upload videos to YouTube of themselves driving like maniacs on public roads! Wink

Perhaps this should be Sony's next bright idea.......................

strawman
strawman  1021991 forum posts United Kingdom16 Constructive Critique Points
6 Sep 2012 - 12:41 PM

CB have you not seen some of the active safety systems with cameras, some look out for road signs and alert drivers, some look for obstacles. like vehicles in the blind spot, great for trucks. There are some great new systems coming linking radar cruise control with crash avoidance. This could be a big area.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139367 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
6 Sep 2012 - 1:59 PM

Yeah but they don't take those videos for YouTube - where people can show they were doing 120mph in a 30 zone etc. Wink

AlanWillis
AlanWillis e2 Member 463 forum postsAlanWillis vcard England
6 Sep 2012 - 2:10 PM

but the current new Sony lens range stop at 400mm so its not a priority for Sony either.
[/quote]

Sony have a 500F4 lens.

I am a kingfisher photographer, have never used above 400mm
I have an A77 which I have used for over a year now and mainly use it with the 300MM
I am hoping to own a A99 full frame in a few weeks, because of the lightning fast and accurate focusing system.
I will still mainly use the 300mm, and expect to sell my A77.
Malc Brown ( The best kingfisher In-flight photographer and my photography partner ) Uses a Canon 70-200 mk2 with a 1D mk 4
We share a hide and I am often too close for the 300mm prime.

I would like to bring your’ attention to two interesting groups. Which would be worth joining.
http://www.ephotozine.com/groups/sony-alpha-photos-810
http://www.ephotozine.com/groups/kingfisher-of-europe--813
Best regards Alan

mikehit
mikehit e2 Member 45763 forum postsmikehit vcard United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
6 Sep 2012 - 2:26 PM


Quote: We share a hide and I am often too close for the 300mm prime.

In which case you are a priviledged man. How close are you that 300mm is too long for these diminutive beasties?

Sooty_1
Sooty_1 Critique Team 31125 forum posts United Kingdom192 Constructive Critique Points
6 Sep 2012 - 2:58 PM


Quote: A car with a built-in camera would be novel - given there are so many people who wish to upload videos to YouTube of themselves driving like maniacs on public roads!

Perhaps this should be Sony's next bright idea.......................

Already been done, loads of times!

http://mobilepinholeproject.tumblr.com/
http://usphotograph.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/volkswagon-van-turned-into-portable.h...

Just a couple.

Last Modified By Sooty_1 at 6 Sep 2012 - 2:58 PM
Steppenwolf
6 Sep 2012 - 3:07 PM


Quote: I used a comment about driver enjoyment. There are many plus and minus points on various powertrain configurations, and there is the issue of how they handle and the ability of the driver. Its not for no reason Ferrari re-introduced some front engine rear drive cars as well as the mid engine cars. And it is not for no reason that BMW and Mercedes have kept cars with that configuration and Toyota, Subaru and Mazda have chosen it for particular reasons. Often what is of interest is how the car behaves in throttle on and off conditions as well as how it behaves at limits of adhesion. The technical best is not always the most enjoyable. And enjoyment is very person to person subjective.

For example the mid engine chassis does tend to hang on longer but you can get problems when the rear breaks traction, but it is not always true as the MG TF was engineered to have understeer, and one MR2 version was famous for rapid switch from understeer to oversteer. Toyota were accused of ruining the car at the time I remember, though I think it was people did not understand the respect that configuration needs. It can be very fast, but to get the most can require the best of driving abilities. Lotus work wonders with the Elise, but it may not be everyone's idea of a good car.


I decided to get rid of my Lotus Esprit when the gear lever came away in my hand and left me in neutral. I bought an MR2 Mk II looking for reliability - which it delivered. It probably can't really be called a mid-engine car though, because it had a transverse engine rather than longitudinal so it was almost rear-engined, and it was tricky on the limit. But it was good fun to drive.

Most manufacturers have now ditched the mid-engine conguration apart from the exotics like Ferrari, Lambo, etc - the only affordable ones are the Lotuses and the Boxster. Most people are frightened of them because the reactions to steering input are so quick. It's sad because modern electronics (traction control and stability programs) have made them drivable even for novices. It's a bit like the modern Typhoon where the aircraft is inherently completely unstable and needs constant computer correction to make it fly in a straight line - if the computer fails the pilot has to bail out. But that's what makes it so manoeuvrable. Mid-engine cars are like that. They don't care which direction they're going in - when they go through the hedge it's as likely to be backwards as forwards.

It is, in a way, analogous to various old lenses I have - in particular the Minolta 500mm mirror and the 100-400mm APO. These are both tiny lenses with small apertures, but they're both very high quality. The main complaints that people had about them was that the small aperture meant that they only worked in good light because of AF hunting and the need to have a low shutter speed with the long focal length. Ironically new camera technology has made these complaints irrelevant. Improvements in AF mean that both work fine in low light and the extra sensitivity of modern sensors and the improvements in modern in-camera IS mean that the small aperture is no longer such a problem. Yet Sony have discontinued the mirror and their replacement for the Minolta 100-400 is a massive tank of a beast (the 70-400mm).

It's all driven by what the public will buy - and no one ever went bankrupt by underestimating their intelligence, as someone once said.

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.