A noob question about stealth camera.

btgc said:
If no logo or lettering is a thing helping pros, camera companies long ago would be offering special "clean body" runs for them. For much higher price,
Click to expand...

Would they? Pros never really were a profitable market for special editions - where the makers did them, they did so to establish or maintain their market position, not for extra profit. At least back then, Nikon did not charge extra for their press modified body runs. Those that sold in bulk to agencies or with a association rebate were even cheaper than the regular camera store F3, and the regular press card carrying PJs merely paid list price for them. The only ones that ever paid outrageous prices for them were collectors - but these bought them second hand.
 
I carefully taped out the logo on my black Olympus OM-1 once, trying to make it look as if the logo just wasn't there, without the tape too visible - and it looked awesome, completely different look to the camera. I've removed it a couple of days later though. Might repeat it sometime, I kind of liked it. Not to pretend the camera is something it isn't, just the different appearance of it - completely black (ok, with some brassing on the corners) rather black with a contrasting white element on it.
 
nightfly said:
Some people, myself included don't like logos on anything. I already bought the thing, I don't need to continue being an advertisement for it. Looks sort of garish and tacky to me.

Also it keeps other photographers from asking questions or talking about your gear on the street. No one else really know or cares about a Leica logo.

And I do find it less conspicuous having a matte black box with nothing to reflect the light or catch someones eye.

It's your camera do whatever you like.
Click to expand...

+1

Although, I do agree with previous comments about it just being some kind of a trend for many and that your photographic behaviour will attract or disguise you more than white lettering or a red dot

If anyone here ever did street photography in the DTES in Vancouver, they would do a hell of a lot more than taping their camera to ghettoize it. A dented hood, imperfect finish, broken in leather strap and some tape takes away any indication that you have $3000 in your hand.
 
I do tape the logos of all my cameras.
I've paid the full price, so why should I walk advertisement for the companys?
 
My take as well.

On average, I think chrome/silver cameras, my preference, are slightly more conspicuous than black cameras, but not in a way that's significant in the real world. A chrome/silver finish = old or vintage to almost all non-photographers as well as most photographers under 40. Otherwise, in my experience (purely anecdotal, of course, but I'm not aware of any scientific studies), people react more to the shape & size of the camera than any logo. TLRs & folders are the best examples, as everyone knows them as "grampa cameras." Similarly, I've had many people over the years ask whether my non-Leica rangefinders were "Leicas" even though they're clearly marked otherwise (think "Zeiss Ikon" or "Nikon" or "Kodak") & I've even had a few think a Leica was a "Pentax" (probably K1000).

Camera nerds who recognize Leicas, Nikon RFs, Hasselblads, etc., will come up to you even if your cameras are taped up. I've seen this happen to many of my friends who have covered their red dots & other Leica markings. Indeed, it seems camera nerds are precisely the type of people who are more likely to obscure logos because they're hyper-aware of what they're carrying around & worship PJs who do the black tape thing.

daveleo said:
If you're in a battle zone and reflections off your camera may get you shot, I can understand blacking out the chrome, and whatever else may reflect light.

I think blacking out your camera to be "stealthy" on the street ( among 50 other people with cellphone cameras, P&S, huge DSLR's, cars taxis and buses, crowds scurrying about) is kind of a questionable practice.

Covering a logo so a thief won't steal the camera ? . . . please !
Click to expand...
 
Muggins said:
It seems to be a particular affliction of Leica owners
Click to expand...

Screw logos. I don't like 'em on cameras, clothes, or anything else. I prefer items lacking logos or with sedate ones. Where possible I remove or obscure them.

Why on earth would I willingly serve as some company's walking billboard? I'm the company's client, not the reverse.
 
semilog said:
Screw logos. I don't like 'em on cameras, clothes, or anything else. I prefer items lacking logos or with sedate ones. Where possible I remove or obscure them.

Why on earth would I willingly serve as some company's walking billboard? I'm the company's client, not the reverse.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way personally, especially with clothing items. I make it a point to never purchase anything that clearly displays a company logo or words. of course then one could question why you would spend money on a more expensive brand and not just get some no name item for cheaper… but there are indeed a few places left in this world where a particular brand does in fact mean better quality, not just higher cost. that same sentiment carries over into my cameras. but as someone who (although not full time works for the newspaper and has done some documentary photography, I have found that it does indeed help me positively to cover up the white logos on my black cameras. it more often than not, completely keeps people from asking about my equipment and helps me to get better engagement with my subjects. of course on some occasions it has the opposite effect, so it isn’t full proof.

oddly enough, when I’m using my personal photography film cameras, that are all much older than me, i just don’t seem to care at all. the bright white lettering on my black spotmatic, or the ‘kodak’ and ‘retina’ or ‘rollei’ etc. plastered all over my cameras, simply doesn’t bother me. quite the opposite in fact.
 
On the second day I went out with my brand new (chrome) M2, somebody came up to me and said : "Hey, that's a leica; it's an M2, and is that a summicron?"

The M2 is blank, on the front at least...

I like the 'no logo' thinking, I avoid logos like the pest. But it is hard to avoid recognition of iconic objects.

I heard of people putting a beetle body on their porsche, but to do the same with a leica, you would have to worm the workings into a zorki6 or fed3 body (and machine a new top plate to accomodate the windows), and some people would still come up and ask: "Is that a leica?" Happened to me with a fed2.

But if I had a red dot leica, I would go to quite some lengths to get rid of the dot. It is much too conspicuous. Even a mickey mouse dot would be better. (I quite like the 'Jack' M6)
 
kyonthinh said:
Hello,
I'm sorry about this question, but i am curious. I am somehow new to photography, so my experience is not much. I see people make their camera stealth by hiding the manufacturer and camera name. What is it for? Why must they do that? Is that necessary?
Have a nice weekend everyone.
Click to expand...

If you are really well known (very few can say that) you can try to ask camera companies to give you free gear in change of taking that piece of tape away and use you as a testimonial for their cameras.

GLF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bulevardi
Talent vs Skills — where’s the magic coming from?
2
Replies
28
Views
880
chuckroast
C
G
Looking for a new compact camera with 50mm lens
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Archiver
A
T
A (possibly) unusual question about out-of-date film...
Replies
8
Views
737
Freakscene
Freakscene
S
Need help finding a flash thats easy to use outdoor fill flash on the Mamiya 7
Replies
0
Views
143
sevynmorte
S
Jamie Pillers
One camera, one lens?
2 3
Replies
48
Views
2K
38Deardorff
38Deardorff
Back
Top Bottom