Following a comment on a post of mine a few days ago, I have been thinking about shutter noise. I unashamedly like quiet and I really notice when a camera is not quiet, even though that statement is quite relative. I was all excited to see the Sony a900 (this is the camera that brought up the topic in the first place) in the store and I picked it up to give it a few test shots. Ergonomics, handling, buttons: good. Style: very Sony-ish, but I like it (I like it more than the other Sonys). Then, I pressed the shutter release. KER-PLUNCK! Holy cow! That sound alone would take lots of great features and a very low price for me to actually think about buying one.And Mal (my honored commenter), I mean no disrespect. This post is not written to tear somebody else down or, in any way, to make my way sound like the best way. That comment just got me thinking, and I wanted to share some of my thoughts on why (to me) a loud shutter really matters.

I know, this is yet another in a long list of topics that I think about but almost nobody else does. Well, that is not totally true, but the internet does gives us a false sense of perspective sometimes, making unimportant things out to be incredibly important. Even though a hundred people comment on a blog entry on any particular topic, that does not necessarily mean there is even a slim chance I will ever meet anybody in flesh and blood that could care less.

I care, though. Here is why. The reader comment I mentioned above said it should not matter unless the photographer was into stealth photography. Well, not necessarily. It has to deal with the interaction between photographer and subject. If your subject is a mountain and trees, well, then no it does not matter (unless you have really sensitive ears, I guess). If however, your subject is human, it will matter, because humans react to things like that.

I do not want to dive into a Leica-esque philosophical debate, but they do have a point when it comes to leaving as little a footprint as possible. What I mean is this: even if somebody has given me permission to shoot, sometimes the difference between a subtle camera sound and an obvious one could change their reaction and totally change the face I capture. If they are a model, probably not, but I rarely shoot models. I shoot normal people.

My camera is no Leica (I could only be so fortunate), but it is not terribly loud. I have seen faces change that ruin the situation because of sound alone. Maybe I got the shot I wanted on the first try and I can quit; maybe their reaction to the sound ruined my opportunity to keep trying for a better shot.

We even see this issue playing out, in part, in point and shoot cameras. I detest their I’m-taking-a-picture announcements. Again, feel free to not care, but it can make a huge difference. Those beeps and fake shutter noises are just begging your subject to give you their fake smile or break up that natural moment you wanted to capture.

I think the point is this: the more quiet the camera, the more likely the photographer is forgotten and the more likely the situation will continue on naturally without the nervous feeling of being recorded. That means better photos. That means more photos. That is not to mention the feeling of comfort of the subject (though this is just one small issue in the greater issue in that case). This is all important when you need to capture that special moment, that perfect expression. Well, you could just get lucky on the first shot, but besides incredible luck, staying low key always improves your chances.

This is much the same reason I shoot only prime lenses. Well, price, aperture, and quality are other big factors there, but still, you are not carrying around Big Bertha. Keep from drawing undue attention to yourself.

And that is why the quieter your camera is the better.

Recently, I was reading up a little on “bright” viewfinders to try to figure out what that was all about. I initially thought it had something to do with the percentage of coverage or the viewpoint, which spec sheets (sometimes) state, but I found out it does not. Once I figured things out a little, I decided to go and do some brightness tests on my own with some of the full-frame digital cameras out there (5D, a900, D700, 5DmII). Here is what I found.

First, here is what the viewfinder specs mean. The percentage of coverage is simply that: when you look through the viewfinder, only the top of the line cameras actually show you 100% of what is actually recorded on the sensor (or film). Magnification, also, is exactly what it says. You will see a figure like 0.72x, meaning the image in the viewfinder is de-magnified just a little. Those do not directly affect the brightness, though.

I also saw a lot about viewpoint. Now this characteristic is no so self explanatory. Basically, this is how far away from the eyepiece/viewfinder your eye can be and still see all of the image in the viewfinder. And for folks like me who wear glasses, that actually is important. The bigger that number, the less of a chance I have of needing to crush my glasses in between the camera and my face just to see everything. As you can see, though, this has little to do with brightness either.

Then, I found a handy article about viewfinder brightness on Luminous Resource. The examples were all film cameras, which would be really hard to actually pick up and compare these days, as the article suggests we do, but the principles are still the same.

Basically, brightness is related to the focusing screen. The light comes in the lens, bounces up off the mirror, goes through the focusing screen, bounces around in the pentaprism, and then out to your eye. Focusing screens can be bright or not, and it has some affect on focusing, though in the super fast auto focus world of today, I could not really figure out from the article what the affect on focusing is with modern day focusing systems.

Anyway, the long and short of it is this: there is no measurement for brightness. You just say, “wow, that’s bright” or “look’s good to me” and buy your camera. It does make a big difference, though. The darker the situation, the more a bright viewfinder, the more you will still be able to see.

Ok, field tests. Since there is no measurement and you really just have to compare, that is exactly what I did. I will cut all bias out and just give you the facts of what I compared.

Sony a900 vs. Canon 5D
At first, I looked around in one camera, then the other (in the same environment, same store). The Sony seemed brighter. Then, I got the (maybe not so) bright idea to put one camera up to each eye, looking through both at the same time (at which point I got some interesting looks). The Sony was WAY brighter than the Canon. There is my measurement…”WAY” brighter.

I do not know how much the lens on the camera can affect this, but both cameras had the high quality zoom kit lenses. So, they were on pretty even ground. And aperture should not be an issue, because the lens aperture stays wide open till the time a photo is taken, at which point it will quickly close down to your setting and return to fully open, and both these lenses have approximately the same aperture.

Canon 5D vs. Nikon D700
What I was missing was the D700 (this was before the 5DmII was out). So, on a different occasion, I was able to do the same comparison, one camera up to each eye. I could not tell a difference between the Canon 5D and the Nikon D700. Well, they did seem different, but it is so subtle, that if the brightness is different, it is very close. As for lenses (if it matters), the Canon had the f/4 kit lens, and the Nikon had it’s kit lens on too. At least, I am pretty sure…it might have had my f/2 35mm on there…but I do not think so.

Canon 5D mark II vs. Sony a900
Then, the Canon 5D mark II came out. I expected it to be the same as the original 5D, but when I had a chance to try it out against the a900, the results surprised me. I could not tell a difference between the Sony a900 and the Canon 5D mark II viewfinders’ brightnesses. Again, it seemed different, somehow, but I could not definitely say which one was brighter. It was more like a slight difference in tint more than one in brightness. This time, the Canon had the f/4 kit lens on and the Sony had an f/1.4 50mm on there. So, if lens and aperture do play some part, then the Canon 5D mark II wins.

Conclusion
I am no expert, but since the experts will not give us conclusive tests, I have to do my best when judging viewfinder brightness on my own. It looks like the Sony a900 and Canon 5D mark II are brighter than the Nikon D700 and Canon 5D, though those have not all been compared against each other or all compared in the same environments. Short of a mega photo store, I cannot make a better comparison. I am lucky they even let me touch some of those, much less try to find all four in one store at the same time.

Now, I do not want to say anything bad about the Canon 5D or the Nikon D700. I have had two professionals (one of whom I very much trust and has a lot more experience than I do) say they loved the bright 5D. So, assuming my comparisons have some validity, they have much to look forward to in the Mark II.

I would take any of them…though that Sony had an awfully loud shutter, less of a click and more of a clump, if you know what I mean. And feel free to leave your comments below. Do you think I am full of it? Do you know more than me? Tell us all…my pride is certainly not based on my ability to judge camera brightness. I am learning here too.