[shuttertalk]

According to this article from Dpreview, Sony's President of the Personal Imaging & Sound Business Group, Masashi 'Tiger' Imamura, believes that they can succeed the A700 DSLR with something revolutionary:

We've been focusing for some time on utilizing our unique technologies. The translucent mirror is one and it performs very well. We want the A700 replacement to be in line with that kind of step forward, we want it to be superior to its competitors, that's why we couldn't make it sooner,' he said. But, he assured us, the results will be worth waiting for: 'With the A33 and 55 we tried to look at the problem and get rid of some of the old hassles - the A700 successor should be like that.'

He also talks about the NEX cameras, and the strategy as an upgrade for current users of compact cameras who want something more without the bulk / complications of DSLRs.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1101/110111...erview.asp

[Zig]

Sorry to be a bit thick, but I'm missing the point: er, how is their new DSLR going to be better then? And..what does a translucent mirror mean/do and how might I need that? Am not being all sidewaysie-provocative here, I genuinely don't understand.

[shuttertalk]

Hey Zig, the translucent / "pellicile" mirror has been used int he A55 and was previously discussed here:
http://shuttertalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=11418

I guess in a nutshell, they are trying to change the game by designing something revolutionary, instead of being constrained by tradition from the film world...

[Toad]

and predict that Sony will revolutionize DSLRs the same way that they've changed MP3 players, personal computers, and point-and-shoot cameras.

Hah! So true. Sony is wonderful at incremental improvements - but weak at revolutionary leaps...

[Zig]

OK gents...it's nothing actual, then...just a translucent mirror?
Actually, was it their S2 Pro that came out a few years ago(or am I thinking of Fuji?)...I remember being impressed with that...and didn't they have have one with IR capability that was supposed to be just for police/fire dept?

[matthew]

Yup, you're thinking of Fujifilm.

Sigma also has an SLR with a removable IR filter, but it's Fuji that did the LEO/scientific IRUV camera.

[Simon_Leung]

From previous photography experience a pellicle mirror is a stationary mirror type that doesn't move.
In 1965 when Canon launched their Pellix camera,the objective at the time was to accomplish TTL metering,
which was pioneered by Topcon (Tokyo Kogaku KK Japan no relation to Nikon) in 1963 when the Topcon RE Super was launched. When Canon launched their EOS RT in 1989-1992, this camera had a 10 frame per second
motor drive, this was the launch pad for the EOS-1n RS in 1995. Canon found that by having high speed frame
rate per second ratio, they needed a mirror that was free of vibrations and chose the Pellicle Mirror.

In 2009 when Canon released their EOS-1D MK IV this was the first full frame DSLR with 10 frame
per second burst rate. In 2010 Sony took this to their advantage by utilizing a SLT (Single Lens Translucent mirror) A55 with 10 frame per second rate burst yielding a 1.5 APS-C CMOS sensor crop that is aimed directly
at the advanced photographer. Keep in mind that the A55 has limitations such as the inability to do sports
photography due to the fact that it has no live view, no aperture control,if you want AF during a burst.
The 15-point AF system is not in the same as the Canon EOS -1D MK IV.

[Pavel]

Let us face it. Most of us are committed to the brand/mount camera we have, because we have invested in the lenses/accessories. Few of us can afford to jump each time there is something "revolutionary" out there. Since the intro of digital SLR, I think that the progress was in fact fast but evolutionary, although all manufacturers seem to like to claim that their products are revolutionary. Truly beneficial improvements (and a lot of fads) appear sooner or later in the cameras of all manufacturers. Although in the hands of superb photographers superb equipment does make difference, in the hands of most of us fancy equipment does not significantly improve our photos, although I too enjoy salivating each time some nifty product catches my attention. For better or worth, I am married to Nikon APS-C and if I really struck it rich, I would consider buying 2 - 3 full frame lenses and upgrading to a full frame Nikon. Most of my lenses are designed for full format, so I would have to replace the kit lens and the ultrawide.

Eventually if my physical condition does not allow me to carry the junk I now carry, I will look for some compact EVIL.

[Simon_Leung]

I think Pavel made an excellent point:

That photography is about the ability to take pictures just to summarize.
If each of us thinks that by owing a Leica M9 would make our photographs looking like
Sebastiao Salgado or Henri-Cartier Bresson, we need to look at our skill level.

However, if your skills and your budget allows you to purchase a M9, then I'll say
"All the power to you and congratulations."

My oldest DSLR is an 8 year old Pentax*ist D with 6.1 MP that has it's firmware upgraded that
allows me to utilize modern high speed CF Cards. As a matter of fact, I shoot an 8G CF Card with this
camera. My other camera is a 5 year old Pentax *ist DS2 with a 4G SDHC Card again the firmware is
upgraded. The technology maybe outdated but still relevant by modern standards of utilizing the camera's
full potential.

My latest acquisition is a K-200 D with a DBG-3 battery grip and a 16G SDHC Card. Like Pavel I too
use full frame lenses but I have stuck with the trusty SMC Pentax-A lens line,which has cut cost of
buying new lenses and let me focus my attention on photography.

[Simon_Leung]

I agree with Matthew's statement that Sony must compete against Nikon D300 and 700 and
Canon 7D and 5D MK II respectively,in order to capture the advanced photographers market.
I am sure that it won't be long that Sony will utilize their own full frame CMOS Sensors
some point in time. If Sony wants to play a dominate roll, what they should do is to set up
a Professional Support, just like Canon and Nikon have done through out the decades.
For those who were former Minolta film shooters in the past, this was a crucial market that
Minolta missed entirely.

[shuttertalk]

Dpreview have just published their review of the A77, which uses two much debated technologies - the fixed translucent (pellicile) mirror, and the super high-res OLED EVF.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta77/page3.asp

Interestingly, the 2.4 million dot (1024 x 768) EVF seemed to have won over the reviewer in terms of viewing quality. To put it into perspective, it's like squeezing the resolution of an iPad / iPad 2 into the area about half the size of a postage stamp.

Sony is certainly confident about the finder in the A77, for good reason; it is close enough to the quality of a high-end optical viewfinder that the advantages (the ability to preview exposure and white balance, or to gain-up for working in low light), outweigh the areas in which it isn't as good.

More praise for lack of tearing or motion jaggies when quickly panning:

The OLED Trufinder that Sony is now using is a very different beast - its 2.4M dots are able to provide a 1024 x 768 pixel display and do so with a progressive update. As a result, the viewfinder not only gives a more detailed view but also one that's free from tearing. After extended use, we're confident in saying that it is the best EVF we've ever used.

Has the EVF finally come of age? I should reference the previous discussion here - this post probably belongs over there, but I thought I'd continue the discussion over here since this one is broader in terms of scope.

[Toad]

if anyone ever hopes to replace a true optical viewfinder with an electronic viewfinder, they need to think like this. This is one place where less is not more.

[shuttertalk]

More praise for the OLED EVF used by Sony, this time in the review of the A65.

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_a65_review/

The A65's EVF system also performs very well indoors in low light, typically the scourge of most EVFs which have to "gain-up" to produce a usable picture, resulting in a noticeably grainier picture. The A65 doesn't suffer from this unwanted effect at all, making the A65's electronic viewfinder the equal of and in many areas better than a DSLR's optical viewfinder, particularly those found on entry-level models which are typically dim and offer limited scene coverage. The truest testament to the A65 is that I almost exclusively used it by holding it up to eye-level, something that I wouldn't do unless the EVF was of sufficient quality. The only negative that we found with the A65's EVF was a tendency to block-up the shadow areas in order to maintain detail in the highlights, but this is a small price to pay for what is an otherwise amazing viewfinder.

[Pavel]

I used to be absolutely opposed to EVFs. However, I have seen some really good ones and I would now accept (on a case by case basis) EVF in place of OVF. This is particularly the case on mirrorless cameras, where, with few notable exceptions like Fuji Xx the optical viewfinders border on being small, dark and useless (or a backup for the LCDs on bright days)

[shuttertalk]

More info on the EVFs used by Sony here:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/12/05/sonyEVFdetails

[blue]

I used to be absolutely opposed to EVFs. However, I have seen some really good ones and I would now accept (on a case by case basis) EVF in place of OVF. This is particularly the case on mirrorless cameras, where, with few notable exceptions like Fuji Xx the optical viewfinders border on being small, dark and useless (or a backup for the LCDs on bright days)

It used to be that the LCD was the backup, now for many people it's becoming the other way around. I am currently doing without an eye-level viewfinder. It has its challenges in bright light.

I expect other manufacturers will follow suit with Sony and we will see lots of high quality EVFs, OLED-based, replacing OVFs and being added to cameras that would have been LCD-only. I have nothing against Sony, but to me this seems like an obvious advance, and I don't give them much credit for marketing it first. I do think they deserve a lot of credit for implementing it so well, and introducing it well ahead of everyone else.

[Toad]

It used to be that the LCD was the backup, now for many people it's becoming the other way around. I am currently doing without an eye-level viewfinder. It has its challenges in bright light.

I just can't get behind not having a viewfinder, not only for the bright sunlight issue that you list but also:

1. With polarized sunglasses, LCDs go completely black in portrait mode.
2. My close-up eyesight is starting to go, and that arms-length range is pretty much impossible for me now. You may be focusing on infinity, but the screen is only a 18" away and I just can't see it properly without glasses anymore.
3. I find it hurts my ability to compose - the viewfinder focuses me and helps me to concentrate on the frame.

While I applaud the efforts of Sony and others to provide better LCD screens, I will *never* buy another camera that doesn't have a proper viewfinder.

Just my $.02

[Zig]

I never thought I'd say this but what with my eyes suffering from what seems to be like anno domini, a real finder is just imperative for me.
Not only that, but how on earth does one pick up movement, texture, the shifts in light that urge one when to press the shutter, as well as anticipating all that's on the periphery of the frame...from a foot+ away?
I mean, this is hardly anticipating the final outcome: surely given that the final product is a finite rectangle, surely one can only truly anticipate this if all else fills the eye? Point number 3 above from Toad really sums it up for me.
I'm not being contrary here..I really and truly have no idea how one can assess light properly when one's eye is not filled by it.

[Pavel]

I think we are all on the same page when it comes to need for a viewfinder. The question is EVF or OVF. Besides brightness and image quality and performance under low light conditions is also an issue of the info available in the viewfinder. With DSLR, OVF provides all the info, but it is my understanding that only X100 provides this info in the mirrorless OVF world.

[Toad]

I think we are all on the same page when it comes to need for a viewfinder. The question is EVF or OVF. Besides brightness and image quality and performance under low light conditions is also an issue of the info available in the viewfinder. With DSLR, OVF provides all the info, but it is my understanding that only X100 provides this info in the mirrorless OVF world.

My M9 projects the important exposure info (aperture, speed, +/- in manual mode) in the rangefinder window. Clever that.

It isn't Liveview though, and a rangefinder can be problematic in telephoto/macro shots because of magnification/parallax issues. Having said that, a rangefinder *really* helps a lot in composition. It is wonderful to have the tight focus of the viewfinder and still be able to look around the frame lines a bit. You can see instantly how a minor composition change might improve a shot, and you can also anticipate things entering the frame and react accordingly.

I don't see why a person couldn't have an electronic rangefinder if someone wanted to develop it. The best situation of all would be the way that the X100 does it - OVF when you want it and EVF when you don't. Mix and match - seems like a great idea. Glad to see somebody is thinking.

[blue]

An electronic view really helps when you want your final image to have a greatly different exposure. You can see into the shadows, the sun does not blind you, etc.

The thing that really made me doubt whether I needed the OVF was my dissatisfaction with the ones on the consumer-level DSLRs, when I gave up on thinking the camera companies would ever make them bigger and brighter. Having come from full-frame film, this just galled me.

Short of going way over budget for a full-frame camera, I was left with a choice between using something heavy and mediocre OVF (DSLR) or something light with leading edge LCD and live view performance (mirrorless). Hard choice, but I made it and I'm living with it just fine.

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

Late to the party :-)

Very few people i know who have used FF cameras think the EVF of the A77 is all that. Compared to a small viewfinder on a consumer dslr it's certainly not bad. Still lag and tearing is there regardless of what some people like to claim in reviews.

Personally i see the EVF as poor result of the SLT technology, to me it's not advancement it's merely a bi-product. The arguments that the benefits overshadows the negative limitations doesn't work for me either, as i see very few benefits if any. Having all kinds of different info overlays isn't something new at all, it's been present in advanced p&s for quite sometimes, i don't need or want zillions of gauges and meters in my viewfinder.

As one who shoot with A900's and Zeiss i really think Sony will alienate them self from the very small percentage of pro shooters they once attracted with the A900 and Zeiss primes.

Time will tell if Sony put all their eggs in the SLT basket, if they do i think they will see a noticeable migration from their system.

[Toad]

Hey Paul. Long time-no see.

Agree with your views re SLT.

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

Hey Rob! (aka Russel Crow) :-)

Yeah long time no seen!

Yes SLT is the work of the devil! :-) I REALLY hope Sony brings out a new FF camera without SLT technology, if not i will probably go back to Nikon.

[Don Schaeffer]

What's SLT? Ok I found out--semi transparent mirrors. Boy the initials are breathtaking.