Nikon to go mirrorless
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Recent lenses that absolutely suck
Next: "Ifff you go out in the sun today..." Better make sure your camera/lens is metal!
From: bucky3 on 20 Jul 2010 04:33 On Jul 19, 10:38 am, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Nikon Corp. plans to introduce a new type of single-lens reflex camera > as early as this fiscal year, President Makoto Kimura said. at first, I thought you meant they were going LCD preview only, LOL!
From: Bruce on 20 Jul 2010 06:12 On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:03:05 -0400, Mark F <mark53916(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:06:27 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >wrote in part: >> F--- the PELLIX. 50% of the light, or so, never got to the film. >Actually, according to what I see on the web, about 2/3 to film, 1/3 >to view finder. The thing worked fine in bright light where you >didn't want to loose site of the subject. > >I didn't do any real tests with it, but it seemed like it should >loose lots of resolution. > >It had a limited lens selection (I got the camera for US$30 sometime >in the 1967-1972 time frame) I read on the web that the pellicle >degraded, but I didn't use the camera after I got a real job and >got too busy to take photographs anyhow. > >After sitting in various boxes from 1975 to 2009 it got thrown out >last year - I couldn't even give it away to either of the two local >camera stores that actually still sell and display old film cameras. >> It >> was a stupid design. No, it wasn't a stupid design. The same principle was used in the Canon EOS 1V HS 35mm SLR and allowed a blistering 10 frames per second continuous shooting speed. Technology had improved and the silvering on the mirror lasted much longer than on the Canon Pellix. The same principle was also used in the Olympus E-10 and E-20 DSLRs.
From: Paul Furman on 20 Jul 2010 23:08 Mark F wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:42:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote, in part: >> As someone mentioned a few days ago, "single-lens reflex" implies the use of >> a mirror. It will be very interesting to see what Nikon's "new type" of SLR >> is, but it sounds like the sort of interchangeable-lens EVF camera we've >> already seen from other makers -- "mirrorless single-lens reflex" is a >> contradiction in terms. My guess is somebody got something wrong in that >> report. > I had a "pellicle" camera in the 1960s that had a fixed mirror. I'm > not sure exactly what "reflex" refers to, but I think that "mirrorless > single-lens reflex" refers to the lack of a moving mirror Reflex means the mirror swings out of the way - reflexes. But you could say Reflexless... Single Lens means *not* twin lens like this: http://www.amazon.com/Blackbird-35mm-Twin-Reflex-Camera/dp/B001TKW92M .... So it would be an Interchangeable Lens, Mirror-less, Non-twin-lens, Reflex-less camera (ILMLNTLRL). :-) Try pronouncing that acronym!
From: Paul Furman on 21 Jul 2010 00:45 You know who wrote: > Paulwrote: > >> ILMLNTLRL >> >> Reflex means the mirror swings out of the way - reflexes. But you could >> say Reflexless... > > <snip>. In a twin lens reflex there is no moving mirror. Doh! So, ILNTLRL for short. Interchangeable Lens, Non-twin-lens, Reflex-less camera.
From: DanP on 21 Jul 2010 07:44
On Jul 21, 5:45 am, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote: > You know who wrote: > > Paulwrote: > > >> ILMLNTLRL > > >> Reflex means the mirror swings out of the way - reflexes. But you could > >> say Reflexless... > > > <snip>. In a twin lens reflex there is no moving mirror. > > Doh! > > So, ILNTLRL for short. > Interchangeable Lens, Non-twin-lens, Reflex-less camera. Categorizing by sensor size is easier. DanP |