No, you haven't read me correctly at all. Reflex refers to the bend in
the beam caused by the mirror. If the mirror is semi-silvered and
doesn't need to move that doesn't change the fact that it's a mirror.
And no mirror means no reflex. And just because the mirror is locked up
doesn't mean that the mirror ceases to exist.
Sorry, I can't accept your knocking down such weakly constructed straw
men. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
On 3/15/2012 7:39 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> 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/
|