The luxury of buying yet another mic...suggestions?

Jim Brennan

Jim Brennan

VHS Member Old Skool
I am sort of a jack of all trades (and yes...a master of none). I shoot, edit, do audio, grip, gaffer..whatever. I only say that because I am not a dedicated audio guy (so I don't buy super high-end gear), but I do appreciate good audio and have some experience getting it.

Anyway, i bought a second cam (HVX) and want to get a mic for on camera use. I already have a 416, and an AT 897, (neither of which I use on camera) as well as an Oktava MK-12, which I use on my other camera pretty frequently.

I've been happy with the Oktava (with the exception of some handling noise at times), but was wondering if there was another choice for a short mic for on camera use. I don't mind having two of the same microphones, but as long as I am buying another mic, I don't mind filling in a gap with something different.

I can't spend more than a few hundred bucks. But then again, Christmas is coming...
 
An Oktava on-cam? Seems like a hyper as an on-cam mic would give you more handling/camera noise.

But you have shotguns. Do you ever have a boom op? Might be good to diversify and get another hyper, like the AT4053b or the AKG CK-93. But those would not be my choice for on-cam.

Rode NTG-2 would be a good shotgun to add. Or better, the NTG-3 that has the current offer of a $1 Rode blimp with purchase. The Beyerdynamic MCE-86 shotgun makes a good on-cam as well.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the tips. I have three caps for the Oktava (hyper, omni, cardiod) and usually use the cardiod when it's on cam. I have toyed with the idea of getting the NTG-3 since the reviews have been so good in that price range. But the blimp isn't a motivator for me since I got one when they first came out (great value on those).

But yeah, I am primarily looking for something to use on cam, since my basic shotgun and hyper needs are met. But I will look at the 2 hypers you mentioned for sure.

Thanks
 
Jim Brennan said:
I have three caps for the Oktava (hyper, omni, cardiod) and usually use the cardiod when it's on cam.
Click to expand...

The cardioid will be just as bad. Remember, it's called "cardioid" because, when plotted on a response pattern chart, it looks a lot like a heart. That means that it is sensitive to sound from most sides. It seems counter-intuitive for a mic pattern that's also called "uni-directional," but that name is severely misleading. While the response is greatest from straight on, it still hears lots of what happens around the sides... including camera servo motors, handling, and the breathing of the camera op. And, obviously, the omni is completely out of the question.
 
Well, sometimes I need a wider polar pattern for an on-cam mic. Are you suggesting a shotgun is a better choice?

I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly.
 
Jim Brennan said:
Well, sometimes I need a wider polar pattern for an on-cam mic. Are you suggesting a shotgun is a better choice?

I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly.
Click to expand...

From the standpoint of interfereing camera noises, the shotgun will pick up less of them than a hyper or a cardioid pattern will but we're talking about a matter of degree ... mics on the camera in general will give less than optimum results for most types of recording, ambience being the rare exception. You see a 'gun on all the newsie's cameras simply because it's better to bring home the story with crappy sound than it is to bring home no story at all but it's the audio choice of last resort, used when there's just no other option available. No one is going to worry about hearing the zoom motor if the shot is of a trainwreck in progress but if you're pushing in on the subject of an interview you better not hear the zoom.

Why do you need a wider pattern on-camera. Wider pattern, sure, but you have enough problems getting good sound with a mic near the camera position as it is. Most cardioids expect a working distance of about 8 to 12 inches from the mouth for proper speech and vocal recording and your camera is going to be a LOT farther away than that. If you're recording ambience or broad sources such as, say, a brass band on stage, or something wide like that then it might be another matter - near the camera position but NOT mounted on the camera itself, so as to avoid the camera sounds, could be viable.
 
Last edited:
For example, we do a lot of video work for non-profits that work with children that have special needs. So I may spend a day following a bunch of kids and therapists through therapeutic routines while they are canoeing or on a climbing wall. If we have a second person (usually my wife), she is there with a second video camera, or getting stills, because in this case the images are far more important than the audio. (although we have used a boom mic or lavs in some cases). In the final product there is often a voice over. But I still prefer to have a better quality and more directional mic than the built in mic. There have been a number of times when just losing some of the ambient clutter by having the Oktava has made a world of difference when we do wind up using the audio. We know that because we will have the Oktava on one channel and the built in mic on another.

So this is for those types of situations. Not when we have the ability to boom or use a lav.
 
Even as mere reference audio on-cam for a shoot with double-system, if running the mixer to the camera is not practical, I'd rather have a good shotgun on my camera. It's easier to work with.

As Steve pointed out, there's no substitute for having the mic off the camera and close to the action, but I also know where you're coming from in ENG-style, run-n-gun shoots that may need a mic on the camera for something close to usable. In that case, I'd still take a shotgun over a wider pattern any day.
 
Thanks. So then I would need a short shotgun to keep the mic out of the frame with a furry on. Any recommendations there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top