DSLR or SLT


Yea. I'm kinda not used to electronic view-finder too. I find them only telling part of the story.

Only the very good OVF in the higher end DSLR has distinct advantages. The entry level OVF are usually dim, small and less than 100% view coverage. The typical issues with EVF are refresh rates while panning and resolution issues under extreme lighting conditions. As a trade off, you get 100% coverage of your frame and an instant live view of the creative settings you have applied. So as mentioned, they have their pros and cons.
 

i enjoying every min of my A65.
 

Yea. I'm kinda not used to electronic view-finder too. I find them only telling part of the story.

On the other hand, they also tell more of the story - because you can see in real time what your picture will look like, including exposure, effects, saturation, etc.
 

Rashkae said:
On the other hand, they also tell more of the story - because you can see in real time what your picture will look like, including exposure, effects, saturation, etc.

Not really. It depends on what the designers do or possibly hardware constraints.

Take the A65. The EVF and LCD both show pre-processed images. To see the end results, you got to press the preview button. The live image is much sharper and detailed than the jpeg.

Perhaps it's got to do with processing speed constraints trying to keep up with live images or that the LCD does not display the jpeg well-got to do a closer compare with the pc image to find out.
 

Last edited:
Hmmm... for TS needs, both SLT and DSLR can do the job very well... One thing to note though - SLT do lost some light (not sure if it is 1/2 stop or 1 stop of light), that is only a note, and if it didn't bother you, then it is alright.

(PS. One thing to point out though, someone mentioned that mirrorless focus speed cannot match DSLR... well... it is not true at all. Olympus/ Panasonic and Nikon's mirrorless camera had claims that they can focus as fast or faster than a DSLR... technology had move on already, and contrast focusing can be as fast as phase focusing.)
 

I guess its kinda your own preference... For me personally i would go for DSLR because of the convenience and skills i possessed (photoshop skills). I used my friend's SLT before and i didnt like it. Its really digital for me. You gonna ask yourself questions.
 

I guess its kinda your own preference... For me personally i would go for DSLR because of the convenience and skills i possessed (photoshop skills). I used my friend's SLT before and i didnt like it. Its really digital for me. You gonna ask yourself questions.

How did the SLT stop you from using Photoshop? Sounds like you didn't quite know what you are talking about.
 

Photocurious said:
I guess its kinda your own preference... For me personally i would go for DSLR because of the convenience and skills i possessed (photoshop skills). I used my friend's SLT before and i didnt like it. Its really digital for me. You gonna ask yourself questions.

Errrr sorry I really do not know what you are talking about. Catch no ball.
 

How did the SLT stop you from using Photoshop? Sounds like you didn't quite know what you are talking about.

sounds like what he's saying is that

1) DSLR is more convenient to use than the SLT. here i'm not sure what he's driving at.
2) DSLR takes horrible pictures so you definitely need photoshop to edit to get nice images
3) he's really good at photoshop.
 

sounds like what he's saying is that

1) DSLR is more convenient to use than the SLT. here i'm not sure what he's driving at.
2) DSLR takes horrible pictures so you definitely need photoshop to edit to get nice images
3) he's really good at photoshop.

4) He does not know about RAW, or in-camera JPEG processing common to all DSLRs
5) He does not know how to use PDAF-enabled live view
6) He enjoys seeing what his eyes see, not what the sensor will actually capture
7) He enjoys being basically blind in a dark shooting environment, while an SLT will boost the exposure
 

On a separate note, will we see a full frame SLT soon, you think?
 

Why not. Its on its way already. Not sure when though.

Supposed to be march, but then delayed to september or so due to the thailand floods, etc.

prototype units should already be out there though.
 

Supposed to be march, but then delayed to september or so due to the thailand floods, etc.

prototype units should already be out there though.

Nice.. thanks god i have no rush for it. Will be anticipating it though.
 

Rashkae said:
Supposed to be march, but then delayed to september or so due to the thailand floods, etc.

prototype units should already be out there though.

Cool... 20fps or more perhaps?
 

kei1309 said:
Uncle Fai... even we as Sony users have no idea. we don't work for Sony. please contact the customer service to make inquiries :bsmilie:

I don't track the Sony rumor sites mar. So I thought others may have some info. Indeed some interesting info has emerged since I posted.
 

Cool... 20fps or more perhaps?

hmm. actually as what it is now..its already enough. And why 20..(even if there is a step up..i dont think they gonna make it to 20 so quick..if they do. Fine.. 3 cheers to them although that would only be useful to some people). Are you those kind of person who expects something like that or so much..then when the actual/finalize product is launch..and dont meet what your high expectation expects..then start ranting again?
 

Last edited: