SLT mirror removal made easy

[soaringclauz]

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.

Could you link where did you read impressions from people who took the mirror out?
Thanks
C

[Neonsquare]

..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.

Huh? Do the SLT suddenly stop working when technological breakthroughs in mirrorless AF systems appear? It may be years until any such concepts are ripe for competition. Its not even clear THAT they appear besides of some wet dream of some geeks. The SLT offers the performance now and the compromise is reasonable by all means. To me as a user, having lenses, flashes and accessory - the SLT is not different to any other Alpha I had.

[OneGuyKs]

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.

Yeah, weirdly A55 is sharper than itself without mirror but A580, K-5, and D7000 are not sharper than A55. Maybe that mirror performs some AA filter or something else. In any case, A55 is sharper at lower ISOs than K-5 and your K-x. That's all that matters.

[bfitzgerald]

Yeah, weirdly A55 is sharper than itself without mirror but A580, K-5, and D7000 are not sharper than A55. Maybe that mirror performs some AA filter or something else. In any case, A55 is sharper at lower ISOs than K-5 and your K-x. That's all that matters.

And the test conditions are? Lenses used?
It's well known the K-x has a light AA filter, but it's also obvious that it's a 12mp CMOS and not 16mp (personally I don't find the difference in resolution significant)
Back to the point in question I def read a DPR poster who took shots with and without the translucent mirror in place and you could clearly see there is some compromise to be had in IQ.

Now if you wanted to make a point about Pentax you could go for the more obvious one..there is some fiddling going on with high ISO raw files. And guess what..I don't like that much either. I'm not restricted to Sony in criticism..however they have over the last few years made themselves and obvious target.

Most obvious point about Translucent (apart from the choice of word being utterly wrong) why did Sony not make a design that allows the user to flip the mirror up and keep it up when taking a shot?

[OneGuyKs]

Yeah, weirdly A55 is sharper than itself without mirror but A580, K-5, and D7000 are not sharper than A55. Maybe that mirror performs some AA filter or something else. In any case, A55 is sharper at lower ISOs than K-5 and your K-x. That's all that matters.

And the test conditions are? Lenses used?
It's well known the K-x has a light AA filter, but it's also obvious that it's a 12mp CMOS and not 16mp (personally I don't find the difference in resolution significant)
Back to the point in question I def read a DPR poster who took shots with and without the translucent mirror in place and you could clearly see there is some compromise to be had in IQ.

Read the other thread. A55 is sharper without mirror but A580 isn't sharper than A55 with mirror. And Yes, I agree. No need to bring Kx. It has inferior IQ than both.