Do the pellicle mirror cameras cut out when making a shot?

Frank Petronio

Frank Petronio

Well-known
Local time
2:41 PM
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
1,870
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
View My Gallery
I was reading about the Sony A55, the digital "SLR type" with a pellicle mirror that transmits most of the light to the imaging sensor and about a third to the viewing system. Dumb but nobody spells it out... do you get the black mirror flop or shutter black out when making an exposure?

Has anyone looked through one? Is it noticeably dimmer than a standard SLR?

Not having mirror black out in a SLR-type interchangeable lens body could be rather nice... it's one of the main rationales for using a rangefinder or TLR. I find it better for expressive portraits myself.
 
The A55 EVF is excellent. It's not dimmer...in low light it will 'gain up' just like the E-P2 and G1 viewfinders, so it's actually more usable in low light than an optical VF.
 
No they don't. That is the point of using them. The focus screen and exposure info are active along with the CCD. That is why they work with focusing for video and allow live-view video from the CCD for aiming.
 
So the Sony a55 offers one of the main advantages of a RF, i.e. constant viewing of the subject during portraiture and action?

Sounds pretty good. Now... of that hodgepodge of Sony-Zeiss glass, what is the best 35-40-50mm equivalent (based on 35mm film).
 
My problem with the Pellicle models has always been that, instead of having that fraction of a second black out before exposure, you have a dimmer image all of the time. Perhaps advances in technology have minimized it, though.
 
Sony sells a Zeiss 24mm Distagon which becomes a 36mm focal length on the A55 body. I have never used this lens but I imagine any Distagon has got to deliver the goods. I did have a chance to handle an A55 at Photokina in September and I was pleasantly surprised at the brightness of the viewing image. Many years ago I shot with the old Canon Pellix and that was terrible, losing about 2/3rds of the light to the viewfinder and 1/3 of the light actually hitting the film. But, the EVF takes care of all that. It just turns up the gain voila! But it's not the same as looking through an optical viewfinder. Try it out for yourself before you buy it. Also, any dust on that pellicle spells trouble.
 
Most people mention the Pellix when they think of pellicle mirror cameras, few ever mention the 1nRS or RT. I have an RT, a friend has a Pellix and an RT. The later Canon pellicles were a LOT better to use. I also have EOS 650, 620 and 600 (630) models which all still get dragged out occasionally, and use them interchangeably with the RT. I can see how for certain situations, low light street use, etc. the light loss might be an issue, for general photography- not a problem, it's just a little over a half a stop (2/3 of a stop according to Canon).

Pellicles aren't all bad news. You get a lot of RF/TLR advantages: theoretically smoother as no moving mirror, flash firing can always be confirmed through the finder, perhaps (or perhaps not) a little quieter, depending on the shutter I suppose. In RT mode, the EOS RT shutter trips off real fast when you hit the button.

I did some fireworks one night last year with the 630 and RT. Superia in the RT, Provia in the 630 The RT was so much better for the multiple exposure shots I made. No more guessing if the bursts were in the frame, just keep the shutter open and watch the finder, made it easy.

True you're not meant to look into the mirror chamber according to Canons owners manual, let alone breathe on the ultra thin mirror, or touch it. Hmm, I've cleaned mine a few times, I go to pains to avoid it, naturally, but at the same time they're not as fragile as some suggest unless you are a klutz.

Incidentally, last time I checked KEH had RTs at bargain prices.
Cheers,
Brett
 
I'll agree about the A-55: it has the BEST evf I've ever looked through, and the first one I'd call acceptable. It's amazing in direct comparison to the panasonic Gs-the difference is obvious side-by-side.

It's also small and light-another rf 'advantage.' if you get a chance, definitely try one Frank. It's the future, that's for sure.
 
Another detail about the A55 I liked was that in manual focus, the focus point in the vf changes color when you're in focus, not like the nikon system where you have to look outside the frame for focus confirmation. I don't know if other evfs work similarly, but I like that feature a lot, and it's well implemented on the Sony.
 
So, because it wasn't clearly answered, I'd like to reiterate a question asked above:

What happens when you take a picture with a Sony A55? Does the VF blank? Does it keep live-view? Or does it show the just-taken picture for several seconds like an EVIL/Compact/Bridge camera does?
 
Pellicle mirrors tend to deteriorate, and that affects the image quality. I handled quite a few Canon Pellix cameras to find one with a decent mirror. "Brown-Out" more than Black-Out when the aperture closes down. I kept an F1.2 lens on mine, but sold the combo off. Was not enough of an advantage over using the F1 or EF.
 
unixrevolution said:
What happens when you take a picture with a Sony A55? Does the VF blank? Does it keep live-view? Or does it show the just-taken picture for several seconds like an EVIL/Compact/Bridge camera does?
Click to expand...

It doesn't black out. The video makes it seem like it blacks out once–I don't remember it doing so at all, though it's been a few weeks since I used it. You can program it to auto-review or to continue live view.
 
semordnilap said:
It doesn't black out. The video makes it seem like it blacks out once–I don't remember it doing so at all, though it's been a few weeks since I used it. You can program it to auto-review or to continue live view.
Click to expand...

Interesting, but I still feel that an OVF would be better, somehow. It would more easily make use of the Pellicle mirror's unique abilities. Then again, if the mirror is only used for AF and metering, it can be a lot less reflective and preserve image quality.

It seems to me this Sony DSLR misses the mark, because it's basically an EVIL camera. It's not as small as an EVIL and has no optical finder like a true DSLR. The benefits over one or the other are marginal at best.

Add to that the fact that it's a Sony, and I find their DSLRs almost painful to hold, and I think this is not for me. I'd rather have a NEX.
 
I shot the 1988 Olympics and a guy beside me on the ski hill had the Canon F-1 HS which burned chrome @ 14 FPS 😀.
I remember him letting me look at the viewfinder between skiers and with the Canon 400 2.8 L FD lens, the image was very bright.

I can tell you as a manual-focus shooter that the mirror slapping up and down is a major pain in the ass in focusing on a moving subject with my D3s (9 FPS on FX, 11 on DX) and my F3/T with MD-4 .
Furthermore, I've got to think that the AF will improve without the mirror interrupting the focus. I wouldn't be surprised if the AF was more accurate.

I have said this in the past, I think this is an interesting approach to go with digital.

If I could use my Nikkor AIS glass I would check it out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
The Downsized SLR Revolution of the ‘70s and ‘80s
2 3
Replies
58
Views
8K
shawn
S
J
  • Article Article
The Pentax Papers, part 1, 1919 to 1973: From the founding of Asahi Optical Co. to the last screw-mount Pentax
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
The Kowa SET R2: A leaf shutter SLR for $150 or 7 lens cine set only $111, 000 KOWABUNGA !
Replies
1
Views
554
NIKON KIU
NIKON KIU
J
  • Article Article
The Most Technologically Advanced 35mm SLRs, Part 2, Section 1: The tumultuous ‘60s
2
Replies
20
Views
4K
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
BURNING FILM! The Nikon vs. Canon Motor Drive Wars, Part 1
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
1936ContaxII
1936ContaxII
Back
Top Bottom