Talk:Sony SLT camera

Sorry, but Sony didn't build the first SLT. There where earlier approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.94.123.1 (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Pellicle mirror == SLT?

There is an existing article here on Wikipedia about the Pellicle mirror, it seems that SLT and Pellicle mirror are much the same. I would suggest merging the two articles. Any thoughts? SCΛRECROW 07:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems pellicle mirror is actually used in SLT cameras. It's possible to merge these articles. However, my intention with SLT article was to describe certain type of digital camera and compare it to other types of digital cameras (DSLR, EVIL, compact). Not sure if this content would be appropriate for Pellicle mirror. Satellite779 (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. To me it seems that there is information in the pellicle mirror article that would be more suited here at the SLT camera article.SCΛRECROW 09:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Any source for that SLT uses pellicle mirror? Sony writes everywhere that it's a half-mirror splitting the beam into two. Pellicle mirror is a very special case of mirror made of ultra-thin material, more like a foil, which is clearly not a case. SkywalkerPL (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Before arguing is-or-is-not-pellicle, one needs some sort of acceptable definition. Wiktionary? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pellicle: 6. (optics) a thin plastic membrane used as a beam splitter or protective cover. Hmm. So what's "thin"? Most traditional SLR mirrors are about 2mm thick. Human hair is 1/10mm thick (on average, see: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_thickness_of_a_human_hair ), is that "thin" enough? Here, we see the SLT mirror is just a touch thinner than the hair: http://thesybersite.com/sony/a55/index.htm#slt_mirror_removed So the Sony SLT mirror appears roughly 1/20 the thickness of a traditional SLR mirror. Yes, it's thicker than the pellicles used in older Canon and Nikon models. But by the definitions I have found, this does appear to be a "pellicle" mirror. 24.130.67.253 (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If anything - it's similar to pellicle mirror, but it's not the same thing: Not in materials it's made from, not in the role and function, not in the advantages or disadvantages, not in the methods of construction. So for all the reasons: SLT IS NOT pellicle mirror, although both are thin beamsplitters. 83.218.141.178 (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

SLT is a DSLR

Just to make it clear. User:Satellite779 wrote in article that SLT is not a DSLR, which obviously is not the case. Yes, Sony promotes it all around comparing SLT to DSLR to increase sales, and show how "innovative" they are, but let's face facts:

• DSLR stands for: Digital Single Lens Reflex - all the new Alphas are digital, they do have single lens and there's reflex in mirror. All conditions to become DSLR are met.
• Sony itself refers to SLT as DSLR - example
  • Even on Sony UK official site the SLTs are under DSLR - "Latest DSLR camera news - New α55 and α33 Translucent Mirror cameras from Sony" - or - A55/33 banner in DSLRs.
• Canon Pellix using basically the same concept was an SLR and noone denied it in '60s. Adding half-mirror to Nikon F2 also didn't made it a new type of camera. So no reason now to create on the wikipedia a new type of camera, lol.

Single-Lens Translucent Cameras are sub-type of DSLR as same as HDDSLR is a subtype of DSLR, or Pellix SLRs were subtype of SLRs. SkywalkerPL (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that SLT is not completely new camera design, but it's definitely not DSLR in a way most people think about DSLRs. E.g. mirror is fixed in position (except for sensor cleaning) and, more importantly, there's no optical viewfinder. So, if we want to merge information about SLTs to DSLR article, it would require major changes to DSLR article. I'm not sure if that could be easily done. I propose that this article stays, but that SLTs are described as a subtype of DSLR. Satellite779 (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why there's separate article for this. It's not classical DSLR. Similar change happen when DSLR appeared - they are SLRs, only different in recording media - that's why they got separate section and they are separate kind of cameras, though still remain SLRs. Now SLT appear, they differ in method of viewing the image, so they should have separate article, yet it doesn't change the fact that they are DSLRs.

As for the mirror - curious fact - a patent that stands under the definition of SLT says that the mirror can be possibly movable while taking photos, just as in classical DSLRs, to give more light to sensor when needed. The fact Sony did not include this feature doesn't mean it won't, so we shouldn't focus on this as a "feature" characteristic to SLTs, cause it's more of a feature characteristic to A55 and A33 / whatever cameras Sony gonna release without it. Patent number is 20100045853. SkywalkerPL (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

SLT != SLR

The "reflex" part in SLR is in regard to the type of viewfinder. The light from the (single) lens passes through a pentaprism which rectifies the image reflected in the mirror. In a SLT the mirror is not used by the viewfinder at all. The image in the electronic viewfinder is the image captured by the image sensor. The mirror is only used to split the beam of light so that a phase detect autofocus system can be used.

Because of the above I have changed the section "Pellicle mirror SLR" to "Pellicle mirror SLT". A "pellicle mirror SLR" would be Canon Pellix or one of the other cameras mentioned in the article on pellicle mirrors. Amandashusse (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"EVIL" camera?

WTF is an EVIL camera? Is that an actual acronym - and if so, what does it stand for? - or is it just someone doing a maledit? I mean, wouldn't "MILC" be a more fitting, (slightly) less risible and equally pronouncible acronym? 193.63.174.10 (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

EVIL = "electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens". Mirrorless interchangeable lens camera would also work. Regards, decltype (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

For what the Mirror?

It is not clearly why this camery have a mirror at all.

A SLR Camera in analog had a mirror because this was the only way to take a photo where you have seen what is on the lens.

DSLR also have the mirror because you have an optical view-finder with it (in fact this is the only advantage, i dont know why DSLR also gets the larger image-sensor too with better quality...) but why does this SLT have the mirror.

The Mirror, mirrors the image to.... to what? There is no optical view-finder and so the image which is mirror by the mirror is just not used at all.

So i dont understand why this SLT Camera have the mirror at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamp898 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the article makes it fairly clear that the mirror is used to reflect "a portion of the light onto a phase-detection autofocus sensor in the top of the camera". If the camera used contrast-detect autofocus (which operates from the image received by the main sensor) then no mirror would be required and you'd have something like the NEX. Colin°^Talk 07:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems like i overread this. So the mirror is only for autofocus. good to know 195.243.52.99 (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The approximate portion of the light being reflected to phase-detection autofocus array is different in section SLT compared to other digital cameras with Conventional DSLR and with Mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.

“(approximately 1/3 EV in current designs).” and “(approximately 1/2 EV in current designs).” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikanth (talk • contribs) 05:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Contrast detect / phase detect errors in the article

First, in the introduction, it is stated that phase detect autofocus "is faster and more reliable" than contrast detect. This is not true; phase detect autofocus has autofocus errors that you do not have with contrast detect. That is why all of the higher-end DSLRs have lens microadjustment modes, to correct for this phase detect error. Phase detect is faster, and it can track moving subjects, but for static photography, contrast detect is more accurate.

Second, it is incorrect to say that an SLT has the advantage of phase detect over mirrorless cameras. The New Nikon V1 and J1 both are mirrorless, but they have phase detect autofocus. In addition, it is not unreasonable to assume that once the flooding in Thailand is taken care of, this phase-detect during Live View will be featured onto Nikon's DSLRs as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.221.50 (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Rename

So apart from the single-sided edit-warring, what's the best name for this? "Sony" has no part - the use of a fixed pellicle mirror is the crucial part. "Translucent" is obviously inappropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

_________ From the article:

"The term "translucent" is a misnomer for the actual SLT design, which employs a pellicle mirror that is not translucent...."

What in BLAZES does that even mean? This clouds the issue to the point of ... OPACITY !! The "T" in "SLT" means translucent, transparent, or semi-transparent. The functional case is that optically it is a HALF MIRROR, losing 1/3 EV of light, we can see it for ourselves, rendering it both TRANSLUCENT and TRANSPARENT.

--72.238.0.203 (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Lee R.

Article full of POV, inconsistency and lack of knowledge

Oh gash... I visit this article after more-or-less a year and I'm terrified of what's going on in here. It should go to *top ten articles full of BS on Wikipedia*. No offense to editors, but people writing things in it are completely clueless or have enormous POV aimed against Sony. And the note "This article may contain original research." is just funny - 90% of content in this article is "original research" of people who either never seen one of these cameras or did nothing beyond touching it in a supermarket for less then 5 minutes. I'm bit worried this article is broken to a point beyond repair. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

_______________________

Agreed, it's next to useless. -- Lee R.

Shutter lag

Shutter lag in theory should be shorter than that of DSLRs, but in practice, as many reviews show (at least of the first generation SLTs, A55, A33, A35) it's not true. The shutter lag remains the same. So you can't say that it holds true to all SLTs. I'd advise you to read some reviews and stop doing original research... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.140.84 (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I would not base on reviews. The shutter lag can be shorter as no time is wasted on getting the mirror to its horizontal position. The shutter lag article list some shutter lag and Sony Alpha 77 is way ahead of Sony's flagship Alpha 900. Both of them have Exmor CMOS sensor and BIONZ processors (dual in A900; we can also compare to A850 that have one BIONZ processor and is only 2 ms slower than A900). This shows that SLT is faster. --Bartnikj (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Disadvantages

There are some points about this list i have to ask

It seems like the list of disadvantage is

Worst SLT vs. best OVF Camera.

Thats kinda uselss compare and so a useless list in the end as the most disadvantages doesnt exist for example at the Sony A99

Less light reaching the sensor

• Less light reaching sensor, due to a portion of the light being reflected to phase-detection autofocus array (approximately 1/2 EV or ca. 30% in visible spectrum 400-700nm).

30%? No Way! If you take a image with and without mirror, the difference is not 30%. Its an absolute maximum of 1/3 EV (even a bit less) which is not 30% of Light

1/3 = 30% of 1/1, but not 30% of all light :D

--84.169.111.2

No. The light loss caused by the SLT-A77 mirror has been measured in an independent Austrian test lab with a professional spectrophotometer, and the *transmission* has been found to be about 70% over the visible spectrum of 400-700nm under an angle of incidence of 45° as in the SLT-A77. 30% "loss" (actually: reflection + absorption, but "lost" for transmission) is almost exactly 1/2 EV (not 1/3 EV)! See the red line in this graph: [SLT mirror transmissions] These values also prove the figures given by Sony in their corresponding patents, so there's not the slightest doubt that they could be wrong. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Less Image Quality

• Slight image quality reduction (compared to no mirror), and possibility of ghosting

So here we have do define Image Quality

Sharpness? The Sony A99 is not less sharp than the 5D Mark III or the D600 (in RAW).

The Sony A99 have less Noise at ISO 100 than the 5D Mark III, so here the image quality is even better (you can pull up shadows a lot without getting noise, thats not possible on the 5D Mark III which is also known as the "Shadow Noise Wonder")

In terms of Noise the Sony A99 beats the 5D Mark II, also the Sony A99 have a higher dynamic range than the 5D Mark III (much higher).

So from what i seen so far (i owned the 5D Mark III and now own the A99), the SLT Mirror maybe have negative effect to the image quality, but it should be mentioned that the IQ is still better than on the most non-SLT Cameras. So this is nothing to bother about.

The A57 for example have better Image Quality in every Term (Dynamic Range, High ISO Noise, Low ISO Noise, Colors) than the Canon EOS 650D.

--84.169.111.2

If you compare a SLT camera with another camera you are comparing apples with oranges, this is not going to be a valid test. The sentence originally read: "(compared to no mirror)", and that's exactly what I meant. Take any SLT camera and take critical pictures with it in a controlled environment with the mirror in and with the mirror removed (it can be removed easily and the camera will continue to work without the mirror, except for phase-detection AF, of course - this also works with the SLT-A99, although its mirror mechanism is a bit different from previous models given that it's a full-frame camera). Compare the images and you should be able to notice the difference - it's not much, but it's recognizable. In particular check high-contrast areas. There are enough reports about it and also example pics in the net.

The argument here is that if you use lenses worth thousands of dollars for a slight performance gain over budget lenses you typically don't want any image degradation at all. It's like putting an UV filter on a lens which does not require one. The lens will still perform on an SLT, but the same lens would perform better on a non-SLT camera of otherwise same technology (or a SLT camera with its mirror removed, that is) - and for most people getting the maximum out of it is the original reason to buy high-end lenses. That's a solid disadvantage of this particular technology, not a non-neutral point of view. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Low Resolution in ViewFinder

• Low resolution of view-finder image (compared to full-frame DSLR optical viewfinder)

The focusing screen of an optical ViewFinder reduces the resolution in most of cases (for example on the EOS 60D its very good visible) so for example the A77 have a higher Resolution View Finder than for example the Canon EOS 60D. Here should be said Which EVF is compared to what OVF

--84.169.111.2

Bad Color reproduction in View Finder

• Bad color reproduction of view-finder image (compared to optical viewfinder)

Its the color reproduction of the Image Sensor. So this is an advantage not an disadvantage. You see the colors your Sensor can provide.

If you see different colors than the image will have, that is an disadvantage

So the SLT Design have 100% perfect color reproduction (at least at my A99) where OVF have a different than the Sensor/Image will have.

--84.169.111.2

Limited refresh rate

• Refresh rate limited by the time it takes the sensor to form an image; in low light this causes severe stuttering of the viewfinder image when panning (e.g. if it takes 1/4 sec for the sensor to gather enough light to form an image then the EVF updates at 4 frames/second).

I could not reproduce this at my A99. The refresh rate started to decrease when the OVF started to show only black.

So this is no disadvantage, this is a feature, an advantage. "You cann still see things when OVF already shows nearly nothing"

So this depends on what SLT Camera you have, its not a gerneal SLT problem.

--84.169.111.2

No RealTime Image in EVF

• No real-time image in viewfinder due to the time necessary for image processing; there's a short but recognizable and sometimes disturbing delay between the real world action and the continously displayed viewfinder image

Can not reproduce this on my Sony SLT-A99, seems to be not true for every SLT. I have real-time image as long its not too dark (the darkness it needs to show not an realtime image is the darkness when the OVF sees nearly nothing)

--84.169.111.2

SLT foil unkown durability

• Delicate foil construction with unknown durability and long-term spare parts supply

The same is true for every new Sensor, Mirror, Shutter and/or camera which comes out.

Also the SLT design is now on the market for nearly 3 years. I know typical DSLR which are already broken in that time.

So that is no negative statement, its just a statement

--84.169.111.2

Copy editing

I have extensively edited the text in this article to improve the style and remove the lists - in keeping with the expected Wikipedia style. If further changes are made to the text and you would like a further copy-edit, please don't hesitate to re-insert the copy edit tag {{copy edit}} at the top of the main article or relevant section. Thank you. RuthLivingstone (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)