We recently encountered the Vicar from Hell, ironically on our own doorstep. The Vicar and his assistant (who actually performed the wedding), were hostile, obstructive and dictatorial to everybody, especially the family of the bride, so it was no surprise when we were told that we could have only one camera at the front or side of the church and that with an eyeline to the groom!

In addition to all the usual licences and formalities the church required us and the bridal couple to sign an agreement that the material would only be used in the bride and groom's wedding video, only shown by them to private, non-paying audiences and specifically excluded any performance to any other person including on demos.

Of course the Church of England has copyright over the words of the service and the Assistant Vicar has her own copyright over her homily (though that was as poor as the organ playing - nothing new there in the Church of England) but I really wonder a) whether they have any legal grounds for imposing their conditions on say, the recessional party leaving the church with the sync sound overdubbed with a commercial recording ie copyright paid for and b) even if they did, why they did so.

Happily this example of negativity is counter-balanced by some super CofE vicars who couldn't have been more helpful and, once they recognised us as pros, cooperative. Sadly though the fact is that the number of weddings in CofE churches is declining year on year. I can't imagine why.

Hi Philip

Was that the same vicar that gave the gospel group a hard time????

I think soon we will have to advise brides that they WILL encounter issues with Church weddings!!! Luckily with our super weather, most brides select an outdoor ceremony and also a lot of ordained priests are more than happy to do a christian ceremony at a commercial venue.

This is worth keeping an eye on when brides make an enquiry and soon you will have to say "subject to the permissions given to us by your Church" Yes we would be happy to do your wedding!!

One would think that with Church attendances in decline, they would be looking at relaxing the rules!!!

Better emigrate to Perth, Philip...we have no issue here!!!

Chris

Hi Philip !!!

Now if you put yourself in their shoes for a bit, can you come up with any possible reason that makes sense for this, other than some weird and twisted desire to push their authority over people ??? I don't know about over there, but here there's not much of a black market for bootlegged sermon footage. :-)

Was there a photog there too, and was he under the same demand as well ???

The only two reasons I can come up with for exerting one's right to the use of one's image and voice is to protect it, or hide it from being known.

I too think it's to 'to push their authority over people'. I was always under the impression it was god's church, the peoples' church, not the vicar's. My guess is the priest is simply up2here with scruffily dressed, wandering videographers who crash about, show no respect and burp loudly in the quiet bits.

I too have met vicars who couldn't have been more helpful. A couple of years ago one of them took one look at my kit and said that a man toting a Sony Z1 could stand anywhere he liked. I smiled at his recognition.

tom.

A third concern may be that they see clips from wedding ceremonies turn up on Youtube or in tv out-take shows and are worried that any little slip will appear out there for the world to see.

I'm not supporting their view, see my recent unobliging priest post about Father Philip, just trying to find a reason for this recent change in attitude by some clergy.

On the reverse side. I recently had a form forwarded on to me by a couple from their church with a list of rules of conduct for photographers/videographers, including where photos could be taken (outside) placement of videocamera (one only) in church, in a side chapel. no use of microphones (radio or static) no lights etc.
When I turned up on the day it couldn't have been more different. The vicar let me pick my choice for main camera and helped me move a piano to better place a second one. No problem with mics. He couldn't have been more pleasant and helpful.

Chris, yes it was, and Chip, the photographer was under the same geographical stricture as our other two cameras - penned into a single area at the back of the church, though I don't know if he had any usage restrictions placed on him. And the restrictions went far beyond the Vicar's image, voice or words.

I'd like to avoid placing the acquisition of permission on the bridal couple because I've found that I can usually convince the Vicar in a face-to-face meeting that we won't behave in any way that will detract from the solemnity and dignity of the ceremony. It's also good to see that as well as other horror stories, other readers have, like me, found wonderful Vicars who deserve to thrive and to preach to packed churches.

We all know of the ill-behaved unprofessional idiots who make things bad for the rest but I'm afraid that to answer Chip's rhetorical question, I think they'd argue that they're protecting their copyright (and I wouldn't question that) but it also, conveniently, restricts public awareness of their Draconian attitudes.

The bride's father (who'd been on the point of explosion at the rehearsal) was livid when the Assistant Vicar ended her ceremony with a plea for money to help with the £2000 per week upkeep of the church. And you could understand his point because he'd just paid over £1000 for the 45 minute service.

I'd love to have the time to create a blog on which people could place their own experiences of good and bad venues. I'm told that in the UK a complete defence to a charge of libel is absolute truth so with that proviso maybe we could be offering a public service, naming the great and the ghastly.

Finally, Chris I think the rules are different here in the UK - as far as I'm aware whilst ordained pastors can perform in any church of their denomination, only civil ceremonies can be performed in other premises. These have to be licenced (ie specific rooms or locations, not just the XYZ Hotel) and I believe these ceremonies can only be performed by licenced registrars and assistant registrars and there can be no reference anywhere in the ceremony to any religion or belief, nor can any of the music played be considered "religious". This is, of course, a grey area - Pachelbel's Canon would seem to be OK but a registrar recently forbade the playing of Ave Maria.

Wow!! the rules are certainly different here!!! There are none of the old "registry office" weddings here and civil weddings are performed by authorised celebrants (I think a short training course and exam is what they do to get qualified) They are allowed to marry, christen, do funerals and even do commitment ceremonies (same sex marriages are not legal here)
They can use ANY venue they want to...reception/function centres, public parks (with council permission) and even your back garden. They indeed use religious music and can refer to Christian terminology during the ceremony to...more often than not readers will use biblical/religious text during the ceremony.

Any Minister of any Church can also do outdoor ceremonies..I have done beach weddings with a priest and park weddings with an Army Priest !!! Ministers can also use other denomination Churches for the ceremony so we have quite a neat and above all, harmonious setup here!!!

The main reason people use Churches nowdays is more for the architectural appeal of the building rather than it's religion.

I'm shooting a wedding in the morning with the bridal party on the edge of the putting green of one of our big golf clubs.

Chris

"Of course the Church of England has copyright over the words of the service and the Assistant Vicar has her own copyright over her homily..."

Sounds like a good reason to start a new country. Whoops, we already did that! ;-)

Wow!! the rules are certainly different here!!! There are none of the old "registry office" weddings here and civil weddings are performed by authorised celebrants (I think a short training course and exam is what they do to get qualified) They are allowed to marry, christen, do funerals and even do commitment ceremonies (same sex marriages are not legal here).........Chris

Boy...that's a lot of hoop jumping to just be able to marry some couple.

Become a minister and Get Ordained | Online Ordination | Online Church | Universal Life Church (http://www.themonastery.org/?destination=ordination)

You can just call me Reverend Chip now. :-)

If you encounter poor customer service in any other field you would complain to the manager so why not take this up with his bishop?

Of course the Church of England has copyright over the words of the serviceThe Book of Common Prayer is over four hundred years old I think this means that it is well out of copyright now.

Nigel, you make two points but both I think are a little inaccurate.

The Book of Common Prayer was published in 1662 (348 years ago) but most of the churches use much more recent versions (what my mother used to call "talking to God as if he was the postman or the butcher") and they're certainly in copyright.

Secondly, I'm less certain of the precise rules here, but I think that the practical decisions regarding the way the individual churches administer things like photographer's rights etc are in the mandate of the Parochial Church Council, the chairman of which is usually the Vicar.

I'm sure you're right about the upward line of responsibility being to the Bishop but but I think they would regard these matters as "local concerns".

Having said that I am co-author of a piece on this subject in one of the wedding magazines published recently; my hope is that the Church of England, the part which spends money on stands at wedding fairs, will respond and add their weight to a campaign based on mutual reasonableness (and if that isn't a word it ought to be!) I think we both have the responsibility to point out and thank those many excellent pastors who do their best to see that all interests are respected, to note those professional video and still people who behave with appropriate decorum and recognise the dignity of the occasion and to congratulate the vast majority of couples who recognise that parts of their wedding are serious emotional and legal ceremonies and that getting married isn't one giant chocolate fountain.

I have had a couple of issues this year. One, a female vicar, telling me in no uncertain terms that during this "solumn occassion" no sound will be allowed to be recorded whatsoever. This brought the bride to tears at rehearsal. Of course as soon as I got outside I told the bride not to worry and all would be well.

And only last week I had a bride, who had booked me a couple of months ago, phoned me to tell me that Sherborne Abbey wanted a further £300 from he because she was having a video. They said it was a performance copyright issue and that the organist wanted paying extra because his music was being recorded.

Rather than lose the booking ( she phoned to cancel) we met half way and I lowered my fee by £150.

Videographers are much better behaved in church than 90% of the photographers I know, ( who move about all service) yet we are the ones to get the grief.

I'm never surprised by these topics - what does surprise me is that people book a venue without shopping around for the best package - wedding (not video). People choose the church because it:
Looks pretty
Is in a suitable place
or any number of quite daft reasons.

In the old days, you got married at your own church. Now you get married in a photogenic venue that just happens to be a church. You make vows that are linked to religion, yet you have no intention of doing what you say, and when the vicar suspects you are going to turn his/her church into a secular activity, you can't blame them for being less than helpful. I've a strong suspicion that members of their congregation don't have these problems. Many people think they have some kind of right to behave however they like in any venue they pay for, as if the money means they can disrespect it freely. It doesn't.

Perhaps it would just be better for them to say no to wedding bookings, but I suspect that the income is handy.

If the vicar says no recording of the vows, I personally think it's unprofessional and morally crooked to do it in secret.

I rather the like the list of rules that tries to prevent people doing things the vicar listed - but weddings are business now, and seem to have little to do with the ceremonial elements.

I'm going to San Francisco for a wedding in a week or two, and there things are very different. A friend of the couple is taking out the license to perform the ceremony, and it will be an event designed by the bride and groom - only having the bits in it they want.

Seriously for a moment - isn't there a real law that prevents certain elements of a wedding (civil or religious) being recorded? Something to do with the signing of the register? I got married in 82 and although I had a video (one of the very first VHS portable recorders) the vicar allowed a posed section for video on photographer 'pretending' to sign the register, he wouldn't allow the actual signing to be recorded in any way. Didn't Charles and Diana's wedding also not feature the register being signed - that was done in a private room? I've heard registrars say the same thing. Obviously, many do allow it - but is there some legal issue here?

Paul, I'm not aware of any problems of the type you mention in the Chrch of England - I think Charles and Diana might be something exceptional.

What I do know is that Registrars are invariably very protective of the information - not of the bride and groom being married but of the other people whose details share the same page of the the documents. They seem to think Z1s and DS3s have lenses that can spot missing 4inch tiles on a Space Shuttle flying 25,000 miles above us and regard themselves (probably accurately in legal terms) as protectors of the data in the registers.

In the CofE there are no registrars of course (the minister has that legal right/responsibility) and frankly I've never had a problem. Mind you, we tend to consider the singing of the registers as primarily a photographing event and only cover it with video as a formality.

They seem to think Z1s and DS3s have lenses that can spot missing 4inch tiles on a Space Shuttle flying 25,000 miles above us

you mean they can't. Oh man I'm in trouble. :-(

I've had both very good and very bad experiences in C of E establishments. I've had one vicar in particular say to me..... "Where would you like me to stand?" Perfect :)

Another was an ex-rocker (he gets my vote for best vicar of the year), very funny, and was very helpful throughout the entire process.

Then there were a couple of troublesome ones that insisted on listening to the equipment (it's silent!) and telling the photographer that his 'click' would not be tolerated. We had to stand at the back with ONE camera (I sneaked two in) and not to move one inch from before the bride arrived until after they left. Then they turned on three different kinds of lighting (tungsten, and two different colours of fluorescent over the altar) in additional to the daylight through the windows. It's almost like they deliberately set out to screw with white balance ;)

A few weeks ago I had a problem in a Catholic church. We went to the rehearsal (as we always do), discussed the discreet positioning of all (4) cameras and the fact that we would not be moving at all during the ceremony (hence the use of 4 cameras) and that we fully understood that this was a solemn occasion etc etc. Having agreed everything on the "monday", when "saturday" came the priest stopped the ceremony as soon as the bride arrived at the alter and stated that for health and safety reasons we couldn't have a camera at the back of the isle and this was not what was agreed to "yesterday"! Arrgghh!

Another vicar (who was actually very helpful) told me stories of videographers creeping up behind him and sticking a camera over his shoulder during the vows and a photographer wanting to creep up the isle on a mechanics trolly so he could be UNDER the rings as they were exchanged ! These are the kind of people who get the rest of us a bad name :(

Another one said no video at all during the ceremony. The father of the bride told him that if it was good enough for the head of the C of E's (the Queen) children then it's good enough for his daughter. But, the vicar said they'd had too many bad experiences and he was not going to allow it. Fortunately we talked through the issues (mostly listening!) and eventually came round to allowing 3 cameras as long as no one moved (including the photographer).

Recently I've had more bad experiences with (less than professional) photographers just walking all over the place, click click click all through the vows. One that we had a couple of days ago was up and down the isle so much that he decided to walk back and take a picture of US filming and missed the first kiss. Not only did HE miss the first kiss but he also blocked our camera from seeing it! Arrgghh!! Fortunately the balcony camera got it, but it there had not been a balcony we would have missed it completely.

So, with all the unprofessional people around I can see why Vicars want to clamp down on people filming. As much as I completely hate large government and regulation, I really can see the benefit of some sort of code of practice or other regulation in this industry. It would be a sad day, but perhaps it would stop the weekend warriors with low ball pricing screwing with the market.

In terms of organists charging more for their services if it's being recorded, well, maybe it's to compensate for the embarrassment they feel when they hear how BAD their performance was. If I had a pound for every bum note I've heard from a church organist I'd be a very very rich man.

Interesting that you 'only cover it with video as a formality'. I consider the signing of the register to be a high point in the entire wedding process, the BCU of pen and ink on paper has great significance. To each his own of course. Good job we're all different.

Not to steer this too far off topic but I too view the signing of the document as... I don't know, boring. I almost never feature it in the highlights. If I got a decent shot of it I'll cut to that CU in the raw footage but I've never viewed it as something important to feature. Funny how our perceptions shape what we focus on during the course of the day.

Back on topic, overly strict churches are annoying but when they start talking about performance rights they've crossed the line into insanity.

Interesting that you 'only cover it with video as a formality'. I consider the signing of the register to be a high point in the entire wedding process, the BCU of pen and ink on paper has great significance. To each his own of course. Good job we're all different.

Tom, I don't disagree with you actually, it's just that most of the vicars and all of the registrars we've worked with over the past 3 years have forbidden any recording or photography of the actual registers on Data Protection Act grounds, because (as I'm sure you are aware but some non-UK readers may not know) the registers contain the details of more than one couple.

Thus the actual recording and photography is a set-up with the bride then the groom holding a pen with either no ink or certainly not "register" ink (ie permanent) above a blank piece of paper. If it was the actual register Tom, I'm with you.

Incidentally am I not right in thinking that anyone can buy a copy of a Birth, Death or Wedding Certificate on payment of a fee? In which case the DP objections are a load of bureaucratic obfuscation.

I consider the signing such an integral part of the entire day I will film it even if forbidden to do so. As I never have tally lights on my camera I can lean on my tripod, looking bored and looking the other way while still capturing the moment of marriage. If either of the couple decide not to sign, we can all go home; the deed is not done. Actually consummation seals the deal, but we'll leave that alone.

I have never had a church refuse me (so your 'most of the vicars' really surprises me Philip), and only about 50% of registrars at civil ceremonies flex their moment of power in this way. They never cover up the previous weddings signatures, so they obviously have no problem with everyone signing having a good look-see.

The Data Protection Act cover is nonsense because any one of the 150 congregation can ask to see the signed register. I'm just one of those, and I happen to have a visible camera. I'm often filming at an oblique angle, from the wrong way up, and with the BCU meaning very little is in frame apart from the pen nib and the ink it leaves behind.

tom.

Tom, I can only write as I find - maybe it's a regional thing!

I have had some good and some awkward vicars. But listening to some of these bad stories in this thread in comparison my experiences have been quite mild. I have attended, Anglican, Catholics, Church of England, methodist churches and 98% have been quite good and co-operative.

I remember one church I attended, where I was only allowed to record from the balcony at the back, but the photographer was not allowed to photograph anything during the whole service. He was allowed to come into the church after the service to take some shots. So in this instance the videographer was allowed to record the whole service albeit at the back, but not the photographer.

Anthony, I'd be pretty certain that your couple had paid the church for the privilege of having their wedding recorded, albeit from the back. They haven't found a way of charging for the photographers' presence in church yet.

I have had exactly the opposite experience to yours recently where video was prohibited during the service yet the couple were told by the priest to pose for the photographer as they exchanged rings; he turned them to the side.

One thing that we learn from this site is that that every wedding has it's own challenges.

That's true George but I think it's more than that.

For their part it seems to me it means that couples planning to get married in church can't necessarily trust the advice of the "Church" (the organisation) but must be advised to check out the individual parish's rules as early as possible; they should be encouraged to confirm in writing whatever the vicar says/agrees and include in that letter the fact that they are contracting photographer/videographer etc on the basis of that agreement.

For our part we should meet the clergy as early as the couple, ensure that we present the most professional image so that and fears or concerns the pastor has are allayed and on the day ensure that we stick by what we agree.

In the UK couples marrying in the CofE are no longer restricted to "their" parish church. Eventually, even if it's not apparent already, the parishes discouraging couples from marrying in church will show in the Church's own statistics, then perhaps they'll do something about the negativity.

Anthony, I'd be pretty certain that your couple had paid the church for the privilege of having their wedding recorded, albeit from the back. They haven't found a way of charging for the photographers' presence in church yet.


I'm not sure George what the arrangement were for the photographer, but I remember the photographer moaning to me afterwards about not been allowed into the church during the service.

A short clip when I was in the church on the balcony, even though a very small clip there is no sign of the photographer.

Video captured from Balcony of Church on Vimeo

Obviously it's not easy to see everything from a single angle Anthony but this is an instance when I think I'd understand any restrictions the church places on cameramen. Where exactly could you be sited which wouldn't be right on top of the couple? I know it's not everyone's solution but I think in this case I'd have suggested two remote control cameras on hotheads at the front and one on the balcony. Alternatively if we could only use the balcony I'd have put two cameras at the extreme ends taking three-quarter rear close ups of the couple and one overview camera in the centre.

I have to say though that if the space is as limited as it looks this is one instance when I'd ask the couple if they realise the limitations of their choice of church.

Finally you don't say whether the photographer visited the church before the day and talked to the vicar. If not I think he had only himself to blame. Not recceing a job is simply unprofessional.

Yes Phillip space is a problem in this church and you can understand why the vicar wanted the recording done from the balcony.
This was no problem as the couple faced each other during the vows and we were able to easily zoom in.
No equipment was allowed at all and the front of the church, so we had to make do with the balcony.

But it was the restrictions on the Photographer.
I don't know if the photographer had seen the vicar previously to speak to her and no idea why the photographer was not allowed to take any shots until after the service was finished.
He just moaned to me afterwards outside the church that I was allowed to record the service and he had to wait until after the service was finished to take his shots and some of his shots were rearranged
as though the service was still on. (which makes me think that he must have known something about the restriction before he arrived)

Sounds to me as if the priest was saying no flash, not no photography. That shouldn't bother anyone with a modern DSLR, though the zoom range needed to capture closeups from the balcony could be harder for stills than video.

I wonder if the new Sony Alpha SLRs are quieter in operation, now that they have fixed mirrors? I've worked alongside some Nikon-toting pros up near the alter and the clacking of their mirrors and shutters is very annoying. So why do they come stand right next to me when then can see I've got a mic on top of my camera? I've had to use sign language to point this all out to them.

tom.

I think Tom's almost certainly right. The fact is that, as we know but other seem not to always, the video cameramen is recording sound as well as pictures and must be silent. On the other hand the clack-clack of DLSR shutters (which isn't necessary anyway), is always intrusive.

This sort of photography always seems to me to be the mark of an inexperienced or young photographer; if they're old enough to remember when each shot meant a frame of film to be bought and processed (at the very least) they're more circumspect about shooting un-planned, unframed, un-composed shots on the basis that 1 in 50 might be saleable.

If they want to record 25 frames a second why not become a video cameraman - and that's where, I personally believe this is heading.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

canon pellix - Google Search (http://www.google.co.uk/images?rlz=1T4GGLM_en___GB254&q=canon+pellix&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=6yazTLzOLNS5jAf2vKF3&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CDMQsAQwAw&biw=993&bih=562)

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.

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.

...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.

...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.

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!

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.

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.