Yes, that is indeed what I mean, though SLR lenses are generally retrofocus lenses, which is just why they have problems versus RF lenses (or LF lenses).
Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
Some of the light ends up in the correct place, but some photons are scattered inappropriately, due to more glass, more surfaces, etc. SLRs == Retrofocus designs == more surface, more glass, and more diffusion of the irradiance ("dispersion" is the same thing). Non-retrofocal designs, such as SLR tele lenses, are on a more even footing with their RF cousins. Of course, for those of us 35mm shooters who treat anything longer than 45mm as a rarely-used exotic lens, I guess that particular SLR benefit goes largely unrealized
(None of this means you should change exposure when shooting with a rangefinder or LF camera as opposed to an SLR, though)