recordingwhiz
Well-known member
I'm not down on ML at all, all I'm saying is that most T2i users aren't willing to risk a "hack" , that is a reflection on the users, NOT ML.
I do agree that the ML "Hack" (and that is what it is), does offer several useful tools. however it doesn't change the fact that were discussing the AUDIO portion of a T2i not ISO or zebras.
and no matter how you paint it, with the T2i, separate audio IS the best way to go for film making.
safe? well that is relative to the technical capabilities of the user.
try to get it fixed under warranty after one gets turned into a brick after a failed attempt at the "hack" , then the poor user is out his very valuable hard earned cash. that is what will keep a lot of people from "hacking" their T2i.
those are the very real fears of people not willing to risk their new shiny $800 film making dream tool. whether its relatively safe or not , the "hack" voids manufacturers warranty.
and Im not trying to be down on ML at all, its an option , NOT the best solution (for audio)
I do agree that the ML "Hack" (and that is what it is), does offer several useful tools. however it doesn't change the fact that were discussing the AUDIO portion of a T2i not ISO or zebras.
and no matter how you paint it, with the T2i, separate audio IS the best way to go for film making.
safe? well that is relative to the technical capabilities of the user.
try to get it fixed under warranty after one gets turned into a brick after a failed attempt at the "hack" , then the poor user is out his very valuable hard earned cash. that is what will keep a lot of people from "hacking" their T2i.
those are the very real fears of people not willing to risk their new shiny $800 film making dream tool. whether its relatively safe or not , the "hack" voids manufacturers warranty.
and Im not trying to be down on ML at all, its an option , NOT the best solution (for audio)