looking for $300 mic and $200ish recorder to have good audio straight into my dslr?

[ggrantly]

Greg, I couldn't have said it better.

And as I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, I really prefer the older generation meters. I'm really not a luddite on upgrading gear, but whatever modest improvement has been made in the audio section of any of the new recorders isn't very important because the older generation of SD gear is plenty good enough. Anyone not agree with that? The newer generation might have a few more features, weigh less, or even cost less to buy new. But it would take some pretty fancy talkin' to convince me that my older generation SD gear can no longer cut ice.

And as far as comparing SD gear to the Tascams and Zooms of the world, no doubt SD has some serious competition especially among the very budget conscious shooters. The last 10 years has seen huge improvements in the low end recorders. I have owned multiple models of both Zoom and Tascam and still have Tascam stuff for my backup gear. I prefer the Tascam stuff, but in this class of gear, it is a Ford Chevy comparison. But neither of them is anywhere near the build quality of SD, not even close. Build quality matters to me, especially for my most important gear. My older SD stuff is really built, not anything like the little cheapo plastic box recorders.

So I think both the 302 and MixPre are still relevant for their intended task. When possible, I use a 302 in front of a video cam, and for my needs couldn't be happier with the way it works in the field. And if I really want dual system audio, that's a bigger production.

 

[Greg Smith]

I will say that the MixPre-6 appears to be a robust and sturdy little box, upholding the Sound Devices tradition in that respect. It's all metal (other than the LCD screen, of course), with high quality connectors and controls, and about as solid as could be for something of its size. That, and the quality preamps and limiters, were the reasons I chose it over the competing Zoom and Tascam recorders at the time. (I've owned a lot of Tascam gear in the past as well - good and serviceable equipment, but not mil-spec rugged like the SD boxes.)

While I'm sure the circuitry in the newer devices is in some respects "better" than those of the recent past, mainly in terms of simplicity, compactness and economy, I can't actually hear any sonic differences between my older and newer SD mixers in actual field recording situations. As you say, they're all more than good enough. Once you're using high quality preamps and limiters of any reasonably modern design, differences in microphones, their placement, and background noise totally swamp any minor effects from the electronics.

- Greg

 

[paulears]

The thing is that the idea for miking the talent with a cheap clip on lav will produce better audio than a short shotgun of any price aimed but unmanned from a distance. Just how it is. If you are getting mechanical noises from the lav, most can be cured by changing how you fix them, grill down, for example often stops hair falling onto the grill, and prevents some of the breath noises some people create. isolating the cable by threading through the clip stops most of the cable transmitted noise - shotguns are never a step up in quality, they're a tool for specific jobs where nothing else beats them.

 

[IronFilm]

A boom on a C stand can help you position it just an inch out of frame for interviews

 

[Noiz2]

I stepped away from the keyboard, but... paulears kind of makes the point. Don't blame the tool if you haven't learned how to use it. Lavs don't make noise on their own, they make noise because you didn't place them where you should. Since I didn't come in to this interning to a great production recordist I payed some dough to find out how to properly lav someone. It is not rocket science but it is also not completely obvious. Do some research there are really good videos on laf technique.

Kind of like you can not place a camera just anywhere and expect software to correct that it wasn't pointed at the subject, you can not just point a mic at a random point and expect software to fix it. Film is a TEAM sport. In certain circumstances, mostly R&G and non narrative, you can cheat (a bit). But as a rule no, you can not. You NEED a crew. And the crew needs a clue.

 

[brettsherman]

If you want to primarily feed your A7III, I would recommend the Sony XLR-K2M. That way you can use any microphone and phantom power it also. And it's powered by the camera hotshoe. While you wouldn't have a secondary recording it's just a much simpler, and reliable setup. Something to think about anyways.

 

[brettsherman]

shotguns are never a step up in quality, they're a tool for specific jobs where nothing else beats them.

I don't think I agree with this, in fact I think the opposite is true. I always find the audio quality of lavaliers lacking. For me shotguns always deliver superior results. True, you have to get it within 2 feet of the person talking, but that's not difficult in an interview situation. But I find they sound more realistic and have better "cut" than lavaliers. I've basically stopped using lavaliers except in cases where the subject is moving and it's difficult (if not impossible) to follow them with a shotgun. So to me the lavalier is more of a specialty item.

 

[Noiz2]

I don't think I agree with this, in fact I think the opposite is true. I always find the audio quality of lavaliers lacking. For me shotguns always deliver superior results. True, you have to get it within 2 feet of the person talking, but that's not difficult in an interview situation. But I find they sound more realistic and have better "cut" than lavaliers. I've basically stopped using lavaliers except in cases where the subject is moving and it's difficult (if not impossible) to follow them with a shotgun. So to me the lavalier is more of a specialty item.

You have taken that a bit out of context. You are talking about a boomed shotgun and what he was talking about was the idea that sticking a shotgun on a fixed stand or camera mount VS a lav.

I mostly agree with your point with an asterisk. That being the best sounding mic is pretty much always the one you can get close enough and place correctly. A lot of lavs have a high boost to compensate for being hidden under clothing, those lave really need to be covered or corrected in post because if not they end up kind of harsh. On the flip side mics that were designed not to be hidden will sound muffled if put under clothing. Sound quality is also very location dependant, a good sounding lav can sound bad if placed in the wrong spot.

So while lavs are inherently "inferior" due to their much smaller capsule which limits frequency response and ups the self noise, they often sound quite good. But you do need to use the right tool for the job.