Q&A with the SLT Development Team

[agorabasta]

Pricing discrepancies between countries are more about taxes than anything else. All the governments that use the VAT taxation are basically thieves themselves and are also procreating thieves among businesspeople. And then there some totally stupid 'import taxes' for the kinds of goods not even produced in the countries of import.
The 'sales tax' as used in US is generally a much more fair scheme, and it also helps reducing the chain of resale intermediators thus speeding up the turnovers. Add to that the total zero import duties in the US - you get the picture...

[Greg Beetham]

When I bought my A700 body (it was definitely on the endangered list, you could read the signs) from B&H for $850US, it was about $1400AUD here from most places (Sony style here still had it listed at $1700AUD), the AUD/USD was about 95c at the time, so I had room for an extra battery in the package, when it arrived it was (including FedEx $80USD) just a teensy bit over the $1000 limit, but they must have been in a good mood as they didn't charge the import duty. So I reckon I saved at least $400AUD by buying it from B&H at that time.
Greg

[peterottaway]

You can usually take the US price and add about 25% to get a ball park figure with most Canon or Nikon SLR gear. Not sure about P & S cameras as the last time I bought one was for my niece for her 15th birthday and she's now 21.

[agorabasta]

Brian,

I've got a real question for you. The Sony patent over the SLT design presumes the possibility to flap the mirror up while taking a still picture.
How do you think, is it possible that Sony actually provides for such an option in that kind of 'a77' design they now show as a mockup?

I ask also because to me that current a33/a55 SLT design looks like an ugly tech kludge for that very fact that they don't flap the mirror away from the lightpath; and for that reason alone I feel quite averted against them based on their violation of tech aesthetics.

[Greg Beetham]

I don't think the A33 of A55 design is intended for 7 series camera buyers, and I've got doubts that we'll see a '7' version of such a cam. If you want to get the broad bandpass thingy too flip up out of the way and maintain the response times of a standard DSLR you'd most likely have too design the thing much more robustly so it would not break, it would have too get out of the way taking into account the min cycle time of the shutter, 1/250sec is a small amount of time for a mechanical shutter and the mirror has to be already out of the way before the shutter cycle commences. It's larger than a standard mirror as well, so it would have to slide back as it flipped, too clear the back of the lens.
I think it's a case of 'I'll believe it when I see it'....I won't hold my breath.
Greg

[agorabasta]

Greg, they are showing a 7-series SLT mockup now as we are chatting...

[BrianSmith]

Brian,

I've got a real question for you. The Sony patent over the SLT design presumes the possibility to flap the mirror up while taking a still picture.

How do you think, is it possible that Sony actually provides for such an option in that kind of 'a77' design they now show as a mockup?

I ask also because to me that current a33/a55 SLT design looks like an ugly tech kludge for that very fact that they don't flap the mirror away from the lightpath; and for that reason alone I feel quite averted against them based on their violation of tech aesthetics.

I'm not sure what "violation of tech aesthetics" means. Do you want a bigger prism box so it looks "old school" like the a900?

The press release mentioned a new design prototype, so I'd say that everything is in play. There is mention elsewhere about another "pro camera" that would share the same battery. You may have noticed from the a5 series that Sony like to do things in multiple options.

I couldn't say if the mirror design will change. I can say that over 100 engineers worked on the design of the a33 and a55 for over a year. An entire team that worked on the mirror box alone. It might seem really simple to those not involved to re-engineer this, but I can say that every possibility is explored.

[YorkieBen]

Brian, as a professional do you think you'd continue to use the Alpha system if Sony utilised the SLT route for the A900 replacement (if we get one?)

[agorabasta]

I'm not sure what "violation of tech aesthetics" means. Do you want a bigger prism box so it looks "old school" like the a900?

I still think you understand me pretty well (despite your kindergarten tone). Losing half of the physical value, even before you get an opportunity to measure it, is stupid. Especially so at the lowest values of that particular property, and even more so when the competition chooses to fight you exactly there.

I couldn't say if the mirror design will change. I can say that over 100 engineers worked on the design of the a33 and a55 for over a year. An entire team that worked on the mirror box alone. It might seem really simple to those not involved to re-engineer this, but I can say that every possibility is explored.

It all 'seems' exactly what it is to a person who used to design proprietary tools/electronics for nuclear physics experiments, e.g. to me being such a person myself. That "entire team that worked on the mirror box alone", if not imagined, should not have earned a pint of lager for what they did. The mirror itself is something of true value, but its design better be done by one engineer plus a team of subordinate technicians, or otherwise you get a brain-dead creation of collective stupidity. Then you should have a small team to check and criticise the steps/decisions of that one particular engineer. This way it works OK - otherwise you never do better than a33/a55.

[Javelin]

You couldn't have 100 engineers working on any one thing at a time. Japanese call everyone who works on that strange technical stuff an engineer so i'm not offended by the assertion. I'm not afraid of these cameras but i'll carefully watch what develops. expecially on a hostime (to Sony) site like DPR to see what happens wiht thses like I did when the A100 came out. my A700 works fine still and i'll grab an A900 from a ship jumper soon (hopefiully. like I said in another post Ebay is empty of them)

[agorabasta]

Well, I don't need an FF body, less so I need an FF body with no future. And there are still tons of new a900/a850 being offered all around the globe.

But I could use an APSC body with that new 16Mp sensor. Whatever results from that I've seen so far are very good. But I simply can't choose an A580 over a D7000 or even a K5 - no good reason left for that now that the Nex can take care of alpha lenses.

[bfitzgerald]

Sony obviously made the mirror oversized to try to get more light in there and up to the AF system. But that means you can't flip it up out of the way.
There isn't a hope in hell working photographers will accept any compromises regarding ghosting and light loss.
And anyway as said it's just a stop gap measure and the translucent mirror will be gone anyway when better AF from the sensor is up to the job.

A few folks predicted the death of the DSLR and OVF when the G1 came along..didn't happen nowhere near it.
Nikon will murder Sony with the D7000 it's a dead cert hit for them..so Sony can translucent all they want it won't make any difference.

[BrianSmith]

I'm not sure what "violation of tech aesthetics" means. Do you want a bigger prism box so it looks "old school" like the a900?

I still think you understand me pretty well (despite your kindergarten tone). Losing half of the physical value, even before you get an opportunity to measure it, is stupid. Especially so at the lowest values of that particular property, and even more so when the competition chooses to fight you exactly there.

Honestly...What are you trying to say?

[BrianSmith]

Sony obviously made the mirror oversized to try to get more light in there and up to the AF system. But that means you can't flip it up out of the way.

This is incorrect. Light is only being diverted for the Phase Detect AF which can operate in considerable less brightness than in previous pellicle cameras where viewfinder relied on the the pellicle mirror.

[bfitzgerald]

That being the case (and I'll take your word for it) then somebody screwed up in the design stage. I'm sure many folks would like to be able to lift the mirror up and be able to take a shot.