Talk:Pellicle mirror

Tri-color cameras

Actually the first cameras to employ pellicle mirrors as beam splitters were not SLRs at all. They were "tri-color" or "one-shot" cameras. Two pellicle mirrors were employed to split the image onto three different film planes. Each of 3 beams passed through a red, green or blue filter to a separate gray -scale negative film. These negatives were used to print CMY positives. Manufacturers of these cameras were Devin; Curtis; National Photo Color. WW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.245.62 (talk) 25 June 2010

Earlier approach

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)

Dear user, I was researching to try to respond to your claim and found out that Sony did invent the SLT Technology. Please read this article if you have any questions: http://presscentre.sony.co.uk/content/detail.aspx?NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=6656 Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2013 (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)

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)

Error in definition of translucency.

Translucency is simply a degree of transparency. It does not, in any technical sense imply a high level of diffusion. A Pellicle mirror IS translucent. The section saying "translucent mirror" is a misnomer is simply incorrect and without basis. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.200.228 (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Also the Wikipedia page on the subject notes translucency as being a superset at transparency. Edit made to remove the un-cited comment re: translucent vs. transparent. 66.203.194.224 (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Disadvantage Shutter Visual Cue

The article states that since the viewfinder never goes black, it may be hard to know for certain if you captured a picture. Then it states that this would be especially disadvantageous in noisy environments where you may not here the shutter. Since there is no moving mirror in this design, wouldn't the camera be silent when taking pictures anyway? I feel like this statement doesn't quite make sense.

Tiernanx (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)