Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/07/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In einer eMail vom 25.07.97 12:20:17, schreiben Sie: << Why do SLRs have to have a mirror that flaps? It was a good idea when the internal viewfinder needed all the light it could get. But today's technology points to a permanently fixed mirror with the light divided between the viewfinder, meter and the film. >> I have never shot with a pellicle mirror camera, but I do not think that it has too many advantages. Unlike the M6 a SLR camera would have to close its aperture after shutter release, so it would hardly be as fast as a M6, nor as silent. Besides that I would worry about dust sitting at the mirror and decreasing image quality. I have never had a problem with the time lag of any SLR camera. My personal vision of a future SLR is different: I think about a hybrid still video/film camera, which has an electronic finder instead of an optical one. The camera is able to freeze the finder image and show you a preview right after exposure. If you had an electronic finder, the camera could also take the type of film loaded into consideration. If you shoot b&w, the finder image also is b&w. If you close the aperture, the DOF range increases, but the finder image still stays of the same brightness and so on. I would like to have a WYSIWYG finder and a low-res or med-res digital image data interface. So one could shoot slides on real slide film and use the raw data for layout purposes while the film is in the lab. Of course this finder system would have another advantage: as the image transmission is not optical anymore, you are free to locate the ocular at any position of the camera. Frank PS: I don't believe that Leica will incorporate such a feature into their next camera.