andy_hay Posted January 13, 1999 Share Posted January 13, 1999 Hi. Does anyone know of any sources for sound-proof camera housings for use in at-nest photography, or for that matter has anyone made use of them? They are sometimes used by stills photographers on movie sets I believe, and when used on cine cameras they might be known as 'blimps' or 'barneys' (a web-search on the latter brought up numerous sites relating to a certain purple dinosaur!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_haapavirta Posted January 13, 1999 Share Posted January 13, 1999 I have no personal experience, but B. Moose Peterson describes those devices and their usage in his book "Nikon Guide to Wildlife Photograpy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted January 13, 1999 Share Posted January 13, 1999 Here you go: Jacobson Instruments Mark Jacobson 11491 Chandler Blvd. North Hollywood, CA 91601 818.752.7910 fax: 818.752.7913 <p> I have used blimps for shooting on movie sets and during symphonic performances. To the human ear, they ae dead quiet from 18 inches away. You need to talk with Mark about your specific cameras and lenses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_hay Posted January 14, 1999 Author Share Posted January 14, 1999 Thanks very much for the info guys. Ellis: what kind of camera were you using within the blimp - does the blimp allow you full control? How bulky/heavy is it, and would it allow the use of remote releases and attachment to a tripod? How expensive are they - and does anyone know of any outlets in the United Kingdom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted January 14, 1999 Share Posted January 14, 1999 Andy, you really need to talk with Mark Jacobson about your needs but re: your last post. I was using a Nikon N90s, with these lenses: 20mm AF, 35mm AF, 85mm f/1.8 AF, 180mm f/2.8 AF, and a 300mm f/2.8 manual. The blimp comes in two parts, a body and interchangable lens tube, it is not I believe, waterproof. I used mine (rented from Jacobson's) in AF & aperture priority mode. You have to take the camera out of the housing to change film. It works best with cameras with a high eyepoint viewfinder. The blimp is configured differently for different cameras. You have access to shutter release, AF lock, and AE lock. Cost was about US$700.00. The body blimp is opaque (black PVS) and lined with foam conforming to the specific camera body. You fire the camera via a trigger button about where you'd expect one to be. This button connnects via cable to your remote socket on the camera. the overall size is about that of a shoebox, I cant recall if there is a tripod socket, but as these things are custom made, why not? The lenstube is capped in front with a removable glass cap. Have you tried any of the big film production or professional rental houses in London? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_hay Posted January 14, 1999 Author Share Posted January 14, 1999 Thanks Ellis. Sounds like a pretty well-designed piece of kit, but it must be a bit of a monster with a 300 2.8 on the front! I should think at that sort of price rental, or attempting to build my own might be the best options. It's good to talk to someone who's actually used one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted January 14, 1999 Share Posted January 14, 1999 Well actually there is no lens tube for the 300mm lens. I detatched the tube from the body and stuffed a padded Domke wrap around the lens barrel to dampen the sound somewhat., a lot still comes out of the end of the lens strangely enough. you should rent first and see if it works for you before buying one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted January 14, 1999 Share Posted January 14, 1999 I'm just wondering why you need a blimp for nest photography? What sort of equipment are you using and how close are you to the nest? While minimizing impact on the birds is (or should be) the #1 priority of any photographer doing such work, the noise of the camera is typically fairly low on the list of sources of disturbance. Just being there is #1 by a long shot, followed by the use of flash, with shutter noise being a distant 3rd (assuming you're not using a Pentax 67!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_hay Posted January 15, 1999 Author Share Posted January 15, 1999 What I had in mind Bob was using a 35mm body with a wide-angle lens attached, fired remotely. Using a wide-angle would necessitate the camera being within a yard or so of a smaller bird: the idea being to get 'bird on nest within breeding habitat' - the wide-angle being set to a small aperture and at hyperfocal setting in order to get as much of the environment focussed as possible - the complete opposite of the telephoto treatment of nest photography. The shutter could be tripped either by using a long electronic remote cable with extension or via an infra-red/radio transmitter/receiver from a hide/blind at some distance. To some extent disturbance to the bird is reduced by the fact that the bulky hide looming on the skyline is further away than might otherwise be the case, although no doubt the bird will still be perturbed by the arrival of a small box on it's doorstep. And no doubt this box has to be introduced gradually in the same way that a hide is: during the process of moving the camera in it would no doubt be possible to get the bird used to the sound of the shutter by occasionally firing the camera empty. Of course some species are more or less sensitive to noise than others - likewise even individuals within a species, and it is amazing what birds will get used to, particularly if there's no obvious source (e.g the 'crash, tinkle' of someone dropping a teleconverter INSIDE their hide, and the associated muttered curses! Hypothetically). But as you say, the major priority is to minimalise disturbance, particularly to a nesting bird with eggs/young, and if it's possible to reduce noise, why not? Other advantages of using some kind of blimp might be that you could camouflage it to reduce visual impact for the bird, and so that it doen't attract unwanted attention to either the nest or the camera. Also it would of course be a bonus if it in some way weather-proofed the equipment. Of course this is by no means a new technique - I'm sure it must have been tried by yourself or one of your subscribers before? In fact it was suggested by Ilkka that Moose has made use of it (I haven't yet seen the book in question). I have previously attempted to improvise an amateurish kind of blimp by adapting the polystyrene block packaging that each camera body arrives in, wrapping the whole in camo tape and trying to break up the resulting boxy outline with rocks. The sound insulation was surprisingly poor (witness Ellis's last posting about lens tubes). I deposited the gizmo at a known wader/shorebird roost when the birds were away feeding (not having the luxury of time needed to move it in gradually). The body was an F4 set to 'continuous silent'. The birds clustered around it, but at a slight distance (evidence that the visual impact was a little too sudden or great) - just a little further away than I had hoped for! When the shutter was tripped they moved further away (audible impact), although it didn't create panic. Perhaps with time they would have habituated, but I would rather not have created even that small stir. Manufacture of blimps is obviously something of an art, hence my questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted January 15, 1999 Share Posted January 15, 1999 Sounds like an interesting project. A couple of thoughts come to mind. First would be a digital camera. No shutter, no mirror, no winder. Very, very quiet. The trouble would be finding one that could be fired remotely, had the right lens, could be "fix focused" etc. Second would be a Leica M6! Very quiet, but I'm not sure how loud the autowind would be... <p> Given you want a wide angle lens, I'd have thought that putting the whole thing in a box would do the trick, given enough insulation. You don't need the ergonomic features of a blimp if you are triggering remotely. <p> Good Luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_hay Posted January 15, 1999 Author Share Posted January 15, 1999 Interesting points there about using a digi - I'll file that in my memory banks! Yes you're right about not needing full access to the camera body in that particular case, but I might also have use for a blimp for photographing alongside a film crew on occasion (and would then need those handling capabilities), and it would be handy to have something that would double-up. As I said before, it was great to hear from Ellis who's actually used one - the wonders of the www! I've had no joy on the British Journal of Photography's bulletin board as yet! Thanks y'all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_macpherson Posted January 16, 1999 Share Posted January 16, 1999 Andy - try this before you spend a lot of time or money. Dont know if it will be ideal but it WILL be a starting point. Go to your nearest wetsuit manufacturer and ask to be given (or offer to buy) their offcuts and scraps of neoprene wetsuit material. I asked and gave some prints in return - folks were happy to have nice wildlife on the wall. Anyway - the neoprene material is easily cemented together with cans of black goop which the wetsuit folks can sell you. The neoprene comes in various thicknesses up to 1cm (and possibly thicker?), and the cement will STICK really well making neat tight joints. You can create all manner of shapes with various holes and whatever for bodies, and long tubes for lenses, made up from bits and pieces of the neoprene. I made a body cover for my F4s to use when stalking deer and otters as I was able to get so close that the camera shutter/winder was a disturbance, and the neoprene cover helped dampen the sound. The camera body cover also had the advantage of stopping the condensation from my breath freezing on the camera back in sub-zero winter weather during windy snowy days on the Scottish hills, and keeping the batteries working longer. I imagine you could layer a few skins of this material with something to create a custom case that keeps out weather and keeps in noise. For the cost of a can of cement it might be worth a try. Good luck. JOHN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_hay Posted January 18, 1999 Author Share Posted January 18, 1999 Thanks John, that sounds like a great idea - I'm all for something that might save $700! Did you get down to the 'inaudible to the human ear at more than 18" ' noise level? What sort of thickness did you use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_macpherson Posted January 19, 1999 Share Posted January 19, 1999 Andy - I used the 7mm variety, which is thick enough to give a good sticking joint, but not so thick it becomes unwieldy in use or difficult to shape to the body - bearing in mind I wanted to handhold the thing. I also cut several holes to allow fingers access to various controls. You might not need all that accessibility so can make it less holey (and maybe more silent). A wodge around the lens in your case will help cut the sound too. As for the amount of sound decrease in decibels - I have no idea! All I know is it worked reasonably well; and if you are doing a static setup it will probably be possible to make a thicker one that is VERY quiet, either by using thicker material or layering the stuff. Worth a try I think as it will cost you less than #5 for the cement, and a couple of hours of your time. Got to be worth it! JOHN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_hay Posted January 20, 1999 Author Share Posted January 20, 1999 Thanks for the info John. It sounds like you're talking about butting edges up rather than just overlaps? I think I might try something that caters for both situations, if possible: make up one of your 'holey' blimps that'll just drop into a box with even more sound-proofing. Full Rubber Jacket! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_macpherson Posted January 20, 1999 Share Posted January 20, 1999 Hi Andy - yes - the joints are BUTTED. DO NOT overlap them as the cement will not stick to the fabric covering. If you want to strengthen the joint you can stitch it with nylon thread - the fabric allows this. It also allows the sewing on of velcro so you can have an easy way of fastening the thing closed. JOHN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_hay Posted January 22, 1999 Author Share Posted January 22, 1999 Thanks John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thakurdalipsingh Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 good practical info even I was looking for similar thing for similar project. Photo.net is best forum for adsvice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now