SLT mirror removal made easy

[OneGuyKs]

Anyone wants to try it and post before and after images and how they compare?

This would be a good subject for an article on this site, David

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readf ... d=36852610

The OP claims it only takes 20 sec to remove and put back the mirror on SLT

> Some pics:
> The mirror removed, nothing left between lens and antialias:
>
> The elastic back retaining flap:
>
> The two front flaps holding the mirror grey frame
>
> The mirror gray frame ready to be removed after jumping the two front flaps by pushing it towards the back of the camera:
>

[David Kilpatrick]

My feeling is that the mirror is best left where it is until such a time that it needs to be removed for cleaning or replacement. Does that look like a precision mounting accurate to within the micrometer measurements needed to ensure perfect focus?

Unless, of course, you abandon phase detect focusing and go for magnified sensor view MF.
David

[agorabasta]

Taking the mirror out and putting it back on a regular basis definitely sounds like a very bad idea - mirror mount precision should definitely suffer.
But an idea of having two bodies, one of them with mirror permanently removed does somehow attract.

And then we don't really know how the AF cycle works in those SLTs. If PDAF is only for the fast prefocus and then some CDAF microfocusing kicks in, we have a totally different reality to face. And given the a580 completely capable of CDAF and assuming a near total similarity of those cams electronic innards, that's a very real possibility.
So the mirror position precision may not be as critical; and the very fact that they allow manual flip-out for cleaning may be implying exactly that...

[Javelin]

Is it me or does that camera look awefully dirty for one thats only a few weeks old. My A700 isn't that dirty and it's never really been cleaned.

[OneGuyKs]

Ok, another way to remove it. Doesn't look like it will have any issues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDhVkmxaHzw

[InTheSky]

I don't see any advantage too to remove the mirror ..., that should remain there with all the good advantage they are. For my kind of shooting with prime, I really prefer to clean a mirror instead of a sensor directly for dirt. And ... yes if the mirror begin to be scrap for any abuse cleaning, after that being able to remove it easily will be good.

Anybody know how this mirror part cost ? If like in travel we need to change it and you can bring backup one with you.

Regards,

Frank

[soaringclauz]

Hello everyone,
i agree with Mr Kilpatrick that the mirror is better left where it is, the possibility to remove it must be considered only by the user that can benefit from this operation. Which implies that if someone doesn't find a reason to remove it there's absolutely no point in doing it.
If otherwise you know which are the benefits and need them regardless of the "againsts" have a look at the pictures, video and give it a try, it is possible to remove it and all i did by posting the pics and shooting the video is to give proof of feasibility and an indication on how to do the operation safely.
@Javelin: you should try taking a pic with suitable enlargement of your camera and post it on a forum...It's an enlightening experience...
The replacement part is available and in Italy it will cost 93 euros plus shipping from the official sony service center.
BTW: removal of the mirror was not the end of the story, only the start so...to be continued
Regards
Claudio

[bakubo]

If you want a camera that doesn't have a mirror in the way when you take a photo wouldn't it be easier to use a camera designed to not have a mirror in the way when you take a photo? For example, a DSLR?

[Neonsquare]

@bakubo
A mirrorless like the NEX would make more sense in your comment, since in a DSLR there actually is a mirror in the way too**.

**) It's in the way of the sensor when you use the viewfinder and when you want to use the autofocus. But I guess the classical DSLR-Fan would never think of it being "in the way".

[bakubo]

@bakubo
A mirrorless like the NEX would make more sense in your comment, since in a DSLR there actually is a mirror in the way too**.

Not when you take a photo, which is the salient point.

[Neonsquare]

@bakubo
Taking a photo really begins before you hit the shutter.

Seriously: Just joking here - I think this whole SLT mirror removal thing seems to be more like a way to satisfy curiosity and to a lesser extent a practical action for handling this camera. Flipping the mirror of a DSLR isn't really a satisfying task for a curious tinkerer; isn't it?

[bfitzgerald]

Funny thing is reading these "mirror removal" posts on various forums..posters claim "sharper images and better high ISO results"
Let's be honest even if you want pure live view off the sensor, the SLT is merely a stop gap until they can AF much faster without any kind of mirror. So any adopters are merely buying into a half way house.

Should be interesting to see what happens with a nice bit of gunk on that mirror with a build up over time. Personally I like the mirror flip concept, and that's probably why most makers are still using that. Old hat or not it works..and well. Oh and I seem to be able to track moving subjects as well..something called "predictive AF" which has been around a long time before Sony's SLT. Quite a few folks I know won't go near any concept like SLT..compromises they don't want to make. For the same reason I don't stick junk filters on lenses..it does nothing but harm the IQ of your shots.

[bossel]

So any adopters are merely buying into a half way house.

Yeah and they shoot plenty of pics with their SLT while you spend your time on forums moaning about everything.

Personally I like the mirror flip concept, and that's probably why most makers are still using that.

Uhum, yeah, these makers follow your preferences, cool!

[OneGuyKs]

Funny thing is reading these "mirror removal" posts on various forums..posters claim "sharper images and better high ISO results"

The resolution was exactly the same between A580 and A55 according to one review that tested both cameras. High ISO is better by 1/2 stop but the difference isn't visible until ISO 3200. IR images speak for themselves. A55 has sharper images than K-5 until ISO 1600. It's sharper also than your Kx until ISO 1600

A55 vs Kx ISO 100

Obviously even without mirror Kx is crappier

[bfitzgerald]

Yeah and they shoot plenty of pics with their SLT while you spend your time on forums moaning about everything.

Funny thing is I shot 40 frames of Kodachrome yesterday..but obviously I was on forums moaning and I hired a body double to take the shots. Ok try making a more interesting/useful contribution it makes it so much more appealing for readers.


OneGuyKs studio shots mean nothing to me..I merely report on what SLT users are saying (after taking the mirror out) I've made a choice in functionality over headling FPS rates. These SLT cameras are still devoid of any customisation from the user..that's the real problem with them from my perspective.