]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 1:24 AM
Subject: RE: Why didn't Pentax
Isn't this what's used in Olympus E-10 ans E-20?
I guess the downside is a not so bright vievfinder, at least that's what a
E-10 user tells me.
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 1:22 AM
Subject: Why didn't Pentax
...use a pellicle-mirror design in their recent DSLR's? A Pellicle mirror
design, which splits the light between the viewfinder and the CCD array
rather than using
Alan Chan wrote:
Because there is no real mirror to obstruct the view? I was just guessing.
There's still a shutter to obstruct the view. :-)
S
Peter J. Alling wrote:
The semi silvered mirror would collect dust, and they're fairly fragile.
Thinking about it, dust on the semi-silvered mirror would be far less of
a problem than dust on the sensor for the same reason that dusty lenses
are rarely something to get worked up about - the dust
Kodak did that once. they stopped. i believe that it is too hard to get and
keep aligned.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: Why didn't Pentax
Thinking about it, dust
Saturday, January 8, 2005, 11:30:16 AM, Steve wrote:
SJ Alan Chan wrote:
Because there is no real mirror to obstruct the view? I was just guessing.
SJ There's still a shutter to obstruct the view. :-)
How about making it semi-transparent as well ;-)
Good light!
fra
interfere with
the mirror travel.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 7:43 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Why didn't Pentax
Kodak did that once. they stopped. i believe that it is too hard to get
and keep aligned
On 8 Jan 2005 at 8:18, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
seems to me that aligning a glass flat parallel to a sensor
would be child's play via a spacer. I think that this technique
would be good in a rangefinder camera but not in a SLR because
in order to get the dust out of the focal plane it would
J. C. O'Connell escribió:
seems to me that aligning a glass flat parallel to a sensor
would be child's play via a spacer. I think that this technique
would be good in a rangefinder camera but not in a SLR because
in order to get the dust out of the focal plane it would need
to be too far away from
Saturday, January 8, 2005, 3:52:12 PM, Carlos wrote:
CR J. C. O'Connell escribió:
seems to me that aligning a glass flat parallel to a sensor
would be child's play via a spacer. I think that this technique
would be good in a rangefinder camera but not in a SLR because
in order to get the dust
The dust hanging in the light path between the sensor and the lens
would be considerably more of a problem than dust on the lens. The
closer to the focal plain it gets the bigger the problem is. The only
advantage to this I see is that the glass would be easier to clean and
less fragile than
...use a pellicle-mirror design in their recent DSLR's? A Pellicle mirror
design, which splits the light between the viewfinder and the CCD array
rather than using a flip-up mirror, would yield the following features: the
camera ISO would start at 100 rather than 200; the viewfinder would never
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:22:15 -0800, Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...use a pellicle-mirror design in their recent DSLR's?
I suppose also the viewfinder would be darker and the ISO would end at
1600 instead of 3200 (with the same noise).
There must be other drawbacks that I'm missing.
j
. januar 2005 00:22
Til: Pentax-Discuss
Emne: Why didn't Pentax
...use a pellicle-mirror design in their recent DSLR's? A Pellicle mirror
design, which splits the light between the viewfinder and the CCD array
rather than using a flip-up mirror, would yield the following features: the
camera
Soft images, I believe.
Joe
--- Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...use a pellicle-mirror design in their recent DSLR's? A Pellicle mirror
design, which splits the light between the viewfinder and the CCD array
rather than using a flip-up mirror, would yield the following features: the
camera ISO would start at
Alan Chan wrote:
Would the dirt accumulate on the mirror eventually degrade the image quality?
No more than dust on the sensor does. Easier to clean, though, and
cheaper to replace.
Also, would there be any impact on purple fringing?
No.
But seal the CCD from dust would be a
nice idea, and I
--- Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How would you get real-time LCD?
Because there is no real mirror to obstruct the view? I was just guessing.
=
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect
Yeah, like the Olympus E-10 and E-20. It's pretty easy
to simulate the viewfinder difference with a given lens
by stopping down the lens one stop (i.e., setting an
F1.4 lens to F2.0) and using DOF preview to check the
difference in brightness. The difference is not trivial,
but it's not
The semi silvered mirror would collect dust, and they're fairly fragile.
Mark Erickson wrote:
...use a pellicle-mirror design in their recent DSLR's? A Pellicle mirror
design, which splits the light between the viewfinder and the CCD array
rather than using a flip-up mirror, would yield the
20 matches
Mail list logo
