Camera Labs

According to Electronista and Sony Alpha Rumors,
Sony may bring the translucent mirror technology from the Alpha A33 and A55 to a more compact camera that might sit between the current Alpha and NEX lines. A recent US patent filing has shown a camera with the technology, which allows faster focusing in a mirrored camera, but without an optical viewfinder like a normal Alpha camera. The mirror could even have a dynamic reflectivity that lets in more or less light to trigger the autofocus sensor in low light conditions where it might otherwise not get a lock.

Size and weight are two very important decision factors to many people.

_________________
AntBlog701 | SillyDog701
Apple: MacBook Air (11-in, 1.8GHz i7), Mac Pro (12-core 2.66GHz), MacBook Pro (15-in), iMac (21.5-in, Core i5), Mac mini Server (2.66GHz), iMac (24-in, C2D), PowerBook G4 (12-in, 1.33GHz), iMac G4 (1.25GHz)x2, PowerMac G4 (dual 1.44GHz), iPhone 5, iPhone 4S, 4, 3G, iPad 4, iPad 3, iPad 2, iPad, iPad mini (all 64GB, LTE/3G), iPod touch (4th gen & 1st gen), 3 x AirPort Extreme, Time Capsule...

A Translucent camera with A-mount can *never* be Nex size. There is no space in emount for any kind of mirror between the mount and the mirror. The correct description should have been that it will be A55 size camera but smaller (and cheaper) due to missing EVF.

Well, one can dream.

_________________
AntBlog701 | SillyDog701
Apple: MacBook Air (11-in, 1.8GHz i7), Mac Pro (12-core 2.66GHz), MacBook Pro (15-in), iMac (21.5-in, Core i5), Mac mini Server (2.66GHz), iMac (24-in, C2D), PowerBook G4 (12-in, 1.33GHz), iMac G4 (1.25GHz)x2, PowerMac G4 (dual 1.44GHz), iPhone 5, iPhone 4S, 4, 3G, iPad 4, iPad 3, iPad 2, iPad, iPad mini (all 64GB, LTE/3G), iPod touch (4th gen & 1st gen), 3 x AirPort Extreme, Time Capsule...

.
I've never even had the pleasure of handling a NEX body but my guess is that the short distance between the lens and the sensor would mean it would be difficult to fit a mirror in between, even after factoring in that the mirror doesn't have to be at anywhere near 45° to reflect a proportion of the incident light towards the AF sensor. And I can't see Sony creating a third lens system either. If my first assumption is correct that rules out a NEX size camera with such an internal mirror and if the second assumption is correct then the resultant camera might as well be the same size as the current alpha line. Maybe the patent referred to is an attempt to stop any of the major players who have yet to enter the EVIL market from using such a system?

The current state of patent applications is utterly bewildering to me. I was brought up, albeit a long time ago in a galaxy far far away , to believe that a patent could be granted only if the idea was novel, not patently obvious and, of course, not already patented. To my untutored eye these pellicle arrangements fail on all counts. Maybe I should climb back in my spaceship and go home...

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

"The current state of patent applications is utterly bewildering to me. I was brought up, albeit a long time ago in a galaxy far far away , to believe that a patent could be granted only if the idea was novel, not patently obvious and, of course, not already patented. To my untutored eye these pellicle arrangements fail on all counts. Maybe I should climb back in my spaceship and go home... "

I think you can have several patents in place, especially if they are all new and use a “different” application to arrive at the same or similar result.
Back in 5K BC Mr. Ugrrr invented the wheel, but it’s useless on today’s F1 car.

I second that. It's amazing they crammed a shutter there, let alone a mirror.

Hi WestCoast,

It may be that some sanity may be restored eventually (c.f. KSR v. Teleflex) where it was deemed, and I hope I'm summarising this correctly, that a patent was invalid if the purported innovation was obvious to a designer of "ordinary skill". And it took a Supreme Court decision to (re?) establish this...! I'd be straying outside Gordon's forum guidelines if I were to try and pursue how the lower courts ever allowed a contrary understanding to occur in the first place but you can probably guess my opinion of the calibre of the individuals involved.

I note that the patent described in the first post in this thread was indeed filed in the States so, with luck, it will be thrown out on its ear as the arrangement is, IMHO, pretty obvious even to a high school student let alone a camera designer of "ordinary skill". If so then shame on Sony and others who file similarly obvious ideas as patents for "trying it on".

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

No surprise to me.
Any giant Corporations has dozens of highly overpaid lawyers whose job is to throw things against the wall and see what will stick.
Pretty strait forward and a daily business practice.

@Bob.
Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated

It's worse than that. I've been helping to pay those lawyers fees for years as those costs have eventually to be recovered from the retail prices.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.