No!!! See how you can replace a damaged semitransparent mirror! :)
Dario just sent me this incredible story:
“Hi, I just want to let you know that yesterday after accidentally damaging the mirror of my A55 with the Eclipse cleaning fluid, I took out the mirror and tried other materials to replace it while I’m waiting for a new mirror. Long story short, food wrap (!) works just almost like the Sony’s mirror: sometimes the AF guesses a little, but most of the time is perfect, and It’s a lot more transparent, so I really don’t get what sony tries to sell us with their 70€ Hi-Tech mirror…
However, food wrap it’s a bit opaque, so the pictures have a slightly soft-focus effect when a bright light hits it. In the next days I’ll try other transparent films: expecially I want to try the plastic protective film for cellphones, I think it’s gonna be a perfect alternative for those who don’t need 100% AF accuracy (although I think it’s almost the same) and improved ISO performance.
Here you can see some pictures of the conversion.
damaged mirror: http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/6361/dsc4616l.jpg
removed mirror: http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/7586/dsc4619z.jpg
food wrap: http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/8836/dsc4621l.jpg (this picture was taken with AF, with the “wrap mirror” already in place, notice the glowing effect on the reflections)
the wrapped mirror: http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/7899/dsc4654.jpg
and: http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/1484/dsc4655m.jpg
mirror mounted: http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/8425/1003321v.jpg
Tell me if you are interested, so I will continue to inform you about this experiment.”
Damn, that sounds interesting!
ZPk!Qg~~60_35.JPG)
Spencer
2 years ago |So Eclipse Cleaning Fluid is bad for the translucent cameras?
Mmmm
2 years ago |Bottom line is go to a pro shop for a cleaning. I doubt his camera needed it in the first place.
Wong
2 years ago |I have to say, this is very interesting. “If” I ever damage my mirrors, then I will try this.
Frosti7
2 years ago |If having sensor problems, you can replace it with a baked potato.
Futero
2 years ago |Hahaha
But sounds definitely interesting
Wong
2 years ago |Which brand of potato would you recommend and how should I bake it?
z
2 years ago |Pentato sensor with bakeside illuminated and multi coated with egg and gravy.
LifeStoryImages
2 years ago |.
tfd
2 years ago |Interesting? C’mon. You would spend $1400 on a camera (plus memory card, maybe vertical grip, etc.), and then use food wrap for the mirror, rather than spend €70 on a new mirror?
Vlad
2 years ago |Why not if it works?
Spoon
2 years ago |A pinhole “lens” works too on the A77 but to be stuck with it 24/7 sounds like a bad investment.
Vlad
2 years ago |But we know that it doesn’t work very well now, after the guy did it, not before
WilliamLeong
2 years ago |He’s being loco in the 1st place to use cleaning fluid on the mirror. It’s stated specifically that not to touch the mirror in any case.
LifeStoryImages.com
2 years ago |This is pretty neat. Bravo for the effort! Many optical filters are in fact films or on film substrates.
But you’ve shown why optical materials are used, not plastic wrap. The “glow” is light scatter from the wrap surfaces and/or the material itself. Few people would find this acceptable.
c.d.embret
2 years ago |There are some people who spend a lot of money on lens filters to do just that. Diffusion filters, low contrast filters, fog filters, etc. Popular with Hollywood Cinematographers.
SonyA77
2 years ago |Leave mirror out and manually focus.
Helena
2 years ago |+1. You will have a NEX5 with big grip and buttons (without AF)
Costa
2 years ago |This is definitely interesting! Please, continue to post updates…
Vivek
2 years ago |Lovely report! Food wrap isn’t very different material than the Sony pellicle mirror!
Beautiful!
Renato S.
2 years ago |“… so I really don’t get what sony tries to sell us with their 70€ Hi-Tech mirror…”
It’s the same as thinking that there is no difference between a 200$ lens and a 2000$ one, “it’s just glass”.
It’s a nice experiment IF things go wrong, but don’t give me a line like that.
Kuro
2 years ago |So…what’s the fuzz with shooting thru a plastic wrap?
Does that means I can finally save on expensive $10 filter and use food wrap instead?
That would be a very attractive solution for fisheye lens~
FAIL
2 years ago |Retarded to put cleaning solution on the mirror … even more retarded to put cellophane in a camera that has known over heating issues …
Aalpha100
2 years ago |He writes : “accidentally damaging the mirror” so I think the fluid touched the mirror by accident. So no retard just bad luck or a bit clumsy (although getting the shrink foil to fit so well: not clumsy at all!).
Using the food wrap: sheer genius in my eyes.
Wait until smth happens to your camera in the middle of nowhere. You may still be very happy you read this!
FAIL
2 years ago |… thats why I carry a backup camera rather than saran wrap. He actually wrote: “accidentally damaging the mirror of my A55 with the Eclipse cleaning fluid” … which the manual clearly states not too … again, retarded.
Aalpha100
2 years ago |Why are you so rude? Repeatedly..
Surely no manual ever says that you should not accidentally do something. So you don’t read what is says but make up half of the story.
? Retard ?
PS. Not everyone always has a spare camera for a back-up.
FAIL
2 years ago |like a ghetto McGuyvor …
RVN
2 years ago |scary that warp will be meltdown and broke the sensor..
D.Ortego
2 years ago |Interesting
DemonDuck
2 years ago |Post some images taken with the mirror out. Does that improve image quality?
That’s also an interesting idea…
FAIL
2 years ago |I hear it increses light by 1/2 of a f-stop (hence NEX-7, NO MIRROR) but you bypass the auto focus system, manual mode only …
SonyA77
2 years ago |Image quality is not degraded by the mirror. It’s already been done.
Cliff
2 years ago |True. It’s certainly understood today that the light that the phase detect sensor uses iso light that is not necessary to the photographer anyway.
That mirror diverted light is completely unwanted by most of us here. For those that actually DO want those photons back and in your photo…you must be a Canikon idiot that doesn’t understand the importance of AF.
Cliff
André
2 years ago |This is a surprise…Allthough I think there must be some miscalculations in the metering departement, It only works because of the “first surface” reflection of the foil, the real mirror has a thin layer of reflective material. But it seems to me some sort of proof that Sony still can experiment with other materials for the mirror. why did’nt they use first class optical glass with (zeiss) coatings anyway ?
Spoon
2 years ago |Price, thickness, can break more easily on impact.
Nawaf
2 years ago |Just buy a new one already!
Bionz
2 years ago |is there new one for sale ?
Keith
2 years ago |Yes, silly to put fluids on the mirror…But…Why not have a go at seeing what else works before getting a new one. I for one would be interested to know the outcome of trying screen protectors. I use these on all my screens and they are semi rigid, very clear and do reflect a little so it really could be worth a try, especially to keep as a spare if accidents occur with the new one
Clyde
2 years ago |Easy IR DIY.
Seeky
2 years ago |It would be nice if he posts a picture taken without food-wrap-mirror (wow, fwm-technology!) and with mirror so we can compare something.
roomnoxii
2 years ago |You mean Foweom sensor technology?
REVENGE
2 years ago |lol @ the internet
doug
2 years ago |Is it even possible to clean a translucent mirror?
SonyA77
2 years ago |See the link I posted. Here is a quote:
“Although handling the frame while it’s out of the camera is easy, I had a bit of a fumble the first time because I was also trying to photograph it. As a result of juggling too many things, I ended up with a 1/4″ square fingerprint on the front-facing side of the mirror. It looked like a fingerprint on any lens element. We are warned in the user manual that we must never touch the mirror, and it has been said that getting any substance at all on it will require a return to Sony for replacement (see the section on dust reduction about halfway down this page in the Imaging Resource A55 review), and I think the cost is rumored to be about $100. Well, I cleaned that fingerprint myself. I did it the same way I cleaned some little dust particles off the surface of the mirror a few weeks ago: I used a clean cotton swab and wiped gently and carefully. And since I was contacting the surface anyway, I also took the opportunity to press the swab lightly against it and confirm that the sheet does flex in response to pressure.
I also shot some test scenes while the mirror was removed and repeated them after cleaning and replacing it. Looking at both versions afterwards, I see no ill effects from the fingerprint and cleaning episode. So… I would say SLT owners can rest assured that although the mirror is not glass, it is also not nearly as fragile as Sony would have us think.”
Aalpha100
2 years ago |Thanks for the post. Getting dust on this film-mirror had me worried so much that I have not bought anything yet (well there was a bit of water and some radiation as well..). Anyway: I am quite relieved now.
.
Thanks!
SonyA77
2 years ago |If you want to see the effect of removing the mirror it was done ages ago:
thesybersite.com/sony/a55/index.htm
FAIL
2 years ago |yes indeed, i fingerprinted mine too, just dabbed a cotton swab in water lightly … cleaned it … then dry it with a dry swab lightly … worked like a charm!
Aalpha100
2 years ago |Fingerprinted it eh, I guess the manual says not to do that as well.
Now if I were you I would use a nasty word (starting with an “r”) to describe you ..
See how easy that is. Let’s keep it nice here pls.
FK
2 years ago |what’s next, maybe aluminumfoil?
Sony will have had it’s reasons to use the Mirror they have been using in the Final product, if there would have been a economical way to use a mirror with a higher transmission while maintaining the same quality of AF Precision they would have done it, trust me.
P
2 years ago |First he says “It’s a lot more transparent”. An then in the next line, “It’s a bit opaque”!!! LOL
Gerd
2 years ago |No spell checker for the headline?
plm
2 years ago |Try this it will work better :
http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10051&productId=202262335&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&MERCH=REC-_-product-3-_-plastic;window;seal;100175156-_-202262335-_-N&locStoreNum=2583
kei1309
2 years ago |looks more like he tried swiping the mirror with the cleaning fluid than accidentally dripping any of it on the mirror. and applied too much pressure.
*face palm*
D.Ortego
2 years ago |Sounds great, but will it blend?
Rob
2 years ago |Blend indeed. I’m curious if taking the mirror out and using in manual mode will result in somewhat better iso performance and image quality? If so, will this work on an A99 or similar?
WilliamLeong
2 years ago |So you gain a stop in iso and you’ll be able to see your subject’s nostril hair a bit better (provided your MF is spot on), and at the same time lose AF? It’s like chopping down the whole tree just to get to the nest at the top.
Doraemonboi
2 years ago |There’s a reason why Sony use a mirror instead of some cheap plastic. It’s like asking them to use plastic for all the lenses since it is cheaper.
Dario Morelli
2 years ago |Hi people, I’m the guy who did this experiment.
Later I e-mailed the rest of the experiment, but he didn’t wait. In the second part I bought a plastic protective film for cellphones to do the same thing and worked better: some flare is still present, and it’s more difficult to apply. In conclusion I reccommend to do this experiment only if you are in the same situation as I was.
I did this only because building and modifying cameras is my hobby ( http://www.flickr.com/projectese ) so it’s totally normal for me to do such experiments while I’m waiting for the Sony mirror replacement.
And to reply at some of the comments: no I didn’t try to clean the mirror with the Eclipse, I touched it on the inside while cleaning the sensor, near the frame, I tried to clean it but nothing worked. The picture of the mirror was taken after the decision of doing the experiment, and so before removing it I tried to wipe off the halo a little harder, and that was the result.
I didn’t do it to prove anything, but from the results I can say that Sony charges something like 10000% on the cost of the spare mirror, and it doesn’t need to be that much reflective (and dark) to make the AF working.
Aalpha100
2 years ago |No matter what anyone else says I am happy you wrote about what you did. As I wrote here before: it takes some of my biggest fears (dust on the mirror that cannot be taken off leaving all pictures blemished) away.
Thanks! (and don’t let anyone who cannot read (e.g. the accidental) and wants to feel smart at the expense of someone else get at you.
Nice work!
WilliamLeong
2 years ago |Sony charged 100000% for the mirror is because optical quality is what it’s aimed at. R&D was invested heavily so that the mirror produce top quality images. Imagine of they had some smudging of highlights as you’d shown here, u think the world wouldn’t bash Sony for it? Even a small 1/3 loss of light got Sony an earful already. If you’re saying a 20 bucks filter and a 200 bucks T* zeiss works the same, then so be it.
alex
2 years ago |you should clean the sensor, not the mirror.. it doesn´t matter if it is semi-transparent or not..read the manual next time…
Solo
2 years ago |read his reply next time. (look 5 posts up)
WilliamLeong
2 years ago |+1
Dac
2 years ago |Hi my kids poke is toy on the mirror… :-\ where do you buy them from? I do you have a link