> Eliminating the mirror produces a very different sort of camera. Sorry,
> reflex it ain't. :-)
Yet, what you are describing is that "Reflex" applies to the mirror
movement, not the "reflection" or "redirection" of light. If I read
your treatise correctly, a semi-silvered permanent mirror (as seen in
the Sony's, some Canons and even the E-10/20 would not be a "reflex"
camera.
On a related point, with live-view in DSLRs, does the camera cease to
be a DSLR because the mirror happened to be locked up out of the way?
This is a very very slippery slope. That's why I prefer to refer to
the formfactor, not the technology. A flapping mirror just happens to
be a technology. A beam-splitter is a technology. A semi-silvered
mirror happens to be a technology. The formfactor remains the same.
You can put the Sony A77 next to a Canon D60 and if you called one a
DSLR and the other an EVIL or some other nonsensical term, people
would think your brain has slipped a few attach points. Both are
DSLRs. I've used the A77. It most certainly is a DSLR. (I just wish it
would take OM glass).
How about DSL Cameras? DSLC? Dee-slicks?
AG (anochronistic acrononym) Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|