I frequent, with my video camera, a hide on a local RSPB reserve. Unfortunately, I have to say, so do a lot of "snappers". Many of these have the latest kit, 5/600mm Canons and Nikkors, full camouflage suits etc etc but can someone tell me why their cameras/motor drives are so noisy?
I used to snap myself, (last still cam purchase a Nikon F4S so a while ago) but back then a mirror was more or less essential as of course was a film transport mechanism.
The latest stuff sounds as noisy as the MD6 I used to use with my FE, and is a b----y nuisance both from the perspective of recording audio and the general disturbance to one's concentration and the like.
Ron
ps as for their wildlife skills!!
obviously motor drives don't come into it anymore but most serious cameras are reflexes so you still get the mirror 'clack'.
I have recently bought a reflex myself which has a live view option from the sensor with the mirror up but this still seems to drop and raise the mirror with each shot. The autofocus is also quite noisy; though this switches off when using the camera for video.
I suppose the maunfacturers are thinking only of their own customer, I used to get quite p*ssed off with other video camcorder users who left the beep options on and I also remember Sony, among others having a shutter sound effect on their stills cameras.
John D johnross93.freeserve.co.uk
Unless they start making stills cameras which offer mirror-locking, this is bound to continue. The fully electronic cameras don't have mechanical shutters or mirrors, so are completely silent in operation, but there are sound effects acting as reassurance that the exposure has happened. Every such camera I've come across has the facility to turn it off or reduce the volume. So, we have to conclude that the noisy users are just that, noisy people who want the noise. Funny old world, innit?
It's a pet hate of many wedding togs.
Must be even more annoying when the wildlife itself joins in :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjE0Kdfos4Y
(camera noises from about 2 minutes in)
Its a product of the Single Lens Reflex system.... where what you see is what you get, and the viewfinder image is provided by a mirror, which has to be shifted out of the way for the instant the shutter opens.
If you ditched the SLR system, then there would be little noise....
But if you want to complain about noise, try the Nikon F2... even without the motordrive noise, that shutter clack will wake the dead.
The current generations of digital SLR's is dead quiet in comparision to their 35mm film based ancestors.
There is a trend for some SLRs to come with fixed semi-transparent mirrors. These have various advantages such as faster continuous shooting, no moving mechanics and continuous focusing during shooting, (removing one of the major shortfalls of SLRs for video).
There are disadvantages though including lower sensitivity and less illumination in the optical viewfinder.
Sony are currently releasing a range of semi-transparent mirror SLRs.
As an aside, it seems that a loud shutter noise is mandatory on camera phones to prevent covert shooting.
Steve
I had an F2, lovely camera, but without a motor drive. Can't remember it being particularly noisy.
Long motor drive runs were unusual in my day presumably because (a) film was expensive and (b) you were limited to 30 odd shots unless you had one of those 250 exposure backs.
A friend will take 2000 shots, in a morning, of Avocets at our local reserve. He complains about how hard it is reviewing them when I compare it (favourably) with editing video via the likes of FCP. On the other hand one of our local and successful pro. wildlife snappers uses his camera in a similar way to how he used his old film cameras, composition being a major aim,with MD bursts only for moving subjects.
There are a lot of bods new to the game, with "Bird Photography" being a hobby in itself (frequently a retirement hobby). Only wish I could say something similar about video-photography. Apart from the odd "camcorder" user , yes, often with their bells and whistles going, I never see any "serious" filmers apart from one pro. a couple of years ago working for the RSPB. He had one of those Panasonic P2 cams and a massive 40x Angenieux lens (didn't know they did film lenses) and was out filming "migrants" in November (!)
Ron
I have to smile when I see the news footage and you can hear the press guys blasting away with their latest pro camera's that can now shoot up to 10/12 frames per sec, they might as well just shoot video and let the picture desk chose the one frame that is in focus!:rolleyes:
I still have my F3 from the 80's and a D300 and the mirror noise on the D300 is far quieter, but I do miss the motor drive noise from the F3, I still only shoot a few frames rather than blast away but at least I can now delete all my crap shots straight away rather than wait a week to put them in the bin! I am also sorry to confess that I never use manual focus for stills these days!
So it's true that some "snappers" like, or maybe are even "turned on" by the sound of their motor drives?
The length of their lenses maybe as well, judging by how some of them swing them about and around, particularly on those Wimberley efforts.
You live and learn on this blog!
Ron
Ohhhh.... the sound of an F4E at full throttle rocks the senses..... *LOL*
Funny thing is, most people now shoot, as has been mentioned, thousands of frames on a mornings walk.. But when it was 35mm stock, and you were paying for the film, there was always that thought in the back of your mind when you hit the shutter... "80c" and a three frame burst during the footy was $2.40...
Having those constraints on you made you seriously think about tripping the shutter; was it IN focus? was the composition right? was the exposure right? was the light right?
With the use of long lenses and the analogy of penile deficiency, In my news snapper days - with 35mm and digital, I would always shoot the tennis with a 400mm f2.8. Same with the football (Soccer, Rugby league, Union and Aussie Rules). Its only when you use a lens longer than 135mm for sport action, and indeed, portraiture, that you truly appreciate the image they put onto film , er, CCD.
And why did I deliberately choose to use a 400mm for sport? Well, its got nothing to do with penis length. My editors would tell me to give them a photo where the reader would feel as though they were right IN the game, ON the paddock and could smell the sweat.
Unless they start making stills cameras which offer mirror-locking, this is bound to continue. The fully electronic cameras don't have mechanical shutters or mirrors, so are completely silent in operation, but there are sound effects acting as reassurance that the exposure has happened. Every such camera I've come across has the facility to turn it off or reduce the volume. So, we have to conclude that the noisy users are just that, noisy people who want the noise. Funny old world, innit?
Strange you should mention that..... Nikon SLRs have offered a Mirror Lock-up function for years.. at least since the F came out in 1959.
Its offered for use with true fisheye lenses, where the rear element protrudes so far into the camera mirror box that the mirror is unable to move out of the way.
The other use is to reduce camera shake during long exposures or exposures using extreme lenses, say attached to a telescope.
Of course, with the mirror up, the reflex system is useless for framing and focus correction.
I've just tested my two EOS cameras side-by-side. The EOS100 (1991) is quieter than my 20 years younger EOS 60D, yet the former flaps a mirror twice the size of the latter, and at the same time motor-dives film through the gate.
We seems to have gone backwards in 20 years as regards SLR noise.
The mirror in the EOS100 probably moves much slower than the 60D, and the 'clack' is somewhat muffled by the motor noise. Maybe the body is heavier as well. (I have never handled a EOS100).
Steve