| Joined: | Sun Apr 1st, 2012 |
| Location: | South Lakeland, UK |
| Posts: | 4066 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
the maid of all work that the SLR is.
But is it?
It's heavy and somewhat clumsy. We have got used to it for interchangeable lens cameras and accepted the downsides because there were no real alternatives. The mirror slap is a real pain at times. With digital it should be possible to have a fully usable silent shutter and get rid of the primitive mirror.
For wide angle and long lenses single lens reflex viewfinder is pretty well essential, but why should it need a mirror nowadays?
The fewer working parts, the less need making, assembling and carrying about. Also less to go wrong, if it isn't there, it can't go wrong, or need cleaning or adjusting. Simple is good.
The deep mirror box also impedes lens design, a shorter lens flange depth allows better design for the sensor requirements, film was less fussy. More freedom for the lens designer means better image quality and perhaps reduced costs.
Another two pence worth, maybe...
____________________
Robert.