All future Alpha cameras with Semitransparent Mirrors

[ptomsu]

Interesting but not completely surprising .....

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/all_future_alphas_to_feature_semitransparent_mirrors_sony_says/

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Not sure it really matters at this point. If in 2-3 years other brands offer significant upgrades with OVFs, like a 35MP body with better dynamic range, at a $2k-$2.5k pricepoint, then it's a pretty simple matter to sell off Sony glass and pick up the other in comparable used condition. Until there's an upgrade it's a total non-issue, so just shoot and be happy. I'd personally never buy an EVF body, but to each their own.

 

[ptomsu]

For pro and semi pro use I would also not take an EVF body!

 

[jonoslack]

Well
But he says nothing of hybrid viewfinders - which of course is perfectly possible.

 

[edwardkaraa]

Never say never. I will see you all using EVF for pro work in a couple of years

The manufacturers will always go for more economical options and potential for more profit. Even if you prefer OVF, you won't be able to find that in the not so far future. It's like film vs digital, film was alive and kicking and the quality has never been as good, a couple of years ago. Try to find a brand new film SLR now. It's not because there are no buyers, but because the manufacturers just decided to kill film as they can make much more profit with disposable digital bodies. Now there is no doubt that OVF is better, this is not the issue. But it will be killed soon, like they did with film.

 

[mathomas]

I can see why folks will mourn that decision. On the other hand, it says to me that SLT is not a dead-end. Having just bought an A55, that makes me happy (and my happiness is, of course, the most important thing ).

 

[jonoslack]

Never say never. I will see you all using EVF for pro work in a couple of years

I've said never for years . . . but the A55 changed me as well, when you first put your eye to it it seems horrid . . . . but you get used to it in about 2 minutes, after which having the exposure information etc. is a no-brainer. Still, I'd like to see a hybrid option in the higher spec cameras, at least for the next generation.

 

[Bill_Green]

I'm not going to proclaim the sky is falling until I actually use one. I never really had an issue with the Canon pellicle mirror cameras, though I did prefer the standard SLR. That said, announcements like this are making it difficult for me to commit to Sony. I'm hoping that by the time this really becomes an issue the Pentax MF system will be a little more developed or the D3x successor comes down to a more reasonable price.

 

[peterb]

I for one really LOVE the EVF. I liked it somewhat when I had a Diiglux 2 and was completely sold on its potential when I got the G1. The Sony A33/A55 and GH2 are even better.

My only complaint about the current Sony SLT's (aside from a poorly executed downward moving LCD that I find limiting) is, and maybe someone can tell me otherwise I hope, that there appears to be no way to have exposure data displayed above or below the image area as opposed to WITHIN it. On the Lumix cameras the exposure data (and other stuff that you can choose not to see) appears above or below the image area and not inside it.

I just hope future Sony models (like the predicted A77) will give the option of keeping the image area clean when you need it to check composition and such.

 

[ptomsu]

I use today's most probably best EVF in the GH2 and I like it for what the GH2 is for me and gives to me. And the quality is HIGH!

But I cannot say it comes close to the OVF in a D3xyz, D700, A900, E5 etc etc.

So I hope that at least in high priced models some of the vendors will keep OVFs (at least till EVFs ar delivering equal results which is far out in my opinion).

 

[jonoslack]

So I hope that at least in high priced models some of the vendors will keep OVFs (at least till EVFs ar delivering equal results which is far out in my opinion).

What's wrong with a hybrid viewfinder? best of both worlds it seems to me.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

What's wrong with a hybrid viewfinder? best of both worlds it seems to me.

Without a mirror to block the viewfinder you'll have light leaking in during exposure. It's okay for P&S applications (the Canon RS was clearly a consumer camera) but not really suited for any critical work. With the sun behind you it can be a significant problem.

 

[Oren Grad]

It's okay for P&S applications (the Canon RS was clearly a consumer camera) but not really suited for any critical work.

Oy...

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EOS-1nRS/index.htm

Perhaps you meant the EOS RT. But that one, too, is overall no less suitable for "critical work" than the EOS 630 on which it's based. And for some specialized tasks, it's better suited. Yes, I own one. Used to have a 630, too.

The Sony SLT's aren't the same sort of beast as the RT and 1N RS at all. In the Sony cameras, the pellicle is essentially a kludge to permit a different arrangement of the AF system in a mirrorless camera. It doesn't benefit the viewing system at all; from the user's perspective, the cameras offer just another EVF, not the worst but not the best either, and with all the characteristic drawbacks of EVFs.

In the Canons, OTOH, the purpose of the pellicle mirror is to give you a clear, continuous optical view without any blackout at the moment of exposure. And, when you want/need it, a "real time" mode with a release lag that's about half that of a film M-Leica and a small fraction of that of a high-end DSLR.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I know Jan wasn't making any claim about the Sony cameras compared to the Canons. It's worth thinking about the differences, though. The SLTs are OK cameras, and decent value for money. But despite all the hype about pellicle mirrors, from a functional perspective the user doesn't gain that much, just a slightly different set of tradeoffs between low-end DSLRs and smaller mirrorless system cameras.

 

[edwardkaraa]

Without a mirror to block the viewfinder you'll have light leaking in during exposure. It's okay for P&S applications (the Canon RS was clearly a consumer camera) but not really suited for any critical work. With the sun behind you it can be a significant problem.

Why aren't there light leaks in current DSLR? The mirrors aren't opaque either, no?

 

[Oren Grad]

Why aren't there light leaks in current DSLR? The mirrors aren't opaque either, no?

Yes, they are. When the mirror flips up for the exposure and the shutter opens, the light path from the finder is effectively sealed.

With a Pellix, EOS RT or EOS-1N RS, if you're using the camera without your eye at the finder - say, mounted on a tripod - you do have to take care to shade or seal the finder.

In the SLT cameras the finder offers no optical path to the sensor - it's a sealed system with an LCD and an eyepiece.

 

[Bill_Green]

The Sony SLT's aren't the same sort of beast as the RT and 1N RS at all.

So, just to clarify, are you saying that the pellicle mirror in the Sony is crap compared to the 1nrs? Have you used both? I just assumed the Sony was on par and thinking I didn't love the 1nrs viewfinder, but I could live with it. What makes it worse or different?

I used the 1nrs when it came out which was a long time ago. I have never seen one of the newer Sonys in person. I do remember manually focusing the 1nrs was very difficult.

Thanks!

 

[Oren Grad]

So, just to clarify, are you saying that the pellicle mirror in the Sony is crap compared to the 1nrs?

No, not at all. I haven't used an SLT. Based on what I read, though, other than the occasional minor ghosting that has been reported in some high-contrast situations, I have no reason to believe that there's any particular problem with it.

My point was only that the pellicle serves a very different function in the two camera types. And in particular, that unlike with the Canons, the pellicle in the SLTs doesn't bring any fundamentally new capability to the user, just a re-mix of features and capabilities already available in other cameras at comparable prices.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

EDIT: Just to be clear, I know Jan wasn't making any claim about the Sony cameras compared to the Canons.

Right, actually I just wanted to point out Sony is thinking EVF, not hybrid OVF. Pellicle OVF isn't all it's cracked up to be. I used a mirrorless Canon briefly around 94 or 95, and I'm pretty sure it was a 1N RS. (Or maybe an RT. Or I may be mixing up different cameras.)

 

[Oren Grad]

...just a re-mix of features and capabilities already available in other cameras at comparable prices.

OK, 10 fps is unique at that price point. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Lonnie Utah]

the SLTs doesn't bring any fundamentally new capability to the user, just a re-mix of features and capabilities already available in other cameras at comparable prices.

Right, like the ability to auto focus for video. EVERYONE else has been able to do that already...

I haven't used an SLT.

You really didn't have to say anymore...