Comparison: Camera Shutter Sounds

Nikon F100: 5 out of 5
Olympus E-1: 4 out of 5
Nikon D700: 3 out of 5
Olympus E-3: 2 out of 5
Olympus E-300: 1 out of 5
Yashica GSN: 0 out of 5
Yeah, but: These numbers are a ranking, not a rating - and higher numbers are better.

The Long Version: I'm preparing a review of the Nikon F100, and without giving too much away, I'll admit that I'm absolutely in love with it. The shutter sound is part of what has captured me, so I wanted a recording of its action to include in my write-up. As my mother never said, in for a penny, in for a pound: I decided to record all six of my cameras that have mechanical shutters. I always read the conclusion first, so here it is: The Nikon F100 and Olympus E-1 quietly and pleasantly spank all of the others.

Click the play icon beneath the photos for that camera's sound, and some notes on my methodology and further thoughts are at the end of the review.

Nikon F100:

The Nikon F100 is a film SLR from 1998/1999. It appears here without the MB-15 grip that would boost it to 5fps; instead this recording includes a few single frames and two 4.5fps bursts. It was shot without film: it can eat an entire roll in only eight seconds. The recording meter stayed comfortably around -12 to -14dB.

Olympus E-1:

The Olympus E-1 (reviewed) is a contemporary of the Canon EOS-10D, being released in 2003. It shoots at 3fps and has a twelve-shot buffer. During recording the meter peaked around -14dB, making it a touch quieter than the F100.

Nikon D700:

The Nikon D700 (first impressions) hardly needs an introduction; here it's being recorded with the MB-D10 grip and 8xAA batteries to shoot at 8fps. I used it to set my recording levels, with the prolonged shutter bursts measuring -3dB.

Olympus E-3:

The E-3 (reviewed) is the replacement for the E-1, and was released in the fall of 2007, around the same time as the D300. It officially has an eighteen shot (raw) buffer, but a UDMA memory card expands on that. It's shooting three single exposures before shifting to 5fps, where the recording meter hit -7dB.

Olympus E-300:

The second Olympus interchangeable-lens digital SLR, the E-300 is a consumer camera with a four-frame buffer that shoots 3fps. It dates from the end of 2004; in terms of metered sound levels, it's pretty much interchangeable with the E-3.

Yashica GSN:

I included the Yashica GSN (reviewed) as something of a lark; it's a thirty-five-year-old rangefinder that has no business hanging out with this crowd. Its tripod position put the camera body (but not the shutter mechanism) closer to the recorder, but even with a little forgiveness, it was clearly the loudest of the cameras. Its shutter, which is heard first in this recording, is moderately loud at -8dB, but the sharp mechanical 'thwack' that starts the rewind action caused my recording meter to peak. This recording captures three shutter-wind cycles, and like the F100, it was shot without film.

Making the Recordings:

If I had a dedicated studio, it would have lights and translucent tables, not acoustical treatments. These were recorded in my bedroom, which I chose for its relative quiet and ample reverb-dampening surfaces. Then I positioned the camera and recorder about two feet from the sheetrock wall. (You win some, you lose some.) My Sony PCM-D50 had its microphones in XY stereo position, and were about four inches from the centre of the lens mount, positioned to the left. The Olympus cameras were mounted to the Sigma 150 Macro, while the Nikons were on the Sigma 180 Macro. Since they share a tripod collar with very similar positioning, I didn't adjust the tripod position during the recordings. (Like my mother actually did say, leave well enough alone.) The exception is the Yashica GSN, but that wasn't really meant as a serious part of the comparison anyway. The cameras were all set to manual focus and shutter-priority at 1/500s, proving that there actually is a use for that mode.

Conclusion, part Two; Or: To Make a Short Story Long:

I do have a sound meter that can measure both dBA and dBC, but the added complexity of using it wasn't going to add much to my inherently subjective conclusions. (Plus, I forgot about it.) My opinion is that the F100 has a more pleasant sound than the E-1, even though the Olympus measures slightly quieter. Similarly, I prefer the crisper sound of the D700 to the E-3, but neither would be my choice for photography where subtlety is required. For that matter, even the E-1 is much louder than the Leica M5 that I was able to play with last week, and the Micro 4/3 cameras are also a big improvement over SLRs. I was originally planning to record my Canon SX20, but it's so close to silent that it wouldn't be able to be heard with the gain setting that I needed for the other cameras.

The appreciation of sound, like vision, is subjective. I leave it to the interested readers to listen to the recordings and decide for themselves which camera they prefer. (For added entertainment, play several of them simultaneously.) As I mentioned in the introductory conclusion, this article is a result of my liking the sound of a legacy film camera, and even I expected this article to be pretty much irrelevant to anyone's camera choice. But the more I think about it, the more meaningful it seems. Certainly, I wouldn't expect anyone to choose between an E-1 and D700 based on the sound of the camera; there are a few more important differences. But any serious photographer who is using a digital camera more than four years old has either made a conscious decision to not use the latest-and-greatest, or has mentally turned a necessity into a virtue. I assume the same of anyone who has a toaster oven instead of a microwave, or who shoots with film instead of electronic capture - which brings me right back to the old Nikon F100 that started this thought process in the first place.

If someone is using a film camera, or a classic digital camera, it's almost certainly not for the image quality. So why not choose the camera with the best feel and sound? Photographs are strictly visual, but photography doesn't need to be.

Xootr Crossrack

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Perhaps I need more trust.

The Long Version: The crossrack is the only pannier I've seen with this design: it only attaches to the seat post, but holds a regular pannier instead of a rack-top bag. This is a fantastic idea, since panniers are easy to find in a variety of styles and styles. Rack-top bags are much more limited, and typically only range from small to not-very-large. The crossrack also puts the load vertically, closer to the centre of gravity for the bike, while the rack-top styles are long unsupported beam that stick out into space. I wonder why the crossrack didn't happen sooner.

I've put a pannier from Mountain Equipment Co-op on mine; it attaches with a zip-off panel that hides backpack straps. The crossrack is adjustable, and I've angled mine so that it's canted slightly forward, thinking that it would put less stress on the attachment points on the pannier. Xootr's page shows it tipped the other way, which will let the rack and bag be mounted on bikes with less space between the rear wheel and seat. The Xootr Swift, as a 20" wheeled bike, is quite generous in this respect. I'd be hesitant to put it on a bike with big wheels and a small frame, but for larger vehicles, it should be great.

The crossrack is rated for 25 pounds. It's a two-piece design that's joined with a pin, so I do hesitate a teeny tiny bit when I add too much weight. The counter benefit is that it makes it easy to pull the rack off of the bike when it's squeezed into a narrow space for storage. Unfortunately, leaving the clamp on the seatpost means that it can't drop down and lock the Swift in its folded position. That huge dilemma was solved with one of my many reflector-and-velcro ankle bands, several of which I carry in my pannier for no particular reason. Other than that, I have no complaints. The bag carries everything I need, and it being on the centreline of the bike means that it's protected if I fall over. Having no rack below it means that my camera-du-jour isn't bouncing off of a solid platform all of the time. Even if I had a standard bike that could take a standard rack, I'd still choose the crossrack for small loads and day-to-day use.

Yashica Electro 35 GSN

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: It's a bargain among the old-camera set, but it's a bit of a DIY project.

The Long Version: I'm one of the transitional generation of photographers who remembers film even though I never really used it. Sure, I had a cheap fixed-focus 35mm P&S camera when I was a teenager, and a 110 format before that, but I hardly ever used them. The first camera I bought as an adult was Canon's original APS Elph, and it probably saw less than twenty rolls in four years. Then I bought one of those newfangled digital cameras, a 4-megapickle S400 Canon Elph, and that was the end of my film days. But my first memory of a camera was my mother's Canon AE-1, and even digital SLRs never quite measured up to that mechanical experience. I felt like I was missing my roots, and went looking for a simple and cheap film camera that I could very lightly use.

One of my requirements for a film camera was that I wanted it to be older than I am. When it's already an anachronism, why go half-way? After doing a bit of research, I got interested in the Yashica Electro GSN as being an older camera that could be found on-line for not very much money. They have some aging issues, notably with light-seals and wiring, but they also have a lot of fans who have put some great information online. Google is our friend, but here are some quick links to ben bockwell and Matt's Classic Cameras. They're both worth checking out for more specifics if you're interested in getting one of these cameras, but then hit the broader `net to learn more about its traits and what to watch for with them. This isn't a technical review; others better than me have done an excellent job there already.

Rick Mercer (left) preparing for a rant; Yashica GSN with Kodak Gold 400 film.

While I was looking for a camera on-line, I learned that one of my colleagues had bought a camera that sounded like a Yashica Electro 35 at a garage sale for $10. It turned out to be the GSN model, which was my best-case find, and in nearly perfect condition. The only catch is that its original battery has been discontinued, so she couldn't use it or even tell if it still worked. (This keeps their ebay prices low, but there's also several online sources to build/buy adapters to use new batteries, including the ebay one that I had already bought.) I paid her $20 for the camera; if I also count the cost of the battery adapter, battery, craft foam to replace the light seals, and a roll of film, the camera was ten dollars more expensive than the neck strap I put it on. While I usually use a wrist strap and carry my camera when I'm shooting, this design predates scientist's discovery of the shape of the human hand. It's small, but it's heavy and awkward: a decent shoulder strap is almost mandatory.

The older Yashica G that I'd already bid on with ebay arrived a week later. It's a less refined camera overall, and I prefer my GSN, but it's also a good camera. Current prices for the GSNs on ebay are higher than I remember, so it's also worth looking at the older variants. I'm not sure I'd want to go over $70US for a GSN, even if it's been proven to work. These were never meant to be expensive cameras.

The shooting controls of the Electro are simple: aperture ring, focus, film speed, shutter button and wind lever. Shifting the film speed works as an exposure compensation control, otherwise the camera is strictly aperture-priority. That actually matches how I shoot with my DSLRs, but what hurts is that there's only an 'under' and 'over' light to warn about shutter speed problems. I also get confused between the aperture ring (ribbed) and the focus control, and am very slow with the rangefinder manual focus. The rangefinder design does have a lot of charm, but there's a reason why SLRs dominated the market from an early age.

I don't doubt that photographers with a good sense of light who dedicate themselves to this camera would make it sing. Perhaps even I could do it if I was to put away my other toys for six months, but like purity and thrift, there are many admirable traits that I almost wish I had. This is a wonderful camera that's a cheap way to shoot film, making it great for starving/student artists and working camera collectors alike. It does exactly what I wanted it for, which is a bit of a history lesson and an occasional indulgence. It has only had a half-dozen rolls of film run through it in the year that I've owned it, but it will get more use in the future. Despite the limitations of the dated design, I know that I'll occasionally have a craving for the GSN's character and the experience of using it.