5D New firmware - is on-camera sound now an option?

B

bervy

New member
Hi, with the new 5D firmware - no more AGC - could I record audio on-camera via a DXA-SLR or Juicedlink? The H4n option while no doubt great quality is, for me, a real PITA. Not only to have to post sync sound but it is an extra thing to worry about on location, which when working quickly is something else that you can forget to switch on or off whatever.

My options seem to be:

Juicedlink C211 with the DN101
Beachtek DXA-SLR
Beachtek DXA-5Da

The juicedlink offers level metering and headphones, but is not very elegant with the bolt-on DN101 (why can't he make a pre-amp that has those features??)

The DXA-5Da looks like the perfect solution, but as pointed out in a review it covers the camera battery compartment, which could be a major pain if you need to change batteries mid shoot.

The DXA-SLR looks good - headphone socket but no VU meters. It has a peak indicator instead. I'm guessing the VU meters were ditched to allow a smaller case that didn't cover the cameras battery compartment (see above).

Comments? Anyone used either of the Beachtek units?
 
In "normal" situations for docu, news, reports, EFP/ENG stuff. Sound is recorded on camera, by using a portable mixer (such like SQN, sounddevices).

Things like Juicedelink, Beachtek is good to have if your mixer explodes (which I mean, when it doesn't want to do what it has to do). So you have a backup.
 
Is the Zoom that much better than the Beachtek?

Is the Zoom that much better than the Beachtek?

I'm wondering too what people really think of the DXA-5Da.

Yes. It's a given that using the Zoom H4N will give superior sound - but how superior? Is it something only audiophiles would notice?

With my DVX100b (for example) I always record audio in camera. Does the Beachtek produce similar quality, or is there something I'm missing?

I shoot mostly interviews, documentary work, etc. Considering the Zoom is an awkward piece of gear, I'd appreciate a reality-check from someone who has used both.

Thanks.

Peter
 
JordanBlock said:
Offtopic, and maybe it's just me, but I equate 'audiophile' with the sort of folks that buy things like cable Monster Cables, CD demagnetizers and little tiny telephone poles to lift speaker wire off the ground.
Click to expand...


lol. :)

I use the term "audiophile" to describe those colleagues of mine who live and
breath audio every day. They have a different way of evaluating the quality of
audio, which for the layman might sometimes be too critical.

For example, I can't tell the difference between an MP3 audio file and a WAV.
But many can, and will argue that one is superior. Which it is of course, on
paper and to the professionally trained ear.

My question regarding Beachtek is based on how good the audio quality us in
comparison to a Zoom. If it's night and day, forget it. But if only a trained audio
engineer can tell the difference, the Beachtek (or similar) is the better choice in
my opinion.

Looking forward to everyone's thoughts.

Peter
 
it all depends in "what do I use for what purpose".

If it's for theatrical screenings, then the best is to use good quality equipment.
As sound is put quite loud there, and quality speakers (should) are used.
People won't define that a sound is MP3, or is recorded with a 5$ recorder, but they will hear... something... something weird.

If it's a commercial and the client is happy... and he/she pays you.. don't worry then.
Commercials = urning money

If it's for website stuff....don't worry about quality.
 
Thanks Dre83.

Though "weird" is not necessarily the answer I was looking for, it is consistent with other posts. I'm not shooting features, but I am shooting documentaries for broadcast and high-end corporate video. For those projects it seems the Beachtek is unacceptable.

I think I'll do the obvious and go rent both for a day. That should answer my questions.

Thanks for everyone's input.

Peter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top