Church places restrictions on performance rights

[Rob Harlan]

Originally Posted by Philip Howells

the clack-clack of DLSR shutters (which isn't necessary anyway), is always intrusive

I was wondering about this - is the 'snapping' sound on these cameras some kind of artificial sound effect, or a necessary mechanical noise?

It doesn't so much bother me when the photographer isn't near (I take the presence of the photographer at the wedding and in the video to an extent as a given), but in times when we are standing side-by-side that snapping sound can get rather tedious.

Also, if I am recording a channel of sound from my onboard shotgun, then it is a major noise intrusion there.

So is this camera sound able to be switched off or muted? If so it is going to be the first thing I request the photographer do next time for the sake of audio quality and common sense.

[Tom Hardwick]

The noise is mechanical. The shutter button is tripped, the lens stops down to the taking aperture, the mirror zips upward, the first shutter curtain slams across followed by the second, the mirror flips down again, the shutters cock for the next frame and the diaphragm blades open to full aperture.

That's a helluva lot of mechanical happenings, and all that's missing (from film days) is the sound of the take-up reel motors pulling the Kodachrome to the next frame.

tom.

[Tom Dickerson]

I am a member of the clergy and a photo/video guy. A while back my wife and I were visiting relatives and since we had our Canon T2i with us, we were asked if we could take a few photos of their friends wedding. They had a young man, about 16, doing the "official" photography, but he had a camera that really wasn't up to the task - especially in low light.

I tried to be as non-intrusive as possible, but I noticed the "clicking" of my shutter seemed a little loud in this small church - and it apparently distracted the minister enough that she asked that no more photos be taken during the ceremony. Later she told me that it wasn't just my "clicking" but someone else using a flash. I didn't see anyone using a flash so I think it was me.

To this day I feel bad about it and probably should have stopped earlier in the ceremony - even though we produced the only decent photos of the ceremony.

Now, when I compare this with the latitude that I allow photographers and videographers at the weddings my wife and I officiate - there is no comparison. We understand fully that we are professionals and shouldn't be thrown off by shutter clicks or a little moving around by the photo and video people. We understand and appreciate how important it is to the bride and groom that their memories be captured.

The only thing we ask is they not go directly behind us during the ceremony and to limit bright flashes directly in our eyes.

[Philip Howells]

Tom's detailed explanation gives you the nuts and bolts of it accurately but there are other factors Rob.

Firstly, presumably DLSRs which record HD do so without the flipping the mirror 25 times a second - so it seems reasonable to expect the manufacturers to be able to adapt those mechanics for stills.

Secondly I understand that Sony's DSLRs are quieter than other brands and if they can do it, so can Canon and Nikon.

Thirdly, years ago Canon had a fixed mirror SLR which I think was called a Pellicul or something similar which was much quieter than the rest..

Fourthly, if there's no need to move the mirror then all cameras ought to be as quiet as a Leica M8 - they aren't.

Finally, I wonder if the noise of the camera is for photographers like a pair of socks down the underpants - maybe we should be glad they don't go back to the days of the motor-driven Bronica 9x9 and 645 - now that was a noise!

[Tom Hardwick]

The Canon Pellix was a favourite of mine but it was no great seller.

canon pellix - Google Search

Films were slower back then, and sacrificing a stop was a wincing experience just so's you'd avoid mirror slap. A couple of the new Sony Alpha DSLRs use exactly the same technology, but in general lenses have got a bit slower as ISO capabilities have got better over the years.

Any dust on the mirror is way out of focus and only serves to dim the v'finder, make the meter less sensitive and let less light through to the chip.

Cameras certainly don't need to be as noisy as they are, I'm sure. My 1995 EOS100 is beautifully quiet - but then it only does 3fps vs the 9.5 or so of today's flapping mirrors.

tom.

[Philip Howells]

Tom, I've just come off the phone with my photographer partner and he tells me that the Nikon DS3 has a live view setting for video and which can also be used for stills. In those circumstances the camera is almost silent even for stills.

His disagreed about the socks.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Philip Howells

...presumably DLSRs which record HD do so without the flipping the mirror 25 times a second - so it seems reasonable to expect the manufacturers to be able to adapt those mechanics for stills.

Originally Posted by Philip Howells

...the Nikon DS3 has a live view setting for video and which can also be used for stills. In those circumstances the camera is almost silent even for stills.

That feature -- silent still photo shooting in live view mode -- is common to *all* D-SLR
cameras that are equipped with live view, be they Nikon, Canon or whatever. Of course
the main drawback to shooting this way is that live view will eat through batteries much
more quickly, but you can be prepared for that.

[Dave Blackhurst]

I believe the term is MLU (mirror lock up), and some cameras have it when you're in Live View, others don't from what I understand.

The noise of the mirror and shutter in most SLR's is pretty distracting, IMO, and it's a pain when it's on the audio track, but if that's what the photog is shooting, that's what's there.


Tom -
I think you are referring to the new Sony SLT (Single Lens Transparent) cameras which use the pellicle mirror, and while they do have some mechanical shutter noise from the short video I saw demo'ing the burst mode, it's not very loud compared to a mirror flapping around.

As soon as I sell a couple things, I'll be getting the a55, as it checks most of the boxes for me, and has AF while shooting stills AND video, seems decent in low light and should get pretty decent DoF. Not a perfect camera, and seems to have quite the internal furnace when shooting video with Super Steady Shot "on", and runs hot even when SSS is off (I think that super compact body retains more heat...), BUT, it fits the bill for a really nice still camera with video capability, and I do like that it is relatively quiet! Since I've got some nice vintage lenses that are Alpha mount, I think it will be a good upgrade from the older a350...

Interestingly enough, Sony also announced two "traditional" DSLR's right alongside the SLT's, and I waver back and forth, this is one more thing to consider!

[Nigel Barker]

The noise of DSLRs taking still photos is rather less than that of a film SLR especially those with a motor wind so the problem of noisy cameras has been around for many decades. The only thing is that photographers using DSLRs will take many times the number of shots than if they were paying for rolls of film & processing. For many photographers & videographers using Live View is a rather unsatisfactory alternative to squinting through a viewfinder but is the only option when shooting video with a DSLR.

[Claire Buckley]

sorry - posted to wrong topic - how did that happen?

Ahh, no I didn't I saw page one gave my comment and hadn't spotted the other two pages - clearly the topic has move on - sorry people.