Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Quiet DSLR?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
February 28, 2005 3:37:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I was out and about shooting 'candid' photos and got to thinking about
the D70 I was using - why is it so noisy when taking a shot?
I understand when the lense motor kicks in that there is noise, but
taking the photo should be mostly electronic. It would be handy to have
a quiet or silent camera in some situations - are there any DSLRs out
there that people have which are like this?
Thanks.


--
greeny

More about : quiet dslr

Anonymous
February 28, 2005 3:37:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Most of the noise a DSLR makes is the mirror swinging up. This is why
some people liked the range-finder cameras, no mirror to swing so a lot
less noise.

A non-DSLR digital will be almost silent since there is no mirror in
it, and the shutter is very quite compard to the mirror.

Scott
February 28, 2005 3:37:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

greeny wrote:
> I was out and about shooting 'candid' photos and got to thinking about
> the D70 I was using - why is it so noisy when taking a shot?
> I understand when the lense motor kicks in that there is noise, but
> taking the photo should be mostly electronic. It would be handy to have
> a quiet or silent camera in some situations - are there any DSLRs out
> there that people have which are like this?
> Thanks.
>
>

I've read that the Olympus E-1 is remarkably quiet.

Clyde
Related resources
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 3:37:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

greeny <greeny.1l65o0@news.photobanter.com> writes:

> I was out and about shooting 'candid' photos and got to thinking about
> the D70 I was using - why is it so noisy when taking a shot?
> I understand when the lense motor kicks in that there is noise, but
> taking the photo should be mostly electronic. It would be handy to have
> a quiet or silent camera in some situations - are there any DSLRs out
> there that people have which are like this?

Most of the things that make noise on a film SLR work exactly the same
on a DSLR: The mirror has to flip up, and then back down, and the
shutter has to open and close. That's where most of the noise comes
from. Not much to be done about it really.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 6:45:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1109603883.690811.313010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Scott W <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Most of the noise a DSLR makes is the mirror swinging up. This is why
>some people liked the range-finder cameras, no mirror to swing so a lot
>less noise.

Agreed. Up and back, actually.

And if you want gratuitous noise for comparison -- consider the
NC2000e/c made by Kodak around the Nikon N90s body for the AP. Not only
do you have the mirror noises, but it even insists on advancing the
(non-existent) film to the next frame, while the image is actually being
stored in a PCMCIA disk drive in the sub-base.

I wonder whether Cannon will bring out a digital version of the
Pellex? That one used a partially silvered mirror, and most of the
light went on through the mirror to expose the film. (Not all, as some
had to be deflected up to the focusing screen -- and even so. there was
less light for low-light-level focusing as well.)

When did Cannon discontinue the Pellex?

Hmm ... one built on the Pellex principle could even allocate a
lower-resolution image sensor for focusing, and allow display on the LCD
screen during focusing -- which would be nice for some types of
photography.

>A non-DSLR digital will be almost silent since there is no mirror in
>it, and the shutter is very quite compard to the mirror.

And if it is a leaf shutter, even more so than a focal-plane
shutter. Of course, this makes interchangeable lenses more difficult.
Not impossible, but still more difficult.

It *could* be set up with a Pockel(sp?)-cell shutter, so you
would have no moving parts involved at all, thus it would be very quiet.
But it would be far from the through-the-lens immediacy of a SLR, so
many of us would not like it.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 6:51:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:37:57 +0000, greeny
<greeny.1l65o0@news.photobanter.com> wrote:

>
>I was out and about shooting 'candid' photos and got to thinking about
>the D70 I was using - why is it so noisy when taking a shot?
>I understand when the lense motor kicks in that there is noise, but
>taking the photo should be mostly electronic. It would be handy to have
>a quiet or silent camera in some situations - are there any DSLRs out
>there that people have which are like this?
>Thanks.

I presume you have turned off the stupid sound effect focus-lock beep
thingy?

(Custom menu setting 01)

I find the D70 much quieter than the equivalent film camera - N80 due
to the lack of motorized film winding. And I don't miss the
end-of-film rewind whine either.

--
Owamanga!
February 28, 2005 10:24:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

greeny wrote:
> I was out and about shooting 'candid' photos and got to thinking about
> the D70 I was using - why is it so noisy when taking a shot?
> I understand when the lense motor kicks in that there is noise, but
> taking the photo should be mostly electronic. It would be handy to have
> a quiet or silent camera in some situations - are there any DSLRs out
> there that people have which are like this?
> Thanks.


The only situation that the mirror noise might be objectionable is
during concert performance. As for candid pictures, people already are
seeing your big camera before they even notice the sound, if any. As
someone mentioned that before, the noise seems to be loud because the
camera is just inches from your eyes. Normally, people won't notice it.
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 11:44:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <greeny.1l65o0@news.photobanter.com>, greeny
<greeny.1l65o0@news.photobanter.com> wrote:

> I was out and about shooting 'candid' photos and got to thinking about
> the D70 I was using - why is it so noisy when taking a shot?
> I understand when the lense motor kicks in that there is noise, but
> taking the photo should be mostly electronic. It would be handy to have
> a quiet or silent camera in some situations - are there any DSLRs out
> there that people have which are like this?

Jeez! A DSLR is extremely quiet compared to the average 35mm and
especially medium format.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:29:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <cvvvt9$7vh$1@fuego.d-and-d.com>,
DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
> I wonder whether Cannon will bring out a digital version of the
>Pellex? That one used a partially silvered mirror, and most of the
>light went on through the mirror to expose the film. (Not all, as some
>had to be deflected up to the focusing screen -- and even so. there was
>less light for low-light-level focusing as well.)
>
> When did Cannon discontinue the Pellex?

Canon have used that idea far more recently that the Pellex; the EOS-1n RS
had a pellicle mirror, with about 1/3 of the light going to the viewfinder,
and 2/3 passing through to the film plane. This allowed the camera to have
an amazing 10 frames/second continuous shooting mode.

Nowadays Canon have managed to get that same frame rate in the EOS-1v,
even with a moving mirror.

> Hmm ... one built on the Pellex principle could even allocate a
>lower-resolution image sensor for focusing, and allow display on the LCD
>screen during focusing -- which would be nice for some types of
>photography.

The astro-photography-modified Canon EOS 20Da allows live LCD display.
March 1, 2005 12:29:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"John Francis" <johnf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D 002fk$92k$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <cvvvt9$7vh$1@fuego.d-and-d.com>,
> DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:
> >
> > I wonder whether Cannon will bring out a digital version of the
> >Pellex? That one used a partially silvered mirror, and most of the
> >light went on through the mirror to expose the film. (Not all, as some
> >had to be deflected up to the focusing screen -- and even so. there was
> >less light for low-light-level focusing as well.)
> >
> > When did Cannon discontinue the Pellex?
>
> Canon have used that idea far more recently that the Pellex; the EOS-1n RS
> had a pellicle mirror, with about 1/3 of the light going to the
viewfinder,
> and 2/3 passing through to the film plane. This allowed the camera to
have
> an amazing 10 frames/second continuous shooting mode.
>
> Nowadays Canon have managed to get that same frame rate in the EOS-1v,
> even with a moving mirror.
>
> > Hmm ... one built on the Pellex principle could even allocate a
> >lower-resolution image sensor for focusing, and allow display on the LCD
> >screen during focusing -- which would be nice for some types of
> >photography.
>
> The astro-photography-modified Canon EOS 20Da allows live LCD display.
>
But not with a Pellix system. The Cano webpage describes in Googlish the
live-view as;

" With the EOS 20Da you kept in a state where the mirror is lifted, live
image of the image pickup element the enlargement color it can be indicated
to the liquid crystal monitor loaded " live view mode ". Because of this,
with just the finder it is possible to do the focus adjusting with the
manual whose fine control is difficult more accurately.

Indication of the liquid crystal monitor are 2 types of enlargement ratio 5
time and 10 times, adjusts to photographing circumstance and it is possible
to choose"

So in English that says when the mirror rises and while it remains raised. A
magnified "live-view" at 5X or 10X is possible. This allows tweaking the
focus during exposure. So I suppose live-preview is possible but at 1/1000
sec it may not be very useful.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 1:10:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

greeny wrote:

> I was out and about shooting 'candid' photos and got to thinking about
> the D70 I was using - why is it so noisy when taking a shot?
> I understand when the lense motor kicks in that there is noise, but
> taking the photo should be mostly electronic. It would be handy to have
> a quiet or silent camera in some situations - are there any DSLRs out
> there that people have which are like this?


It would have been nice if Canon had done the 10D/20D/300D/350D with the same
shutter mirror mechanics as the Elan 7. One of the quietest SLR's that exist.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
March 1, 2005 1:17:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

2005-02-28, John Francis wrote:
>
> and 2/3 passing through to the film plane. This allowed the camera to have
> an amazing 10 frames/second continuous shooting mode.
>
> Nowadays Canon have managed to get that same frame rate in the EOS-1v,
> even with a moving mirror.

IIRC, the Nikon F3HS got to 13,5 fr/s with a moving mirror (1998?)

-peter
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 1:27:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:jlf621tu08klqm2hso6qj3h4bvmg4hlchs@4ax.com:

> And I don't miss the
> end-of-film rewind whine either.
>

An - out of flash memory space - whine would be cool :) 


/Roland
March 1, 2005 1:27:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns960BEEA60BD3Fklotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:jlf621tu08klqm2hso6qj3h4bvmg4hlchs@4ax.com:
>
> > And I don't miss the
> > end-of-film rewind whine either.
> >
>
> An - out of flash memory space - whine would be cool :) 
>
>
> /Roland

THANKS. Now I assume it won't be long before we have downloadable
camera-function tones to add to our DSLRs. Just $2.99 a tone like our
cell phones.

George
March 1, 2005 4:27:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> In article <greeny.1l65o0@news.photobanter.com>, greeny

>
> Jeez! A DSLR is extremely quiet compared to the average 35mm and
> especially medium format.

Depends on the medium format, a rolleiflex and folders etc are basically
silent.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 8:28:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <38ig9pF5ko6q2U1@individual.net>, Stacey
<fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Depends on the medium format, a rolleiflex and folders etc are basically
> silent.

Do you enjoy taking pictures with a shoebox?

Back when I used a Pentax 6x7, everybody's head would turn when you'd
press the button. Hasselblads were pretty quiet in comparison.

I remember back when I was in college and I was in a boardroom taking
pictures of the governor. My Pentax Spotmatic was pretty loud compared
to the newspaper guy's Leica.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 9:47:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ton Maas" <tonmaas@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:1gsr3t8.rtuu2kly8feoN%tonmaas@xs4all.nl...
> greeny <greeny.1l65o0@news.photobanter.com> wrote:
>
> > I was out and about shooting 'candid' photos and got to thinking
about
> > the D70 I was using - why is it so noisy when taking a shot?
> > I understand when the lense motor kicks in that there is noise, but
> > taking the photo should be mostly electronic. It would be handy to
have
> > a quiet or silent camera in some situations - are there any DSLRs
out
> > there that people have which are like this?
>
> I know the Oly E-1 is rather impopular here for various reasons, but
it
> IS quiet. I don't have figures and measurements, but it is a hell of
a
> lot quieter than the Pentax *istDS and quite a bit less noisy than
the
> Nikon D2H. Both the Pentax and the Nikon also have a rather
"metallic"
> sound, while that produced by the Oly is more "silky". A German
magazine
> tester called it "the Leica of digital" in this respect.
>
> Ton

The Leica of digital, why is Olympus bankrupt too?

;) 
March 1, 2005 11:44:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:010320050528068807%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <38ig9pF5ko6q2U1@individual.net>, Stacey
> <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Depends on the medium format, a rolleiflex and folders etc are basically
> > silent.
>
> Do you enjoy taking pictures with a shoebox?
>
If the shoebox had the Zeiss 80mm f:2.8 Planar, I would! The camera is just
a dark box to hold film (or a sensor)
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:44:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <8cWdnUPK9tFb7LnfRVn-vQ@rogers.com>, Darrell wrote:

> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
> news:010320050528068807%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> > In article <38ig9pF5ko6q2U1@individual.net>, Stacey
> > <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Depends on the medium format, a rolleiflex and folders etc are basically
> > > silent.
> >
> > Do you enjoy taking pictures with a shoebox?
> >
> If the shoebox had the Zeiss 80mm f:2.8 Planar, I would! The camera is just
> a dark box to hold film (or a sensor)

Sorry, never cared for TLRs. I gotta see through the lens to see
exactly what I'm getting.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 5:28:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d00mer$439$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>greeny wrote:
>
>> I was out and about shooting 'candid' photos and got to thinking about
>> the D70 I was using - why is it so noisy when taking a shot?
>> I understand when the lense motor kicks in that there is noise, but
>> taking the photo should be mostly electronic. It would be handy to have
>> a quiet or silent camera in some situations - are there any DSLRs out
>> there that people have which are like this?
>
>
>It would have been nice if Canon had done the 10D/20D/300D/350D with the same
>shutter mirror mechanics as the Elan 7. One of the quietest SLR's that exist.

How many frames per second can it manage? I suspect that there
is a tradeoff between speed of the mechanism and the sound level. You
have to decide which you want -- frames per second or relative stealth.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 6:01:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DoN. Nichols wrote:

> In article <d00mer$439$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>>It would have been nice if Canon had done the 10D/20D/300D/350D with the same
>>shutter mirror mechanics as the Elan 7. One of the quietest SLR's that exist.
>
>
> How many frames per second can it manage? I suspect that there
> is a tradeoff between speed of the mechanism and the sound level. You
> have to decide which you want -- frames per second or relative stealth.

3.5 (7/7E) to 4 (7n/ne) fps. Which is more than most people need or use in most
situations. In situations where quietness is of value (concerts among them)
there is little need to blast away. Further, that is mostly limited by the film
transport, not the shutter/mirror, so in a digital SLR could be faster.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 6:22:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

greeny <greeny.1l65o0@news.photobanter.com> wrote:

> I was out and about shooting 'candid' photos and got to thinking about
> the D70 I was using - why is it so noisy when taking a shot?
> I understand when the lense motor kicks in that there is noise, but
> taking the photo should be mostly electronic. It would be handy to have
> a quiet or silent camera in some situations - are there any DSLRs out
> there that people have which are like this?

I know the Oly E-1 is rather impopular here for various reasons, but it
IS quiet. I don't have figures and measurements, but it is a hell of a
lot quieter than the Pentax *istDS and quite a bit less noisy than the
Nikon D2H. Both the Pentax and the Nikon also have a rather "metallic"
sound, while that produced by the Oly is more "silky". A German magazine
tester called it "the Leica of digital" in this respect.

Ton
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 6:23:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Clyde <clyde@world.comedy> wrote:

> greeny wrote:
> > I was out and about shooting 'candid' photos and got to thinking about
> > the D70 I was using - why is it so noisy when taking a shot?
> > I understand when the lense motor kicks in that there is noise, but
> > taking the photo should be mostly electronic. It would be handy to have
> > a quiet or silent camera in some situations - are there any DSLRs out
> > there that people have which are like this?
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
>
> I've read that the Olympus E-1 is remarkably quiet.

Confirmed. As I've stated in another posting, my E-1 is markedly quiter
than both the *istDS and the D2H (the only two dSLRs I'm familiar with).

Ton
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 6:25:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:

> Most of the things that make noise on a film SLR work exactly the same
> on a DSLR: The mirror has to flip up, and then back down, and the
> shutter has to open and close. That's where most of the noise comes
> from. Not much to be done about it really.

How then can we explain the immense differences in sound (both volume
and character) between models from different makers?

Ton
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 6:25:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ton Maas" <tonmaas@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:1gsr44k.d5ct71rgq97jN%tonmaas@xs4all.nl...
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> Most of the things that make noise on a film SLR work exactly the same
>> on a DSLR: The mirror has to flip up, and then back down, and the
>> shutter has to open and close. That's where most of the noise comes
>> from. Not much to be done about it really.
>
> How then can we explain the immense differences in sound (both volume
> and character) between models from different makers?
>
> Ton

And, why didn't Nikon give the D2X the same silent mode that is on the F6?
Combined with silent wave lenses, that is one quiet camera.

Walt
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 6:25:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1gsr44k.d5ct71rgq97jN%tonmaas@xs4all.nl>,
Ton Maas <tonmaas@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> Most of the things that make noise on a film SLR work exactly the same
>> on a DSLR: The mirror has to flip up, and then back down, and the
>> shutter has to open and close. That's where most of the noise comes
>> from. Not much to be done about it really.
>
>How then can we explain the immense differences in sound (both volume
>and character) between models from different makers?

Different methods for minimizing the noise -- with differing
degrees of success, and differing degrees of longevity. As an example,
my first true interchangeable lens SLRs (the Miranda F -- prior to that
I had a Zeiss Ikon Contaflex Super, which had only a first element
which could interchange) used a foam rubber strip mounted just in front
of the focusing screen, to cushion the mirror's slap. It worked well
for quite a few years, and then the foam rubber started to disintegrate
(as does all foam rubber over time).

The Contaflex Super actually had a leaf shutter which was cocked
via gearing from the film winder lever, resulting in a grating sound
both at the moment of shutter release and during the film winding.

The Nikon F was noisier than the Miranda F (and the Miranda Fm
which followed it).

However, the noisiest 35mm SLR which I own is the Nikon N90s
(converted to digital) which includes automatic power film winding,
(whether you use film or not :-) which adds significantly to the noise.

I don't have much experience with many other models of SLRs, so
I'll stop here.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:37:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:01:54 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>DoN. Nichols wrote:
>
>> In article <d00mer$439$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>>It would have been nice if Canon had done the 10D/20D/300D/350D with the same
>>>shutter mirror mechanics as the Elan 7. One of the quietest SLR's that exist.
>>
>>
>> How many frames per second can it manage? I suspect that there
>> is a tradeoff between speed of the mechanism and the sound level. You
>> have to decide which you want -- frames per second or relative stealth.
>
>3.5 (7/7E) to 4 (7n/ne) fps. Which is more than most people need or use in most
>situations. In situations where quietness is of value (concerts among them)
>there is little need to blast away. Further, that is mostly limited by the film
>transport, not the shutter/mirror, so in a digital SLR could be faster.

I don't get this concert thing being a problem, having just seen Yanni
yesterday at Ft Lauderdale (I'll same excuse as you watching chick
flicks Alan) I couldn't hear anything for the rest of the night - and
the people in the next row probably wouldn't have even heard a bottle
smashing in my row.

....not that this is a problem, cameras and bottles are both
confiscated by the airport security screeners on the way in.

I guess you must be talking about those quiet concerts where nobody
actually plays music?

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:37:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:01:54 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> I don't get this concert thing being a problem, having just seen Yanni
> yesterday at Ft Lauderdale (I'll same excuse as you watching chick
> flicks Alan) I couldn't hear anything for the rest of the night - and
> the people in the next row probably wouldn't have even heard a bottle
> smashing in my row.

Try a string quartet. I did do this once and vowed never again to
disturb a concert like that again. So a Leica M6 or Elan 7 it will have
to be.

>
> ...not that this is a problem, cameras and bottles are both
> confiscated by the airport security screeners on the way in.
>
> I guess you must be talking about those quiet concerts where nobody
> actually plays music?

Gasp!


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:37:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <fjk921tc5qmkjguk5fejgihotva12qjhj5@4ax.com>,
Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:01:54 -0500, Alan Browne
><alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>DoN. Nichols wrote:

[ ... ]

>>> How many frames per second can it manage? I suspect that there
>>> is a tradeoff between speed of the mechanism and the sound level. You
>>> have to decide which you want -- frames per second or relative stealth.

>> 3.5 (7/7E) to 4 (7n/ne) fps. Which is more than most people need or use
>> in most situations. In situations where quietness is of value (concerts
>> among them) there is little need to blast away. Further, that is mostly
>> limited by the film transport, not the shutter/mirror, so in a digital
>> SLR could be faster.

>I don't get this concert thing being a problem, having just seen Yanni
>yesterday at Ft Lauderdale (I'll same excuse as you watching chick
>flicks Alan) I couldn't hear anything for the rest of the night - and
>the people in the next row probably wouldn't have even heard a bottle
>smashing in my row.

Hmm ... not what *I* would call music. Anything which is
amplified that much ceases to be anything other than a tactile
sensation.

>...not that this is a problem, cameras and bottles are both
>confiscated by the airport security screeners on the way in.

Very different kinds of concerts.

>I guess you must be talking about those quiet concerts where nobody
>actually plays music?

I don't know about what *he* was talking about, but I have been
to many concerts (and have run sound at them) where the sound level is
far from the overwhelming levels common in Rock/Popular concerts.

And I certainly would *never* use a SLR in the kind of concert
which I *most* like a traditional music house concert (in someone's
living room, with *no* sound reinforcement -- and often with a single
individual, singing accapella). This might be when I would pull out my
old Zeiss Ikon Contax, as it produces much less noise. (Well ...
actually, I might use the SLR, but only during applause or tuning, not
during the actual singing.)

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:43:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:37:00 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I guess you must be talking about those quiet concerts where nobody
> actually plays music?

This fellow certainly heard my shutter. I was practically shooting
over his shoulder at times. (28mm lens, EOS-20D.)

http://narcissus.net/eternal-recurrence/

Anthony Coleman playing the music of Jelly Roll Morton, finely
filigreed but sturdy as the earth. There's going to be an album
of this music, and I can't wait.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:10:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1I6dnQkSoukV4LnfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
> "Ton Maas" <tonmaas@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:1gsr44k.d5ct71rgq97jN%tonmaas@xs4all.nl...
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Most of the things that make noise on a film SLR work exactly the same
>>> on a DSLR: The mirror has to flip up, and then back down, and the
>>> shutter has to open and close. That's where most of the noise comes
>>> from. Not much to be done about it really.
>>
>> How then can we explain the immense differences in sound (both volume
>> and character) between models from different makers?
>>
>> Ton
>
> And, why didn't Nikon give the D2X the same silent mode that is on the F6?
> Combined with silent wave lenses, that is one quiet camera.
>
> Walt
>
I've wondered that about Canon vis a vis the Elan 7n/30v and the 20D. The
Elan series has been remarkably quiet since the 7 came out, even quieter
than the A2/5. The 20D, and any of the Canon DSLRs, are significantly more
noisy.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:12:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:D 02fpe$7ah$1@fuego.d-and-d.com...
> In article <d00mer$439$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>greeny wrote:
>>
>>> I was out and about shooting 'candid' photos and got to thinking about
>>> the D70 I was using - why is it so noisy when taking a shot?
>>> I understand when the lense motor kicks in that there is noise, but
>>> taking the photo should be mostly electronic. It would be handy to have
>>> a quiet or silent camera in some situations - are there any DSLRs out
>>> there that people have which are like this?
>>
>>
>>It would have been nice if Canon had done the 10D/20D/300D/350D with the
>>same
>>shutter mirror mechanics as the Elan 7. One of the quietest SLR's that
>>exist.
>
> How many frames per second can it manage? I suspect that there
> is a tradeoff between speed of the mechanism and the sound level. You
> have to decide which you want -- frames per second or relative stealth.
>
> Enjoy,
> DoN.
>
> --
> Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
> (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
> --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Well, my A2 shot 5 fps, just like the 20D, and while it wasn't as quiet as
the 7, it was quiet enough for that to be a selling point for Canon when the
camera as introduced. It sure is a lot more quiet than the 20D, that's for
sure...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:13:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:43:46 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
<br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:37:00 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I guess you must be talking about those quiet concerts where nobody
>> actually plays music?
>
>This fellow certainly heard my shutter. I was practically shooting
>over his shoulder at times. (28mm lens, EOS-20D.)
>
> http://narcissus.net/eternal-recurrence/

I see... it's a concert in the broadest terms. A lone man on a piano
in a hotel. And you were very close to him. If he's playing as slow as
he looks, I can certainly see how that could become annoying.

>Anthony Coleman playing the music of Jelly Roll Morton, finely
>filigreed but sturdy as the earth. There's going to be an album
>of this music, and I can't wait.

....complete with sporadic percussion from the EOS?

<grabs dictionary to see what filigreed means>

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:13:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in news:HdNUd.15389$yA3.4099
@fe06.lga:

> THANKS. Now I assume it won't be long before we have downloadable
> camera-function tones to add to our DSLRs. Just $2.99 a tone like our
> cell phones.
>

Like a - say cheeeeeeeese sound - when the button is half pressed.


/Roland
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:36:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:13:19 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:43:46 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
><br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>This fellow certainly heard my shutter. I was practically shooting
>>over his shoulder at times. (28mm lens, EOS-20D.)
>>
>> http://narcissus.net/eternal-recurrence/
>
> I see... it's a concert in the broadest terms. A lone man on a piano
> in a hotel.

Oh really, such cattiness is not called for. And no, it was a jazz club.

http://barbesbrooklyn.com/

You can't tell from my pictures, but the room was packed to overflowing.
I had as good a time as I've had at any musical event.

>>Anthony Coleman playing the music of Jelly Roll Morton, finely
>>filigreed but sturdy as the earth. There's going to be an album
>>of this music, and I can't wait.
>
> ...complete with sporadic percussion from the EOS?

No, the show wasn't recorded.

><grabs dictionary to see what filigreed means>

From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

filigree
n : delicate and intricate ornamentation (usually in gold or
silver or other fine twisted wire)

Put another way, you wouldn't mistake it for minimalist music.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:36:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ben Rosengart" <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd29o27.iei.br@panix5.panix.com...
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:13:19 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:43:46 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
> ><br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >>This fellow certainly heard my shutter. I was practically shooting
> >>over his shoulder at times. (28mm lens, EOS-20D.)
> >>
> >> http://narcissus.net/eternal-recurrence/
> >
> > I see... it's a concert in the broadest terms. A lone man on a piano
> > in a hotel.
>
> Oh really, such cattiness is not called for. And no, it was a jazz club.
>
> http://barbesbrooklyn.com/
>
> You can't tell from my pictures, but the room was packed to overflowing.
> I had as good a time as I've had at any musical event.
>
> >>Anthony Coleman playing the music of Jelly Roll Morton, finely
> >>filigreed but sturdy as the earth. There's going to be an album
> >>of this music, and I can't wait.
> >
> > ...complete with sporadic percussion from the EOS?
>
> No, the show wasn't recorded.
>

Here are my two attempts at concert photography. The North Beach Jazz
Festival 2004:

http://homepage.mac.com/getosx/203.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/getosx/trumpet_web.jpg

GT
--
"destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late,
the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll" - the mekons
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:49:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 21:36:07 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
<br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:13:19 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:43:46 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
>><br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>This fellow certainly heard my shutter. I was practically shooting
>>>over his shoulder at times. (28mm lens, EOS-20D.)
>>>
>>> http://narcissus.net/eternal-recurrence/
>>
>> I see... it's a concert in the broadest terms. A lone man on a piano
>> in a hotel.
>
>Oh really, such cattiness is not called for.

Apologies, I didn't mean to appear catty.

>And no, it was a jazz club.
>
> http://barbesbrooklyn.com/
>
>You can't tell from my pictures, but the room was packed to overflowing.
>I had as good a time as I've had at any musical event.

Does that say something about your pictures?

Go round the other side of him, that way we can see his face and the
crowd (okay, I know this is OT, and you didn't ask for my critique).

Is smoking banned now in NY Jazz clubs? It doesn't look that smokey.

>>>Anthony Coleman playing the music of Jelly Roll Morton, finely
>>>filigreed but sturdy as the earth. There's going to be an album
>>>of this music, and I can't wait.
>>
>> ...complete with sporadic percussion from the EOS?
>
>No, the show wasn't recorded.
>
>><grabs dictionary to see what filigreed means>
>
> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
> filigree
> n : delicate and intricate ornamentation (usually in gold or
> silver or other fine twisted wire)

Okay, wire ornament. Don't really see the link - is that a Jazz term?

>Put another way, you wouldn't mistake it for minimalist music.

...so he was bangin' away at the keyboard at a high rate of speed.

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

He was smokin' !
His fingers were a blur
The notes were a flyin'

...instead you come up with a wire ornament and some mud?

<g>

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:55:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:49:47 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Go round the other side of him, that way we can see his face and the
> crowd (okay, I know this is OT, and you didn't ask for my critique).

There was this small matter of a wall.

> Is smoking banned now in NY Jazz clubs? It doesn't look that smokey.

Yes.

> Okay, wire ornament. Don't really see the link - is that a Jazz term?

No, a metaphor.

> He was smokin' !
> His fingers were a blur
> The notes were a flyin'
>
> ..instead you come up with a wire ornament and some mud?

Heh. I was trying to convey that as many notes as he played,
Anthony was never in a hurry.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 2:53:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

tonmaas@xs4all.nl (Ton Maas) writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> Most of the things that make noise on a film SLR work exactly the same
>> on a DSLR: The mirror has to flip up, and then back down, and the
>> shutter has to open and close. That's where most of the noise comes
>> from. Not much to be done about it really.
>
> How then can we explain the immense differences in sound (both volume
> and character) between models from different makers?

I haven't noticed such big differences as that. Having a motor drive
does add considerable noise -- it makes the film advance a factor,
both louder, and more at the same time as the exposure.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 11:15:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d03243$n1a$1@fuego.d-and-d.com>,
DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
> And I certainly would *never* use a SLR in the kind of concert
>which I *most* like a traditional music house concert (in someone's
>living room, with *no* sound reinforcement

Something like this, you mean?

<http://panix.com/~johnf/temp/HouseConcert.jpg&gt;

[that's Pete Sumner & John Conolly, taken last year]

It's impossible to be totally unobtrusive in such a situation,
even if you're not using a(n) SLR - there are so few people present
that you're bound to be noticed. It's even worse if, as was the
case here, you really need to use fill flash a lot of the time.

I tried to be selective about when I took the shots; after all,
the other guests were there to enjoy the music. Wait for the
end of a verse, or some other break in the rhythm, and grab a
quick shot or two. Trying too hard to be unobtrusive is often
counter-productive. But if you're quick, and businesslike,
you'll soon blend into the background fabric and be ignored.

I was using a (D)SLR for these shots, so it wasn't silent.
But nobody seemed to be upset, and the performers (and our
host for the evening) liked the results.

Oh, yes: - the technical details:

Pentax *ist-D @ ISO 200, Pentax FA 28-105/f4-f5.6 @ 33mm.

Exposure 1/30 @ f4.0, bounce flash, custom white balance.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:56:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:

> tonmaas@xs4all.nl (Ton Maas) writes:
>
> > David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Most of the things that make noise on a film SLR work exactly the same
> >> on a DSLR: The mirror has to flip up, and then back down, and the
> >> shutter has to open and close. That's where most of the noise comes
> >> from. Not much to be done about it really.
> >
> > How then can we explain the immense differences in sound (both volume
> > and character) between models from different makers?
>
> I haven't noticed such big differences as that.

The problem with measuring the noise in dB is that the graph doesn't
show the variation in character of the sounds produced by both shutter
and mirror mechanism. Even if they are not a lot less loud, some are
more pleasant than others :-)

Ton
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:59:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:43:46 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart
> <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:37:00 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I guess you must be talking about those quiet concerts where nobody
> >> actually plays music?
> >
> >This fellow certainly heard my shutter. I was practically shooting
> >over his shoulder at times. (28mm lens, EOS-20D.)
> >
> > http://narcissus.net/eternal-recurrence/
>
> I see... it's a concert in the broadest terms. A lone man on a piano
> in a hotel. And you were very close to him. If he's playing as slow as
> he looks, I can certainly see how that could become annoying.

I'm in a LOT of concerft settings - even with a whole ensemble on stage
- where even the noise from my relatively quiet E-1 causes disturbance.
Not so much for the musicians, but for people in the audience around
where I'm situated.

Ton
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:48:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 1 Mar 2005 21:13:21 GMT, Roland Karlsson
<roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:

>"George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in news:HdNUd.15389$yA3.4099
>@fe06.lga:
>
>> THANKS. Now I assume it won't be long before we have downloadable
>> camera-function tones to add to our DSLRs. Just $2.99 a tone like our
>> cell phones.
>>
>
>Like a - say cheeeeeeeese sound - when the button is half pressed.
>

Please kill this thread at once -- you never know when a marketing-type
might be listening in ...

Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 5:00:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d03snk$9de$1@reader2.panix.com>,
John Francis <johnf@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <d03243$n1a$1@fuego.d-and-d.com>,
>DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>>
>> And I certainly would *never* use a SLR in the kind of concert
>>which I *most* like a traditional music house concert (in someone's
>>living room, with *no* sound reinforcement
>
>Something like this, you mean?
>
> <http://panix.com/~johnf/temp/HouseConcert.jpg&gt;

Precisely!

>[that's Pete Sumner & John Conolly, taken last year]
>
>It's impossible to be totally unobtrusive in such a situation,
>even if you're not using a(n) SLR - there are so few people present
>that you're bound to be noticed. It's even worse if, as was the
>case here, you really need to use fill flash a lot of the time.

Agreed. With that floor lamp in the field of view, you really
needed the flash to get the facial features and such to come out right.

>I tried to be selective about when I took the shots; after all,
>the other guests were there to enjoy the music. Wait for the
>end of a verse, or some other break in the rhythm, and grab a
>quick shot or two. Trying too hard to be unobtrusive is often
>counter-productive. But if you're quick, and businesslike,
>you'll soon blend into the background fabric and be ignored.

O.K.

>I was using a (D)SLR for these shots, so it wasn't silent.
>But nobody seemed to be upset, and the performers (and our
>host for the evening) liked the results.

That is good. When I am at a house concert, it is normally to
listen, which may explain my reluctance to take photos during the
performance.

>Oh, yes: - the technical details:
>
> Pentax *ist-D @ ISO 200, Pentax FA 28-105/f4-f5.6 @ 33mm.
>
> Exposure 1/30 @ f4.0, bounce flash, custom white balance.

Hmm ... have you ever compared the sounds from your Pentax with
a Nikon D70? The D70 is a lot quieter than the N90s at least. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 11:17:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d052ha$eki$1@fuego.d-and-d.com>,
DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
> Hmm ... have you ever compared the sounds from your Pentax with
>a Nikon D70? The D70 is a lot quieter than the N90s at least. :-)

I haven't handled a D70. I have used a N90; that's up there with
my PZ-1p in the "wham, bam, thank you Ma'am" noisemaker category.
Fortunately the *ist-D isn't that loud.
(I've also used a D100 and a D1, but in each case I was shooting
at a motorsports event, so paid no attention to the camera noise)

At least with a DSLR you only have the mirror and shutter noise.
I found that quite often the most obtrusive part of the noise from
a film SLR was the whizz/whine of the film advance mechanism. One
of the features I really missed from my earlier cameras, which had
at most external accessory drives, was the ability to delay the
film advance; it only engaged once I released the shutter button,
so by keeping the shutter depressed I could prevent the noise (or,
rather, delay it until it would be less obtrusive). Not that the
other noise isn't a problem - if I wanted quiet I'd use my MZ-S
(even if I wasn't using it for other reasons) - it had more of a
'snick & click'. I suspect the rather slower film advance was
a major contibuting factor, although the extra rigidity of the
chassis can't be discounted.
March 3, 2005 12:49:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> In article <38ig9pF5ko6q2U1@individual.net>, Stacey
> <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Depends on the medium format, a rolleiflex and folders etc are basically
>> silent.
>
> Do you enjoy taking pictures with a shoebox?

Sure why wouldn't I?


--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 2:11:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Graham Holden wrote:

> Please kill this thread at once -- you never know when a marketing-type
> might be listening in ...


I'd like to Supersize that.


Dante would have had fun adding another circle to H*ll, filled with nothing BUT
marketing types.



mike
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 3:12:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d0571a$opo$1@reader2.panix.com>,
John Francis <johnf@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <d052ha$eki$1@fuego.d-and-d.com>,
>DoN. Nichols <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hmm ... have you ever compared the sounds from your Pentax with
>>a Nikon D70? The D70 is a lot quieter than the N90s at least. :-)
>
>I haven't handled a D70. I have used a N90; that's up there with
>my PZ-1p in the "wham, bam, thank you Ma'am" noisemaker category.

Not as bad as a Nikon F with a motor drive. :-) I experienced
that when I was recording an outdoors wedding in a rather pleasant
setting, with bird song in the background.

Unfortunately, I was not able to set up microphones far enough
away from the photographer, who had such a camera.

>Fortunately the *ist-D isn't that loud.
>(I've also used a D100 and a D1, but in each case I was shooting
>at a motorsports event, so paid no attention to the camera noise)
>
>At least with a DSLR you only have the mirror and shutter noise.

Well ... with one designed from the beginning as a DSLR, yes.
My N90s experience was with one which had been converted by Kodak to be
a digital (for the AP), so that while I was digital, I was still stuck
with the film advance mechanism's noise. (And no LCD to view the
resulting images before I got it back to a computer to check on it.

>I found that quite often the most obtrusive part of the noise from
>a film SLR was the whizz/whine of the film advance mechanism. One
>of the features I really missed from my earlier cameras, which had
>at most external accessory drives, was the ability to delay the
>film advance; it only engaged once I released the shutter button,
>so by keeping the shutter depressed I could prevent the noise (or,
>rather, delay it until it would be less obtrusive).

That would be a nice feature if you were stuck with that noise.

> Not that the
>other noise isn't a problem - if I wanted quiet I'd use my MZ-S
>(even if I wasn't using it for other reasons) - it had more of a
>'snick & click'. I suspect the rather slower film advance was
>a major contibuting factor, although the extra rigidity of the
>chassis can't be discounted.

Certainly another contributing factor.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 1:30:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:11:10 GMT, m II <C@In.The.Hat> wrote:

>Dante would have had fun adding another circle to H*ll, filled with nothing BUT
>marketing types.

You mean another circle of "... THE place to be! Fantastic opportunities
to 'network' with other like-minded movers-and-shakers; real flame-effect
fires contribute to the 'EvaCozy' (tm) atmosphere, where deadlines are a
thing of the past since you're here for all eternity"

Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.
!