Re: [Leica] Is the issue of camera noise over-rated? - Talk amongst yourselves...:-)

[Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com>]

At 10:40 AM -0500 1/28/03, bdcolen wrote:
>On another Leica list, during a discussion of what camera outfit someone
>have, a responder made the following comment...
>
>"The one thing I
>might add to my bag is an M-somethingorother to use in
>situations where near absolute silence is required (and in this
>regard, nothing but an M fills the bill in terms of
>interchangeable-lens cameras thus far)."
>
>To which I responded:
>
>"We got talking about the subject of camera noise, quiet, etc., last
>night in the final session of the four-week documentary photo course I
>just finished teaching. And in talking this through I came to a
>startling realization - we tend to grossly over-rate the need for
>"silence."
>
>Yes, the unobtrusiveness of the Ms is great. But first off, they are not
>nearly as silent as we think they are. Yes, if there is any kind of
>background noise, the "click" disappears - but so does the whine of a
>single SLR. On the other hand, in a place like a church, when there is
>silence or near silence, the click of an M can sound like the report of
>a rifle - not that anyone cares. And THAT's the really important thing
>to consider: ' The person who is most aware of the noise generated by a
>camera is the photographer, who has the camera jammed in his ear. Most
>people being photographed hear the noise as long as they are paying
>attention to the fact that they are being photographed, and then they
>ignore it, and probably cease to hear it. When I'm shooting on a job, I
>use both Ms and Nikon F100s, which are relatively quiet, but hardly
>M-like, SLRS. And I get no more reaction from subjects when I'm using
>the motor-driven reflex than I do when I use the M. I may be more
>comfortable with the M, but it's no big deal to the subject.
>
>If you don't believe this, consider for a moment that a documentary
>photographer like Eugene Richards, who has shot crack addicts, and been
>in potentially life-threatening situations, uses Olympus OM3s and Canon
>F1s - both really "clacky" SLRs, which he shoves to within inches of his
>subjects faces. James Nacthwey uses Canon EOSes, and again, works close
>and does so in hairy situations.
>
>Sure, it's nice to have a quite camera. But we seem to forget to
>important things:
>
>First, cameras, and the noise they generate, is ubiquitous - everyone
>owns a P&S and they all make noise; those noises are part of the
>background music of all important life occasions, as, for that matter,
>are flashes going off;
>
>Second, what is really important is the way the photographer works, the
>way he or she relates to the subject, and not the decibel level of the
>camera."
>

Definitely, your points are all valid. I would agree that the level 
of noise is often secondary to many other factors, especially the way 
the photographer interacts with his subjects. The perception that M's 
are more acceptable than SLR's in certain situations also has to do 
with the attitudes that people have to SLR's vs. smaller, less 
intimidating looking cameras such as rangefinders or P&S.

It should be noted too that some recent SLR's, like the Canon EOS 7, 
are extremely quiet. Depending on how the sound is measured, they are 
in some ways quieter than an M. More a whoosh than a click.

Digital (non-SLR) cameras don't have to make any noise, and many 
don't. In fact, some allow you to set an option of making a 'click' 
or not when you take a picture. As long as you leave the flash off, 
they are the least attention-getting.

- -- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html