best sub $1k all arounder for camerman/DP?

[Jim Feeley]

If you hang with the sound mixers, all of the mics we are discussing are old hat. They are all gaga over the DPA 4017b these days. About the same cost as the Schoeps CMC641 but it is a shotgun. http://www.dpamicrophones.com/microphones/ddicate/4017b-shotgun-microphone

The DPA 4017b and 4017c both seem pretty cool. And the narrative guys and gals are digging it. But I'm still waiting to see how it holds up in the uncontrolled and rushed world I work in. I mean, how much can I bash on it and still have it working? That's pretty much the only question and we'll probably soon know that they're just fine. Well that, and do I need (as opposed to want) one?

There's also the Schoeps miniCMIT. It's SOOO cute http://www.schoeps.de/en/products/minicmit



I've probably posted that before. But you know, in the audio world we get to see new great mics with much less frequency than do the picture folks see new cameras. So we get all atwitter...

 

[ggrantly]

Indiawild,

This is how I do it, the 302 is mounted with HD velcro strips. If needed, I can piggyback my 744 on top and go second sound if need be. This is so much easier than trying to ride levels on the side of a cam. I can be framing the cam and just glance down slightly and know what my audio is doing unlike reading the hokey-pokey levels on a cam LCD. And, you get the bonus of feeding line level to cam; better preamps on the 302 and bypass the pres on cam. The arm is still marketed by Manfrotto, though they might have dropped the little shelf from production. At worst case, a sheet metal shop can bend one up from aluminum and add a baby receiver to the bottom. I did this for my laptop which is quite a bit larger.

Grant

Crap, the attachment editor flipped my photo. Not sure just how to rotate it, I'll leave that to you all.

Can you show your set up where you hang the 302 on the tripod? I am trying to explore the possibility of hanging the SD702 off my tripod and feeding the camera in certain situations. So later I comeback and replace it with the recorded sound from 702.

 

[Jim Feeley]

That's a pretty cool solution, Grant.

 

[cpreston]

I only owned the Sanken CS3e briefly for some tests and interviews, but I thought it was a fantastic mic. If I was to own just one mic, that would be it. But, I also own a Schoeps 641, CMIT5u, and Rode NTG3. The 641 sounds better, the CMIT5u is lighter, and the NTG3 is impervious. Even so, the CS3e was the best all arounder. It sounds better than the CMIT5u indoors, it is more directional than the 641, and it has better off axis response than the NTG3.

Also, I think the preamps on the Canon cinema cameras are just fine. I really can't tell the difference as long as the gain is between 5 and 7. The only problem is that it is impossible to ride the levels at all and the limiter is useless. I use a mixpre-d or Pix-e with LR when I need better control of the levels when recording direct to camera.

 

[puredrifting]

I only owned the Sanken CS3e briefly for some tests and interviews, but I thought it was a fantastic mic. If I was to own just one mic, that would be it. But, I also own a Schoeps 641, CMIT5u, and Rode NTG3. The 641 sounds better, the CMIT5u is lighter, and the NTG3 is impervious. Even so, the CS3e was the best all arounder. It sounds better than the CMIT5u indoors, it is more directional than the 641, and it has better off axis response than the NTG3.

Also, I think the preamps on the Canon cinema cameras are just fine. I really can't tell the difference as long as the gain is between 5 and 7. The only problem is that it is impossible to ride the levels at all and the limiter is useless. I use a mixpre-d or Pix-e with LR when I need better control of the levels when recording direct to camera.

They are probably better sounding that the average camera but that's not saying much since from an audio perspective, most cameras sound like garbage. Ever edit RED footage and try to use the in-camera audio, it's usually pretty bad. When I A/B between the Canon C100/C300 pre-amps and a Sound Devices 633 with the same material, on good headphones or my Genelecs, there is no comparison. The Canon preamps are far noisier, more harsh, less smooth and sound more processed, and have much lower s/n ratio and dynamic range. When you consider that in the overall cost of the camera, the entire audio sections of the C Series cameras probably costs Canon just a few dollars, I know for a fact that on a $3,300.00 SD mixer recorder, Sound Devices spends a much, much larger percentage of the overall build cost specifically on their transparent pre-amps and DSP. Whether or not the average producer or camera person can tell is questionable but the average pro sound mixer can tell after the first second. But as we all know, audio is all about diminishing returns so for a lot of lower end to mid-level budgeted productions, the Canon audio is acceptable, not good. I would say on more than half of the projects I shoot with pro sound mixers, the editors are either too lazy or just don't care to sync and use the good quality audio that the sound mixer recorded instead of the sub-par mix sent to camera via wireless hop. It takes extra time, money and effort to sync up dual system audio and often, it doesn't happen.

 

[indiawilds]

Indiawild,

This is how I do it, the 302 is mounted with HD velcro strips. If needed, I can piggyback my 744 on top and go second sound if need be. This is so much easier than trying to ride levels on the side of a cam. I can be framing the cam and just glance down slightly and know what my audio is doing unlike reading the hokey-pokey levels on a cam LCD. And, you get the bonus of feeding line level to cam; better preamps on the 302 and bypass the pres on cam. The arm is still marketed by Manfrotto, though they might have dropped the little shelf from production. At worst case, a sheet metal shop can bend one up from aluminum and add a baby receiver to the bottom. I did this for my laptop which is quite a bit larger.

Grant

Crap, the attachment editor flipped my photo. Not sure just how to rotate it, I'll leave that to you all.

Thanks Grant! I think I have that manfrotto arm. If you can let me know what that tray is called (or part no.) then it would be of help. Else, I will have to get something fabricated or just attach a manfrotto quick release to a ply board. I find it a challenge to ride the levels in the Canon C series cameras so this would be a help.

 

[ggrantly]

Thanks Grant! I think I have that manfrotto arm. If you can let me know what that tray is called (or part no.) then it would be of help. Else, I will have to get something fabricated or just attach a manfrotto quick release to a ply board. I find it a challenge to ride the levels in the Canon C series cameras so this would be a help.

As I mentioned, I think Manfrotto no longer offers that small shelf, though ferreting through there catalogue can be challenging. You could use something like a baby plate with a female receiver like this. The 6" length is a little shorter than the 7" 302, but it would still work OK. You could always add sheet metal to the top of it.


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/570226-REG/Avenger_F301_F301_Baby_Wall_Plate.html

Regards,
Grant

 

[indiawilds]

Thanks a ton Grant! And thanks OSCURO for finding the exact link. I am getting that tray. This will be a big help.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

 

[ggrantly]

Found it...

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/553998/Manfrotto_311_311_Video_Monitor_Holder.html

Tray dimensions: 7 x 11.5"
SD702: 8.2 x 4.9"

Solid tip Grant. I'll grab one myself.

Good find on that, I looked all over the BH site without success. Note that the link is for a used one, but they have new as well.

While using a mixer in addition to a cam might seem to add a layer of complexity to production, it really makes things easier. Putting the audio meters and controls in a place where you can easily see and reach them is a huge advantage over trying to deal with a couple of hard to reach pots on the side of the cam. Improving the audio quality is a bonus.