The concept of Translucent...and resistance to it.

[bfitzgerald]

Well discussed but I came across this article which is quite interesting:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... risks.html

Aside from the well known Translucent phrase being inaccurate and leaving that to one side he does have a point. Whilst the ghosting issue might have been solved to many the idea that the mirror stays in place could seem just "wrong" even if the downsides are pretty small.

Also another article here suggesting a slight loss in IQ or sharpness testing with the mirror v without it

http://thesybersite.com/sony/a55/index.htm

I'd add another to this, the loss of speed whilst not significant could also be a turn off for many users. If you told someone their fast lens collection is now a bit slower just on the basis of the mirror it wouldn't go down very well. Again this could be a stumbling block for adoption
I'm wondering whilst Sony clearly has shown some guts going for this technology, that until models appear on the market minus the mirror completely that Sony might yet again find itself having produced a range of SLT cameras that can't possibly compete with any rival who makes a completely mirrorless DSLR type camera (working on the basis that they can address the AF performance issue)

Many times it's good to be the first one on the bandwagon, however in this case Sony are taking a bit of a gamble. As well as possibly alienating those who want OVF's (yes that's me!) they also risk not appealing to the die hard mirror less crowd as well. I do think it is risky it might be worth taking it from Sony's perspective. But I just can't see the demographics of the camera market changing because of SLT (ie 2 top makers who dominate the market)

I wonder if the mirror is a sticking point to many people, it's not right to some, it might degrade IQ..and you lose some light. I'm not sure how this impacts potential sales but I suspect it will be a factor Sony might not have thought this one through.

[pakodominguez]

Also another article here suggesting a slight loss in IQ or sharpness testing with the mirror v without it

http://thesybersite.com/sony/a55/index.htm

Ray's article had been taken by many bloggers as a "proof" of the lost of quality on the SLT. But the "lost on quality" is not the main point on his article. It is funny because:
a.- Ray is not really that picky about "image quality"
b.- Ray is an early adopter and happy owner of the SLT system.

I guess Ray come to this forum once in a while, but if you want to ask him what he thinks now, you can find him at Dyxum.

I'm wondering whilst Sony clearly has shown some guts going for this technology, that until models appear on the market minus the mirror completely that Sony might yet again find itself having produced a range of SLT cameras that can't possibly compete with any rival who makes a completely mirrorless DSLR type camera (working on the basis that they can address the AF performance issue)

Many times it's good to be the first one on the bandwagon, however in this case Sony are taking a bit of a gamble. As well as possibly alienating those who want OVF's (yes that's me!) they also risk not appealing to the die hard mirror less crowd as well. I do think it is risky it might be worth taking it from Sony's perspective. But I just can't see the demographics of the camera market changing because of SLT (ie 2 top makers who dominate the market)

After a conversation with Mark Weir, I understood that, for Sony there is no more challenge making OVF, not for Sony or for Canon or Nikon. And they don't see OVF in the future (20 years from now), In a certain way they are ahead of everybody else. I don't think this will allow Sony to "be first" on this race. But they will grow in user base and patents catalog -specially the last one.

I wonder if the mirror is a sticking point to many people, it's not right to some, it might degrade IQ..and you lose some light. I'm not sure how this impacts potential sales but I suspect it will be a factor Sony might not have thought this one through.

The A65/A77 is a new generation of SLT, apparently ghosting already disappear if we believe some forum members. Best you can do is reproduce Ray's test with the A77 and see how much Sony improved the SLT.

Regards

[KevinBarrett]

I'd add another to this, the loss of speed whilst not significant could also be a turn off for many users.

What loss of speed? Last I heard, the SLT cameras make exposures just like any other cameras; ISO 200, 1/250, f/5.6 behind the unmoving mirror is the same exposure as ISO 200, 1/250, f/5.6 on any other camera that has to move it's mirror out of the way.

If you told someone their fast lens collection is now a bit slower just on the basis of the mirror it wouldn't go down very well. Again this could be a stumbling block for adoption

It's worse than a stumbling block, it's lying.

Yes, there is a loss of light due to the mirror, but the sensor's sensitivity levels are calibrated for this. Exposures aren't slower. Lenses aren't magically made slower either. The only stumbling block about Sony's "SLT" technology is that they chose to use the word "translucent" rather than "transparent."

[gio67]

I'm sure people thought like that when the slr came out ,and then autofocus, then digital and in-camera video plus gadzillions in between, if the technology is right people will eventually take to it

[OneGuyKs]

I'd add another to this, the loss of speed whilst not significant could also be a turn off for many users.

What loss of speed? Last I heard, the SLT cameras make exposures just like any other cameras; ISO 200, 1/250, f/5.6 behind the unmoving mirror is the same exposure as ISO 200, 1/250, f/5.6 on any other camera that has to move it's mirror out of the way."

In DPR studio samples, A77 is getting less light than other cameras at any given ISO (faster shutter speed). That is because ISO 100 = ISO 125 on A77

[bfitzgerald]

Sorry Kevin I can't agree there is a loss of speed due to the mirror being in place all the time of that there is no doubt. You can gain up the sensor to compensate but it's beyond debate bar the actual cast iron figure which Sony don't want to talk about for some reason. Some say a third of a stop could be about right but you do get a compromise albeit a small one. The loss of detail argument is harder to work out but again there could be something there too even if it's pretty minor.

Remove the SLT mirror and you get more light to the sensor it's a long way off being a lie it's actually the truth

[stevecim]

what's one more piece of glass? most lenses have over 10 pieces of glass anyway......
and a small loss in IQ/detail on lab test normally amounts to nothing in real world.
The jpg engines has 100% more effect over the final image than the mirror, even shooting RAW, How well the end users handles the RAW will have more impact.

I have yet to see anyone take a real world macro shot with a A580 and A55, and show me any real loss of detail. lab test shot's mean very little, even though in some areas of the test A77 test shots at DPR, you can clearly see the A77 has more detail then the 7D and in other areas (of the same image) it does not.

Barry, the really best test, is to get a hold of a A77 for a few weeks and try it.

The amount of final detail really depends lens, subject, lighting, processing . The mirror will have little effect compared to the other 4 items (well that's what I think )

[David Kilpatrick]

I thought Barry photographed people and weddings a certain amount, and also landscapes where the lighting (being Ireland) is key. I would not advise the A77 for either, as the finder does not relay enough detail to judge exact expressions in groups, or to preview the real result of light and shade.

I can live wth what it does, it's the best EVF made, but it simplifies the view and loses fine details which can be critical in social photography.

David

[stevecim]

thanks David, since you have used more Sony's then most .... Is there a noticeable loss of detail in SLT? or does it depend on what you are shooting?

[KevinBarrett]

The EVF vs OVF is a much more valid point for debating the suitability of a camera for your style of photography. To argue that the *ahem* translucent mirror causes a "loss of speed" is splitting hairs unless you're also willing to argue against image sensors that aren't matte black. Is light being reflected off of your image sensor? That light is lost, and turning all your expensive lenses to garbage.

[pakodominguez]

thanks David, since you have used more Sony's then most .... Is there a noticeable loss of detail in SLT? or does it depend on what you are shooting?

No: there is not noticeable loss of detail, specially with the A77

[pakodominguez]

I thought Barry photographed people and weddings a certain amount, and also landscapes where the lighting (being Ireland) is key. I would not advise the A77 for either, as the finder does not relay enough detail to judge exact expressions in groups, or to preview the real result of light and shade.

David,
I have not really used the A77/A65, other than at the PPE show last week. But even then, what you say doesn't make much sense:. you are supposed to see "better" in low light and, if you need to see more detail, you can use the Live View...

[agorabasta]

I have the supposedly same EVF for my 5N, and it's of rather low res in LV. The full res is available only in playback, in LV it seems to group four EVF pixels together for half-res, and the LV feed appears too coarse and badly aliased.
But that may be an issue with 5N having not enough processing power for LV display, as the HDMI LV output feed with all the Nexes is also half-res without antialiasing.

[bfitzgerald]

Well it's not really about "what I like" folks should know my opinion on things by now however I can't make a judgement on the A77 until I have tried on and I'll do that shortly. But that is purely out of curiosity rather than a considered potential purchase
I just felt it was an interesting point of discussion and that the original article I linked to might have had a point it might not but I suspect that folks who don't show an interest in these models might not for a few reasons, the mirror might be one (and the effects it might have on IQ however minor) the EVF is another area that could put some off. Of course some might fully love the idea of them both and happily embrace the products.

[David Kilpatrick]

I'm talking about two things only as far as the resolution of the EVF goes - facial expressions in groups or in backlight, at a distance; and shadow detail (highlights do burn out as well, but this is perhaps not so important). I can light a still life in the studio and through the A900 optical finder I can judge the effectiveness of fill-in light, and things like relected areas added to dark subjects. With the EVF I can not do so, as all shadows below a level which might be around 15 or so on the ACR slide black point scale are crushed to black. When the file is processed, there is a huge amount of shadow detail present.

Using the rear LCD screen, you can see this better if the colour space is set to aRGB, but the colours will not be very accurate as the screen itself is sRGB. Using aRGB gives the best indication of your histogram and actual shadow/highlight information, but using sRGB gives you a better match in colour and tone-curve.

It doesn't matter whether you use the rear LCD or the EVF, the resolution and also the slight delay factor (even if it's only 1/30th of a second) mean that important details of facial expression like people blinking in a group shot can not be seen at the time of taking. If you turn on Review through the EVF, the whole operation of the camera is hindered but you may be able to see if a people-shot like a wedding group needs retaking.

When photographing people with the EVF models, it's OK if the face fills maybe 1/8th or so of the frame - then you can really see expressions well enough. But if you have a full-length fashion shot, or a group of six people, the optical finder of the A900 or A700 gives you real-time, fine detailed information about everything. The EVF is not a technology you can use for work where a stray hair across the face could mean retouching a dozen shots. You have to work differently, using the viewfinder only for composition, and doing everything else by eye. That is also how many photographers used to work with waist-level finders, on tripod, but not many are used to the idea of NOT looking through the camera when you take the shot now.

David