Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Aug 1, 2014, at 8:31 AM, Larry Colen<l...@red4est.com> wrote:
Darren Addy wrote:
I'm not terribly interested in mirrorless cameras (although I have to
I'm not terribly interested in anything made by Sony these days.
Were it not for the A7/r/s, I wouldn't be either. Not because of any 'soulless
accountants' or other mumbo jumbo like that, but because there's little else in
their product line that I find appealing.
There are various technical advantages of mirrorless:
1) shorter registration distance means no retrofocus, which means better image
quality at wider angle of view.
That does not play out in reality, or is at least inaccurately stated. Wides
are a challenge on digital sensors, non-retrofocus wides in particular. The
best performing wides on any digital sensor are retrofocus or at least
semi-telecentric designs, to date. It's a matter of getting an orthogonal light
path to the sensor all the way to the edges rather than retrofocus design
really. A short mount registration means you have more room to add corrective
optics behind the primary element groups and less worries about mechanical
interference.
Interesting. I had heard that the reason that all of my wide angles
needed the retrofocus elements was because of the registration distance,
that you can't put the lens any closer than the mirrorbox.
I had also heard that the latest generation sensors weren't nearly so
sensitive to problems with light not coming in on a perpendicular path.
But, I guess you know more about this than I do.
2) shorter registration distance means that you can use just about any lens
made.
... But results will depend upon the optical match between lens and sensor
stack. See above.
3) No mirror bouncing around means no mirror bouncing around.
Shutter vibration is still an issue, note all the hysteria about "shutter
shock" lately. A fully electronic shutter will conquer that issues, but non work
100% to date.
Is shutter vibration alone less of an issue than shutter vibration plus
mirror bounce? If not, should I stop bothering with the mirror lockup
on my DSLR?
4) Live view works much better for low light manual focus etc. What you see is
what you get. With a mirrorless you don't get the huge shutter lag while
everything bounces around between live view and actually taking the photo.
There is certainly less mechanical banging about going on. But it's amusing to
hear you talk about 'much better for low light manual focus' when so many of
the SLR diehards claim exactly the opposite. :-)
I'm just speaking from personal experience. In bright light, I'm very
happy with optical and a split prism.
There are certain ergonomic advantages to the pure optical path when looking
through the viewfinder.
Ergonomic advantages? Can't imagine what you mean by that. And what is a "pure"
optical path?
I mean just optics, not going through a sensor and electronic
viewfinder. The biggest one is no lag between real life and what you
see. Also, some EVFs don't have the same level of image resolution in
bright light that a good optical viewfinder has.
The main advantage to the Sony A7 for me is the excellent sensor, excellent
viewfinder, and a modest size (about the same as a Nikon FM2) with great
compatibility for all my SLR lenses, in several mounts, and a few of my RF
lenses. Mirrorless or not makes little difference to me, I rate it highly based
on its functional performance.
The only engineering issue I can see with EVF and image quality is that
if the sensor is always active, it'll get warmer and therefore noisier.
G
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
