What are the real drawbacks of Sony SLT cameras for landscape and urban exploration photography?
Asked 8/30/2014
3 views
2 answers
0
I’m considering a Sony SLT camera such as the Alpha 77 for urbex and landscape photography. Aside from the fixed translucent mirror causing some light loss and the use of an electronic viewfinder instead of an optical one, what are the practical disadvantages of the SLT design? How much light is typically lost, and are those tradeoffs significant in real-world use?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
11y ago
2 Answers
2
SLT is the designation of sony cameras employing a pellicle mirror, an electronic viewfinder as well as a phase-detection autofocus system.
The pellicle mirror causes about one-third of an F-stop's worth of light to get lost to the AF system. This is of course something you don't want, but the gain is a phase detection even when recording movies.
The EVF has both its pros and cons (there is another question about its disadvantages here) and saying that there are just disadvantages with using them compared to an OVF is wrong. One of the problems mentioned in the answers to the question (about the cons of an EVF) linked to above is the frame rate. This answer suggests that the frame rate of the A77 is quite how though.
The SLT camera offers a unique design and their disadvantages are weighted carefully by sone against the very snappy, full time AF system and having no mirror movement or black out while taking a picture. Also, as you see what the sensor records you see the effects of exposure compensation etc in real time, potentially increasing the keeper ratio. If you're an JPEG only shooter you can fiddle around with the settings that affects what is lost in the RAW to JPEG conversion.
Originally by user21986. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user21986
11y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Sony SLT cameras use a fixed translucent (pellicle) mirror that sends a small portion of light to the phase-detect AF system. The main measurable downside is light loss: about 1/3 stop.
That loss is real, but it is not usually a major problem for most shooting. In exchange, SLT bodies can keep phase-detect autofocus active in situations like video, which is one of the design’s main benefits.
The other big tradeoff is the electronic viewfinder. An EVF is not simply “worse” than an optical finder—it has pros and cons. A common concern is refresh/frame rate and the general electronic viewing experience, but users also value EVF shooting advantages enough that many are happy with the compromise.
So the main disadvantages are:
- roughly 1/3-stop light loss from the translucent mirror
- EVF-specific limitations versus an optical viewfinder
Whether those are “that bad” depends on your preferences. For landscape and urbex work, they are often acceptable tradeoffs, especially if you like the features enabled by the SLT/EVF design.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI11y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
What wide-angle lens type gives the widest view without a fisheye look on Sony APS-C?
Are there drawbacks to using an A-mount Sigma 60-600mm on a Sony E-mount body with an adapter?
Can you adapt other lenses to a Sony A77 A-mount body, and what are the trade-offs?
More pixels vs larger pixels on the same sensor size: what are the trade-offs?
How can I turn a folder of JPG or RAW photos into a good-looking video animation?