>> |
Anonymous
>>84393 I do. If you're doing studio work, landscapes, macros or other abstracts, sports photography, wildlife photography, then yeah, it doesn't matter. If you're doing candid portraits, street photography, or other types of documentary work, the quieter a shutter the better, all other things being equal. They're not, in this case, but it still is a powerful factor to consider.
>>84396 A huge number of shots per second is awfully nigh useless for anyone except sports and wildlife photographers, and even they don't need it as much as they think they do.
Live view on a DSLR is only really usable for tripod work, where it's actually a huge improvement over stooping down into the viewfinder. But try walking around holding a DSLR with, say, a 70-200 f/2.8 attached to it out in front of your face all the time. Not even desirable with a fifty on it, or even on those tiny digicams where it's the only option. Only use I see for walkaround is if it has a swiveling screen, to use as a waist level finder, but only the new Panasonic DSLR has that. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
>I'm quite serious. I want a loud-ass camera that lets you hear each machination of it's gears and cogs. I want to know I'm using a machine, not a mobile phone
Then buy a Leica M, a camera coincidentally praised both for the sensual mechanical feel and the quiet shutter. Eatable cake.
|