Death Of A Salesman (Or Don't Read This, It's Just Self Therapy For Me)

Ever been in a place in your life you don’t recognise as a desired destination and don’t know how you got there or how to escape?

After a nice two week holiday, spent mostly at home with nothing asked of me, I thought I might be able to get my head back on straight.

Obsessing about sound gear was probably the first hint that something was up, but that first sign was ignored. I did not touch a camera.

If I look at myself squarely in the mirror, I cannot say when I last enjoyed photography.

This was close, tempered with the knowledge that it was likely a one off.

I know roughly when it was, probably a time involving the school, a connection to place and people, but a series of things went wrong when I started at the paper. It started with juggling the end of year commitments at the school and the needs of the paper. It was hard, very hard. I did not miss one event for either, but still do not know how and it felt like I failed both.

It was a time of contrasts, a time of conflict. A bad way to finish something good.

On the one hand I was comfortable, enjoying the work, confident I was going to deliver exactly what was wanted (although I was always mystified why my images had the effect they did). On the other hand each job was a mountain to climb, a mystery I still do not understand, or to be honest want to.

Part of the problem and the bit that is getting unbearable, is captioning. The paper wants names, always names. No image is useful to them without one. The freedom to take a useable image is severely limited by the need to get a name. I cannot count the number of decent images I have taken, images that came naturally, ones that even I liked, that were ultimately a pointless exercise, because I could not get a name.

I have stopped taking them. I think I have stopped even wanting to.

Second sign.

Balanced with the freedom of shooting for the school did help, but it also contrasted drastically with the reality that my future was the paper, only the paper. In a desperate attempt to hold onto both, I requested a drop back to part time, leaving me three days a week for the school (who were still in the picture, in a shared capacity because of course three days was not enough for their needs).

Unfortunately it took three and a half months to get sorted (long, frustrating story).

I broke ties with the school and every contact I had there about February. Things were clearly not happening at my end and it was unfair of me to keep then hanging.

Trying to give it away worked for a while.

It seemed ideal. I can use all my skills and gear, be useful, generate contacts, push myself and most importantly, I had the freedom to just shoot without fear of wasting the effort.

This is what I do, this is who I am.

The Migrant Resource Centre, New Horizons, Self Help, all used me on a volunteer basis, their images definitely more fulfilling to take, but not a future employment path and most just ended up being head shots for yearly reports. It seems lately, that even though I am available for more than half the week, they always seem to want me on a work day.

The one job I was really looking forward to, kids at the zoo, I missed after getting my days mixed on my over busy split calendar.

Third sign.

I am eating too much, sleeping badly, wasting far too much time in front of my computer with little interest in other hobbies and getting depressed by the state of the world. Seems I want to spend my way out of this funk. Never a good plan.

All the other signs.

Connections are important.

The answer is not in things, but people. At least the things I am buying are for other people to enjoy the results of (I hope), but they are only useful if they empower good things.

Pick yourself up, dust yourself off and keep swimming.

What do I have to worry about? Some people have had to start again from nothing and still manage a smile.

Self determination is exactly that.

That freedom is something I do have that many do not. I have a job I don’t like much, but I have a job. Things for Meg and I are good as anyone should expect, but could turn with one wrong move. Both of us face our challenges, Meg stoically as is her way, me in a more needy, swingy fashion, but I don’t give up.

The “determination” in self determination is more important than “self”.

I have recently picked up a casual contract with a new, bigger school, so who knows, I may be able to carve out some kind of future path.

Thanks for letting me work through that.

Spider Alert

The ugly black arachnid that is the Zoom H8 is on the way.

Why always Zoom? Just like Domke bags, Zoom products just seem to fit my way of doing things. There are better made, nicer to use and cleaner sounding products out there, but I like the tactile nature of Zoom controls, value, clever ideas, inter-system compatibility (depth of options and backups) and with one exception (stupid broken battery door cover on the F1 as have so many apparently), they seem well enough made.

At the end of the day, the ability to run all 8 of my mics, to gain an extra capsule (superior X/Y with two coverage patterns) and a slight improvement in noise control was too much to resist for $500au and the EOFY sale bargains look to be mostly over, so I may have grabbed the last for a while.

Even without legs, it is still imposing. That nice X/Y capsule will upgrade the H5 and the EXH-6 will replace it.

My priority was cleaner and stronger output with dynamics, which is really the only area the H8 beats out its lesser brethren. It is feature packed, but that jack of all trades vibe is strong. I really only want the good stuff, could care less about the fluff, but there is enough fluff to help when needed.

The EXH-6 will let the H8 take my total capacity of 8 XLR mics, which may not ever be needed, but three or more condensers could be (buying condensers up to now has been based on the 2 mic limit) and better support for the dynamics is probably a must. The EXH-6 is very good, but does not match the H5’s inputs.

This will be carried in the mic case because I will not be using it as a “handy” recorder. The AC-17 adapter will also be packed with this as I would expect to usually only use it in controlled environments.

Not really interested in most of the other features, but I am sure there will be things I will use that I do not even know it has yet. The reality is, this is the only practical way I can connect 8 specialist mics to a standard camera without either enormous expense and/or over complication.

The H5?

This will be matched to the SSH-6 and the XYH-6 capsule above for a better than average on-the-go answer and the two Lewitt 040 or 240 condensers can make a “scorpions tail” of front capsule and “wing” mics that will do plenty. Otherwise it makes a decent backup with a capsule and excellent portable mic micro-placement tool, so the H8 can be bedded down and left.

This is the high tide mark of the “B” team and will likely get most things done, but all the mics I bought would never reach their potential with just it.

The F1 will also get the SSH-6 or shock resistant XYH-5, depending on what I need (they all travel together in the same case). This is the only practical on-camera solution, capable of taking any capsule and works well as an under the nose panel mic.

The F6 was the holy grail, but costs almost double and after better than expected results from the H5 with dynamic mics, and some handling and feature short comings being revealed it actually dropped away.

The AMS-44 was also an option, and at half the price, but being new I could not get many answers for the tougher questions like line out quality to an H series etc. The whole thing just felt a little too much like a compromise and for only twice as much, I got so much more.

Glad it is over.

*

Not half an hour after the H8 was bought (and despatched!), the last dynamic, the second MTP 440 Lewitt was cancelled. The supplier had one more in the system than reality and backorders would be a month or more.

Turns out that was probably ideal.

I have both of my new Lewitt mics in hand and what strikes me is the MTP 440 is a solid mid-bass end specialist, the LCT 240 more of a mid range generalist. The role the 440 fills is needed, handling the bass and grunt of amps, but which is an area I have several mics for (sE V7, TT1) and it is possible I may need something even deeper (DTP 340). The 240, a medium-large diaphragm condenser, it is not bothered by much.

The same supplier had the LCT 240 in the same sale ($165au base kit-no shock mount) with free freight. That is a good price, $200+ being the norm. I will use it for vocals, but one shock mount will do, the second when used will either be used for an instrument, in a pair for area coverage or in a controlled situation.

The second LCT was not on my radar before because the limitation of 2 condensers at a time made even owning three a little frustrating. Limiting myself to dynamics mostly forced a compromise, one that ironically the H8 fixed, but also allowed the condenser road to be explored more. Go you big ugly problem solver you.

The 240 is to me a better all-rounder. The power thing sorted, a pair of 240’s is a powerful matched option. I now have (from Lewitt) more of a 2 high /2 mid /1 low combination rather than a 2 high/1 mid/2 low with one of the top three unusable at once.

I can now also run two 240’s through the H5 if I want for a perfect portable podcast system.

Sometimes things just work out ok.

Think my map is out of date now.

Noise, Myth Or Monster

One common consideration that reviewers probably more than users, need to be aware of when buying audio, imaging or mixed media products is the generation of noise and its effects.

Noise, or sound and image elements formed when they should be absent is one of these things that is probably dwelt on more than it should be and I would like to unpack that thought a little.

What is it?

In audio, noise is the floor of recordable sound produced by the recording device, things that are connected to that device or outside influences that effect either. It is generally a clean, smooth “hiss”. If it is not like that, if it its sporadic, unpredictable or overpowering, then it falls more under the heading of interference.

It is important to split these two so we know what we are talking about. Noise is predictable, so even at the purchasing stage you can research it’s likelihood and it is often, more or less, under your control, but hard to completely remove if needed.

Interference is not meant to be there and can directly effect your audio quality, being nearly impossible to remove due to it’s unpredictable nature.

In a nut shell, audio noise is what you hear when you cannot hear anything else, so it is in effect the absence of the absence of sound. All recording devices produce it, better ones at levels so low as to be effectively irrelevant, but even higher levels of noise can be ignored under some circumstances.

Often some background sound is recordable in almost any situation, which is why sound engineers always record some “room sound” on film sets etc, because the absolute absence of all sound is not normal, something has to fill the silence other than pure silence.

Why should we be worried about it?

This comes up a lot and after a couple of weeks of reviews read and watched, believe me, I have found we are obsessed by it. The measurement in sound production is signal-to-noise ratios is where this noise is important. A little noise in the empty bits between heavy metal tracks is mostly irrelevant, but too much noise in very fine ambient recordings is terminal. Know your need and service it properly.

Maybe if this is the subject, absolute quiet is a priority (and noise free sharpness).

I grew up on tapes and records. One produced noise from the physical tape running over the heads and the other had a ton of crackle and other oddities as the fine needed bounced over the record’s surface. We were there for the music, not the noise.

This mic has a lot more noise (-19db) then its bigger sibling the LCT 440 (-7db), but the actual sound is much the same, depending on your tastes and needs. For music, this is fine, but maybe not for field recording.

Visual noise or what we used to call “grain” is much the same.

Like audio noise it appears at the extreme end of the recordable spectrum. Very high ISO settings, underexposure, or recovery of inky black shadows will reveal it. Like sound, even an older phone can produce a decent image in perfect conditions, but when stretched, the ugliness that is visual noise takes over.

The habit of current reviewers to go in 400% on extreme ISO images and compare “X” to “Y” ad infinitum is not only flawed, as they rarely take other variables into account, but also pointless and unrealistic. We all know that the top fashion designers signature designs will never be worn in the real world, and neither will any camera or sound device be asked to walk that “catwalk” of perfection in real life.

Content trumps technical deficiencies.

Cropped from an image taken with a “small” sensor M43 camera, at a high ISO (12,800) under flat and unflattering light. If the content was irrelevant, then the image fails even if perfect. If the content is relevant then it’s quality matters less and less in proportion to the viewers care factor.

One way to deal with these problems is to embrace them. I had a friend once who processed their black and white negatives in over heated paper developer for short periods and with minimum agitation. The massive, super sharp grain he produced actually became the image element that made his images stand apart. The proof in his vision was several international awards. When he switched to digital his weapon of choice was the oldest G9 Canon compact with the noise/grain exaggerated for much the same effect.

For those of us who remember, the old film spool moving projectors with their “ticking” sound, will remember that when the film got going, you soon forgot the “noise”.

I have always been aware of the workings of the machine, but if we concentrate on content, these things do tend to fall to the background. If we spend too much time obsessing over perceived problems and their often extreme solutions, we may get nothing done.

I suppose what I am getting at is the other day I was shaken a bit by one reviewers opinion of my H5 when used with dynamic mics. The reviewer was technically and measurably right, but when I used and listened to the results myself, I realised that in my real world situations, noise is just one of many slight deficiencies we deal with all the time. I am not recording studio grade master pieces, just wanting to get better than average results.

To be honest, the H8 is still the most logical and it does have slightly quieter preamps.

Just a thought.

Growth Paths.

Too much time researching things can be a problem.

For example Julian Krause, a well respected, very technical reviewer of all things audio has been one of my go-to sources for real information, the stuff that can be otherwise hard to track down. Thanks Julian for all your hard work.

Noise floor of various items in particular can be hard to get a real world handle on, so he has supplied lots of comparisons, examples and thoughts. Noise in recordings can be a lot like noise in an image though, often over stated, sometimes obsessed over, often irrelevant and always trumped by good content. There is always the software fix to consider as well.

My H5 it turns out (in Julians critical opinion) has too much noise for dynamic mic recordings. He qualifies that with situations where it would be ok (used properly), but generally speaking it’s not ideal. Condensers are fine as they are more sensitive, which reduces the need to turn up the gain (and noise). Even his most stringent tests* rate the H5 as fine with condensers. He has me worried though with dynamics.

I will have 5 in total, going for a good spread of voice and instrument applications. Has this been pointless? Adding to that, is the limit of two condensers into the H5 and you have an arsenal of options, with possibly a limited work flow.

I have just done a couple of quick recordings with the TT1 and sE V7 (both just arrived). They and the sE V3 all seem fine for my use. The Prodipe has clearly stronger pickup and I did find out something that may fix the problem outlined above**.

View fullsize

The sE V3 as promised is poppy and vibrant but controlled. The budget-not budget Pro-Lanen is smooth and warm and the sE V7 neutral and reserved, but also detailed.

Looking at real needs (see previous post), noise is unlikely to be a deal breaker (usually youtube output through a camera), but if I needed to up my game, it is limited in options and potential quality.

It all depends on where I position myself I guess so I have to come back again to my likely best uses.

If I want to be able to supply genuinely good detailed recordings of instrumental solos using condenser mics, then I am probably ok, into a camera anyway. If on the other hand my ambitions extend to good-ish band and robust panel recordings in quiet locations, maybe externally edited, then more and better employment of mics will be a thing, I just have to make sure this is easily achieved and relevant so it will be used.

Noisy school environments, band practice, kids mucking around, some post processing. Lots of mitigating circumstances are at play before the studio grade scrutiny Julian puts them under becomes a thing. Even the experts usually have to deal with some feedback, noise or gain issues on the day. A little noise may be the least of my issues.

I am hardly going to shoulder aside the professionals on the day, but if I am it on the day, I need to be it within realistic limits.

Options.

Cutting my losses is an option or at least being happy with where I am (maybe $500 wasted?).

Let’s assume he is right and the H5 falls short of good enough quality and noise reduction with dynamic mics by studio standards**. My sE V’s and TT1 would be used for spoken word vocals in uncontrolled environments and other “messy” sources and the two 440’s would play low end gatherers, used on drums, amps or vocals with my condenser 040’s or 240 handling the high end.

*

The F6 ($900au), the king of the pile.

A respected field and cinema tool, it offers three enticing features. Better overall sound, very quiet amps and 32 bit float recording. The down side is a limit of 6 line-ins and no real cross compatibility with the rest of my Zoom kit. Being the dearest option by a fair amount, I would effectively be committing to pro level field recording and processing or squander its potential, which just seems at odds with my straight-to-camera needs. It would however add a peace of mind that cannot be over stated.

I do like how it is user facing, mostly metal and can be bolted under a camera, but would all that quality be wasted going into a 1/4” TRS Cable to the H5 or worse a 3.5 into a camera?

So potential quality and output control A+ but the probable reality is A-.

System balance and compatibility B-. Better than another brand entirely, but only just.

*

The Zoom H8, maybe more my type of creature ($500au).

“The Spider” has all the inputs I need (8 with the EXH-6), 6 of them phantom powered. It is highly (over?) featured. The pre-amps for the XLR inputs are clearly better than the previous H series, offering better gain and lower noise (took some chasing, but Chris Judd and Free To Use Sounds podcasts both agree on that, maybe a couple of db worse than the F series, but audibly better than the other H’s). It is not a master of anything much, but a true jack-of-most-trades. It can handle the Shure SM7, a mic notorious for its low sensitivity and the benchmark for most.

The known shortcomings are of little concern, generally only specific uses. The H8 and I are both flexible generalists. Most importantly, it is not poor sound quality, only the usual Zoom feature and handling quirks.

It also fits my existing Zoom kit. The extra XYH-6 capsule, worth over $100 on its own is a slight upgrade, so would go to the H5, then the EXH to the H8 making it the XLR king. The shock resistant XYH-5 would then go to the portable/on camera F1 with the SSH-6 shared by all (The H5 with this and 2 XLR mics make a clean backup kit). The AC adapter fits and it does open the door to gen 2 capsules.

The H5 would still be a good choice sometimes when the H8 is not taken, so nothing is redundant.

Quality and output control A-. A step up from the H5, especially with dynamics.

System balance and compatibility A. Nothing wasted apart from possibly the H5 being used less, no mess, more depth, more options.

*

The Zoom AMS-44 interface (under $250), just because it works like the rest of my Zooms.

By far the cheapest, this adds four phantom powered XLR inputs with 1/4” TS, or USB-C outs (to a comp or the H5 via EXH-6 input) or straight to camera via the headphone-out port. A bit messy, but suddenly I have 6 XLR inputs all with power. The big question here is whether this hand to mouth setup would degrade the sound badly enough to make an F6 or H8 clearly the better option, or would I really know the difference.

AMS44 > EXH-6 (H5/F1) or H5 direct > line out to camera (2x 3.5 cables)

vs

F6 or H8 pure (still to camera)

The big question and one I have struggled to get an answer for except from Julian Krause again, who rated the noise floor from the AMS-24 (so I assume the 44?) as workable and AMS-22 as poor*, is whether the noise to signal ratio is probably H5 level with the AMS-24 rated at -121db and the flow on effect of stacking units. Considering it would be going through the H5 to a camera or just straight to camera via the phones jack (also rated as “ok”), may be to much. The H5 would still sit top of the tree, but is the tree tall enough?

It is an easy fix, allowing me to basically bypass the H5 for 4 dynamic mic only jobs, run all my condensers at once (even one more than now), or act as a separate remote-recoding outpost to sync later with the 4 mic H5. It also has a few neat features like no fuss live streaming and is easy to operate with basically everything on the outside of the box (so good for occasional users).

Is it all too messy or cleverly adaptable?

Potential quality and output control B+. Really just an H5 done another way so possibly no real help with dynamics.

System balance and compatibility A-. Cheap answer or messy compromise?

*

Muto 4 Interface (under $500au) or something similar. A better interface than the AMS, closer to the F6, but lacking almost all of the system support compatibility of the H8 and it is a portable studio interface, not a field recorder, so not the best for run and gun use.

For the same price as the H8, it is not a compelling choice unless I was going home studio or the F6 for multiple inputs.

Potential quality and output control A+. Not really a thing but I had to go and google “best budget interfaces”.

System balance and compatibility C. (B for feed quality).

So, where to? Wait and pick up an H8 on sale I think. $450-475 in Australia looks to be the low tide mark and after the capsule is accounted for only slightly dearer than the AMS. Annoyingly if the EXH-6 gave phantom power I would have probably gone all condensers (2x LCT 240) and fixed the issue anyway.

*Maybe his test are similar to lens and camera tests that compare items on micro levels, where most of us do not need to go and would know the difference if we did. When others give simple examples of noise, it seems to be acceptable to my ear.

**The EXH-6 on the H5 is about 2 dial notches less sensitive, but seems to have less noise! The TT1 on the H5 main at gain 5 was sensitive, but I could hear some noise, worse if I turned up the headphone volume (known to be lower grade than the output line). In the capsule at gain 7, I heard the same volume but absolutely no noise even with the phones turned up. No idea!

Layers Of Protection.

Winter where I live usually means layers. This year has not been super cold, but it has been wet, so different layers, but layers none the less.

This also applies to other areas of my life also, such as photo, video and sound recording.

Ok, with the pre-amble out of the way, I now have this monster to deal with.

The two grey bits are a possible interface upgrade or expansion (Zoom F6 or AMS-44) and maybe a wireless LAV kit like the Hollyland M1 Larks. Right now, the F6 seems like the sort of thing that would knock the balance off, and you know how I like balance. The AMS is possibly a dead end but way cheaper. The Larks are an evil I may have to face.

What does it mean?

I have layers of problem solving capability.

Example scenario 1, a school band recording.

1. Sennheisser MKE-400 shotgun for decent directional sound from a little way off.

2. H1n (X/Y) for proper stereo imaging with backup, but a little thin.

3. F1 and SSH-6 (mid-side). More reach, more depth of sound and more ambient control (more or less by room).

4. H5 and SSH-6 + 2 XLR mics (040 Match, MTP 440 or other). As above but with overhead, specialist and width options*.

5. H5 and 4 XLR mics in a variety of configurations.

6. H5 and direct instrument or mixing board feed with 0-3 XLR mics.

Scenario 2, an instrumental soloist;

1. Sennheisser MKE-400 shotgun for decent directional sound from a little way off.

2. Zoom H1n (X/Y) for proper stereo imaging with backup, but again, a thin.

3. Zoom F1 with X/Y capsule for slightly improved quality.

4. F1 and SSH-6 (mid-side). More reach, more depth of sound and more ambience (stereo effect adds a lot of body).

5. F1/H5 and 2-4 mics for stereo instrument coverage. This allows multiple locations on string and acoustic, dual cab, 4 mic drum set, instrument and vocals etc.

Scenario 3, the school orchestra;

1. Sennheisser MKE-400 shotgun for decent directional sound from a little way off.

2. Zoom H1n (X/Y) for proper stereo imaging and backup, but a little thin.

3. Zoom F1 with SSH-6 capsule, better room sound and more body and the ambient control may go either way by room.

4. H5 and 2 XLR mics in ORTF config up high on a stand with a capsule for backup.

5. Zoom H5 and SSH-6 with 2 mics for edge cover.

6. H5 and 4 mics for centre and edge or specialist cover**.

Scenario 4, school debating panel;

1. Sennheisser MKE-400 shotgun for decent directional sound from a little way off.

2. Zoom H1n (X/Y) for proper stereo imaging and backup, but as above, a little thin.

3. Zoom F1 with X/Y capsule, better room sound and more body.

4. F1 with SSH-6, mid side adding width to cover group (how I do the podcast panel of 4).

5. Zoom H5 with 1-4 XLR mics depending on format and space.

6. H5 with external input from mixer and 0-3 XLR mics and/or capsule for backup.

Layers 1 & 2 are day bag carried, the rest need some pre-warning and set up.

Planning to succeed, I feel ready for nearly anything. The reality is the school has strong drama, music, media and visual arts departments, so my meagre efforts are likely a sideline at best, but I do need to be able to step up.

The questions are (1) do I need to add any more XLR lines and (2) do I need more quality?

My wish list, depending what need arises, includes the Zoom F6 ($900au) or possibly the H8, which at the moment seems very cheap ($480au). The F6 would allow me to have 6 XLR inputs at once with 32 bit float, better pre-amps and potentially 4 more from the H5 as backup or the H8 with the EXH-6 can take all 8 mics alone, ideal for music recording etc and a logical, if expensive next step.

The AMS-44 could be ok as well ($250au). Relying on a 3.5 jack into the H5 from a 4 channel XLR unit seems reductive, but so does feeding the F6 directly into the camera, so with that in mind, either option would assume post processing and synching and more to the point prioritising sound as its own thing over vision+sound tacked on.

If I do go with off camera sound, the AMS-44 and H5 (as separate entities) would allow all 8 of my XLR mics to be used at once with the added benefit of remote locations, so fewer and shorter cables.

*Lead vocalist, guitar cab, drum overheads, lead guitar etc.

** Soloist, 040’s over strings, 440 over percussion or piano etc as needed.

A Cunning Plan Or The Ravings Of A Soon To Be Revealed Madman?

One area I will have to deal with, something that is a school staple, as well as a potential stage production fix is to record a wide area performance. Often a couple of pencil mics are used, spread evenly wide (3:1 ratio) or XY’d.

The problem with this is often the sound is a little thin. Pencil Condensers will pick up lots of detail and offer good gain, but lack bass depth and that is only made worse with distance. Going into heavier mics could help, but that would mean (for me), dynamics, which may lack that detail and enough pickup to work.

How about this, an idea not from a sound engineer, not even someone who has tried anything like this before, but something fuelled by reviews of the Lewitt MTP 440, several in particular that point out the real strength of this mic.

Calming image as a spacer. Now back to the madness ;).

An instrument specialist, usually employed on guitar cabs, drums or deeper acoustics, it has plenty of clarity, punch and depth, but it does not load the top end up or colour the sound. This last bit is important.

These mics have lots to give, but they are reserved, controlled in their offering. This is something like the equivalent of a RAW image. Lots of neutral detail and depth, but not aggressive colouration or “baked in” bias like a jpeg. Both mics have been reviewed regularly as having those characteristics and being class leaders.

The industry has been owned by the Shure veterans (SM58/57) for a long time, but the mood is changing. Rather than accepting the status quo*, many are looking for more detail, less aggression and are starting to cut loose the limitations that worshipping just one way of doing things bring. A landscape that has room for so many competitors to emerge must be lacking something.

Top end can be boosted in post because it has been recorded cleanly, but if it is not wanted, it is well controlled, neutral and smooth (the mic has basically the opposite frequency curve to a Shure SM57, more “V” shaped with less up front and opinionated in the middle, smoother and cleaned at either end).

If every mic comes with lots of high and mid power, the combined information coming from all the mics can be over whelming and hard to remove or re-balance. Far better that it can be added in, not taken out, a bit like salt in a meal.

I may have found the perfect balancing mics for my kit.

This will let the 040’s carry the height, the 440’s the weight without either treading on the others toes. The idea, if it works without horrible feedback or phasing issues etc, which I will admit to having little idea at the moment, is the 040 high and towards the centre (the usual ORTF, A/B or X/Y employment), then the two 440’s lower or on the flanks aimed at the deeper sounding instruments.

I am of course open to the reality that this reversed may be better or maybe something I have not thought of. I may even try a “Deca Tree” style, with them all centred.

It could add much needed low end and depth to area or instrument recording. More to the point, the 440’s could add the bulk and the 040’s the extra brilliance. Effectively, the two pairs would act like a pair of “super” mics, almost like a top end condenser (or possibly a clutch of doomed microphone rabbits in the musical headlights).

I doubt this has a fixed formula, even if it works, but the starting choices are sound I hope. If not I will have a couple of stereo pair options anyway.

I have vocal and general mics covered with the Lewitt 240 Condenser, 2x sE V’s and the Prodipe, but for both instrumental and area recording maybe, just maybe, this combo will be extremely powerful and punch well above its weight. It does not hurt either that they can do vocals as well.

The best of condensers (sensitivity and fine detail) and the best of dynamics (power and robust depth) within my limited needs.

Like all things, placement and knowing your gear are the most important controls, but by sticking with one brand and matching pairs, I have the makings of a solid head start.

Ed. I went looking for another MTP440 and Belfield Music, cheaper than most by $10 ($20 if you count free freight) had 14% off for their 14th birthday, so it was clearly meant to be. Another 440 for $125au.

*The 58 is warm and reliable, but sometimes muddy and lacking detail and the 57 is aggressive, punchy, but as the 440 shows, you can have that without so much pushiness. It’s not for nothing the competition are all shifting away from their sound, because tastes change.

Pondering LAV Mic Options (Or Reserving The Right To Abstain)

LAV mics all have some things in common.

They solve the biggest microphone issue in cinematography which is how to hide the boom arm and cover a large or wide group, but are universally disliked by sound techs as technically problematic and less natural sounding than booms.

My gripe with them is time and over complication. I can aim a shotgun mic at a group of people and just film, something a LAV setup would be too complicated for. Quality differences are situational, so really hard to quantify or qualify.

If it turns out I need a LAV setup though, maybe for individual presentations or interviews over long distances, then what would I get?

Thinking it was basically an expensive road to Rode, or possibly DJI, possibly a cable reliant set of cheap Boya mics run to my camera or to the F1/H1n’s and later synched, or just use hand held mics, I was surprised to find that the world of wireless worn mics (LAV seems too specific) has opened up a lot.

The two that are on my radar are the Hollyland Lark M1 pair, probably in white to match most shirts and just look generally less “there” than the black ones, or the Smallrig W60 set.

I just like these, especially compared to the semi-retro W60.

Sound quality and range of both seems fine (for LAV’s), which I am ok with, still intending to go with any other system of mics as often as possible. The W60 has the added advantage of taking LAV plug-ins, two of which I have, which may be the more versatile option.

Features compared;

• Range and quality (Both). They seem in the same ball park, reviews having to many variables to be sure. If pushed, I think the M1 based on the few direct comparisons.

• Smaller when worn (M1). The W60 look like old tech.

• Sexier/nicer to look at (M1). See above.

• Plug in LAV option instead of worn (W60). The smallest possible foot print.

• Easier to just use (M1). Tough call, the lack of options on the M1 make it simpler.

• Extra charges held in travel case (M1). 2x8hr which is impressive.

• Smaller kit overall (M1). The W60 kit is about twice the size like a glasses case compared to a cigarette box.

• Wind proofing with fluffy (M1). M1 seems easier to install and very efficient, one reviewer was quite uncomplimentary about the W60 wind shield.

• Volume readout and linear controls on master unit (W60). M1 has high/med/low.

• Cheaper (W60). By about $35 at the moment.

• Comes in colours (M1). The white is my choice if there is one.

• Solid build (W60). Still some plastic, but chunkier.

• Attachment (W60). Another tough one, the M1’s are lighter and smaller (and prettier), but the LAV option and magnetic connecter give the W60 options.

• Low pass (W60). The M1’s have simple application, but the W60’s are deeper here.

My heart and head say the M1’s, my gut is going with the W60, just for the LAV options.

I will let this percolate and see if there is actually a need.

Recognition.

I am now starting to notice what mic is being used by whom.

The Shure SM Beta 58a (the blue ring one) is turning up a lot. I am recognising some others, but that one is popping up a lot.

Occasionally something else, maybe a Telefunken M80 or Lewitt 550 (different angle looked like the Lewitt’s pointy nose).

And then the usual suspect, the SM58 vanilla.

Guess you can’t beat the classics.

Obsession And Reality.

Obsessives, we know who we are.

Partly a self gratifying game, partly a projected hope of helping or impressing others, I guess the two make me a sucker for detail, completeness and future potential needs.

Or maybe just a sucker.

Intense, hungry for knowledge, an eye for detail, sometimes needy in the extreme and single minded when we get going. We do have a purpose, a role in this world, well I hope we do. The people behind the scenes (and out front sometimes), need to be stoics and dreamers equally, but most importantly, they need obsession.

My obsessive nature helps me learn, and quickly.

It starts as fun, but for some, it quickly becomes an obsession. Can obsession be fun?

Almost as important to me as obsession though is defining the shape and scope of that obsession.

For me, balance is the defining characteristic of my obsessive nature. I hate unbalanced choices and work very hard to define limits and work toward those. The one thing I actually hate more than being short of where I feel I need to be is to over extend in one area and have to re-find balance in all the others. It does not always work, nor though does it mean I compromise, I just set sensible limits and aim for maximum “bang for the buck”.

An example would be is someone said to me I could have a really good, but specialist mic for a bargain price, even free. The catch being I would have to look at my supporting mics, interface and work flow, I would likely pass, because I know myself well enough to see where it would lead, with little chance of noticeable return. I am over the time when I have to have the best, I just need the best that I need.

To be honest I have been known to cut an obsession loose completely if I cannot finish it off.

I use M43 cameras because I can have pro gear without some of the headaches that usually entails. Yes I can have reach and coverage, speed and ruggedness, flexibility and pro output, but by using the smaller sensor, I do not have to have a $50k outlay just to get started. The compromise is less capable very high ISO performance, but some of the factors above help there anyway. Balance.

For sound, my limit is the Zoom H5, which is a highly versatile crossing-point tool for my uses, but probably not a professional sound engineers last stop. It is more a content creator or hobbyists weapon of choice. This means mics are limited in number and in required quality to get a decent return ($200au maximum it seems, sub $150 even better) and the flow-on is the same with cables, post and other factors. Nothing needs to go crazy, just capable, balanced.

This seems to be a sweet spot in that field, often coughing up classics and work horse options like the SM58/57, Sennheisser e835 and sE V7/7x etc, which is well short of needing a paradigm ear and pro level recording suite, even though they are the choice of many professional users. The experts know that for most uses, well applied “entry level” gear is plenty, it just needs sound judgement and skill in application.

The double edged thingy though is the more you know and the harder you look, the more perilous the path to satisfaction. The difference between $4000 ribbon mic “X” and $6000 large diaphragm condenser mic “Y” may mean a lot to the right ear, but to musicians, roadies, engineers and most importantly listeners, many other factors come into play. Having a set of $200 mics, all with different character though can be a life saver.

Ok, I overplayed there. The recipient of a select part my overly researched microphone arsenal will not know the thought that went into my choice and would not realise if I made a miss step, but I would. Knowledge can be a dangerous thing or a useful one in well measured doses.

Perfect? Yes, of a type more important than technically.

The reality is, obsessives are often only buying/reviewing/obsessing for themselves or each other, because most people could not care any less (fast road to boring my wife). Test charts and forums serve the knowledgeable, the vast majority of people out there do not see what we feel they should. Ignorant huh! Sure the obsessive make sure the rest of us are serviced well, but that extra bit, the bit that takes all the time and attention is often just for them.

Know your audience is the key here I guess, or more to the point, don’t try to preach to the unconvertible, just provide them with what they need.

How sharp is your lens and sensor at 400%? Only you and others like you actually care. Basically if you have to ask the question, you know you are one of the troubled few. Unsharp, noisy, over enlarged or flat images can be accepted by interested parties, if the subject is compelling enough (UFO spotting anyone?). The point is, content trumps process every time.

The same with video. Is it 4k, 8k, 16k? Few can tell the difference between well recorded 720 and 4k (or care), even if they are in the industry, let alone the average viewer. Poorly recorded footage however cannot be saved my more resolution.

Sound usually only comes to the attention of the listener when it is faulty, loud or worse, both.

Of course, the majority are not cringing at poor sound, slightly soft images or lower than ideal resolution footage, so for them ignorance is bliss. Those of us that know too much just have to smile and accept it.

We quickly learn what is too much or too little, then life throws more and more at us and it gets harder.

Even an educated user like a famous singer who is no technical expert, but knows what they like trusts a technician to give them educated options, then leave them to go by their ear and their gut to choose the best microphone or mixer. The technician may know a vast amount more than is needed to get that done and regularly applies this without any fanfare using only a small part of their full knowledge pool. Such is the way of things, obsessives get used to it or perish.

We sometimes have to let things go and accept that what is liked is not always what should be liked by our measure. It just is what it is.

You do not need to be both driver and mechanic. Both are fully rounded professions, but each does need to understand the others role. No point in learning to work on the wrong type of vehicle and nobody likes an ignorant front person, riding on the hard work of others, then complaining about things they know too little about.

Balance.

Possibly the secret to happiness in this very busy and complicated world, especially for those of us who are control and impulse challenged.

Think I Just Love Mics!

I have a long background in sound. When I was younger and it mattered more, I was an “audiophile”, which meant basically someone who spent far too much time chasing perfect sound (sound like a pattern forming here?).

Class “A” output, valve amps, ultimate turn table needles (on the “oil rig” that was the Nakamichi Dragon turntable, for a short while), speaker cable as thick as a finger, kevlar drivers, treated rooms. Yep I was deeply obsessed.

My obsession broke at some point (maybe about the time CD’s became all pervading, pushing vinyl and tapes away, but were not yet perfected and long before the vinyl rebirth) and I became just a regular listener. Lesson learned (or maybe not), I was content. This video thing has stirred a latent monster though.

I have never been a musician, but I love music and musicians.

The Beast on steroids. The EXH-6 is next level in build quality.

I got the first of my new kit dribbling in today.

The EXH-6 is a tank-like attachment that allows me to add two dynamic XLR mics (no phantom power for condensers), each with their own gain dial and 20db pad. I can now run 4 XLR mics at once. That is rough band coverage, a school orchestra both high and low in stereo, a vocalist with instrument and/or accompaniment, a full drum kit.

When it came, so did the first dynamic mic, the sE V3, my ‘light and bright” presence boosted, hand held vocal.

When researching it, one negative Amazon reviewer said it “smelled funny so I returned it”. The red pop filter does have an odd chemical smell, but the black does not. Maybe that was it?

They do make pretty sexy mics and it feels gooood in the hand.

At the same time, I got the 2x 600 and 2x 460mm Gravity Ma Goose gooseneck arms.

These allow me to turn an ordinary light stand, something I have plenty of, into a handy mic or light weight light stand. For just $20 each they provide flexible, solid and portable support, better I feel than a cheap mic stand and I am not in the mood to add several better ones.

The stand is a 2.1m Neewer with a 60cm Gravity gooseneck. This could go nearly three meters up, but also it could reach over a drummer or up from the stand with only one section used, so out of the way and in close It can also go low for an amp or kick drum. If I shake firmly this it does not move.

Solid and weighty, a good start.

Easy as that.

Oh, and it sounds great.

So, it starts, soon to be completed.

To be honest, if I buy any more mics, I will have to get a multi track interface, so I could actually mic up a full band and hear the subtle differences. The AMS-44 is tempting, allowing me to run 4 XLR mics into the H5 with its 4 and the X/Y capsule just for kicks, but for a little more I can get the Zoom H8 on clearance or spring for the cleanest option, the F6.

All images Pen F and 25mm f1.8 wide open.

The Loop Is Closed (Or Is It The Noose?)

My last mic (surely), for a very long time, or maybe for ever, depending on my future with video, sound, photography in general.

Asking the question”what do I really need to close the loop?” I came up with this.

A safe purchase, a logical purchase and as I have said before, a mic that will add something needed to an already over serviced area.

The Lewitt LCT 240 Pro kit, the one with the better shock mount. This is the mic I first looked at before the whole distraction that was dynamics, but I still feel it is a sound (ugh!) choice. It would not have been the best fit if I did not also incorporate some dynamics, but after the dust of that interesting little excursion has settled, it is still compelling. Reviews are mixed, but all agree, it has its place in the world of sound, a very different place to the dynamics I have coming, different enough to be the other option.

In hind sight, the MTP 440 and this (maybe with the MTP 250/550 for handling also) would have been ideal, but I only found the MTP 440 by going the long way around.

View fullsize

Impressive huh! The mic is made better than its price would suggest, the mount is top tier.

Lots of mics were in the mix but were either too much for my quality chain (LCT 440/441), much the same as I already have (Prodipe M85, more sE V’s) or were going this way anyway towards clearer and brighter sound, but probably not enough to make a real difference (Lewitt MTP 250/550).

The more neutral and open MTP Lewitt’s were close and cheaper again than the street price of the equivalent sE’s (but I got bargains so broke about even), but the reality is, a condenser is the only type that will truly add that higher level of detail and cover the full human hearing range with a “booth-studio” like sound. It may be a slight compromise (depending on who’s review you read), but if so, it is a compromise that retains for me the all important element of balance.

The only smallish issue is I cannot run both 040’s and the 240 at the same time as I only have 2 phantom power XLR ports. This is not a big deal as my use cases will likely be either a solo artist (2 condensers or a dynamic and 2 condensers) or a larger group (2 condensers and 2 dynamics or 4 dynamics), so my kit will suffice, I just need to choose well. I felt I needed both a stronger, fuller option in my condensers and a more subtle, sensitive option to my stronger mics. The LCT 240 offers both.

It is often reviewed as a little brighter and more opinionated than the neutral and malleable LCT 440 Pure, which for less engineering savvy folk like me, making up front choices with other options available can be a help.

The power issue I can get around by adding the AMS-24 interface and running that to the H5 giving me 4 phantom powered inputs (or a ‘44 for 4 straight up and 2 in the H5), while also allowing me the XYH-5 capsule for backup or just use the interface as a portable option (which the F1 and EXH-6 were bought to do, but cannot supply power). I may even do a Scarlett or similar for mini studio or am I getting carried away again? Of course there are cheap phantom power connectors available like the BEH-PS400.

Self noise is noticeably higher than the 440 Pure, but lower than many at this price point (AT 2020) and it all depends on your uses and processing. As for sound I actually prefer the slightly tighter sound of the 240 as a point of difference to the 440 (and my dynamic mics) and it is over $100 cheaper even with the highly recommended shock mount and magnetic pop filter (potentially paying for an AMS-24). The dynamics have a similar sound, which the 240 contrasts with.

The frequency chart makes it look like it is possibly a more sibilant mic peaking in the 6-8k range, but most sound samples reveal a sharper, more delicate sound, more a “sis” than a “shush”. The 440 fills more the role of the rich and gravely sE V7 or MTP 440. The dual pop filtering options also change the tone slightly.

So, I now have (accounting for multiple role mics);

• 4 hand held Dynamics (TT1, sE V3, sE V7, MTP 440).

• A studio style upright condenser (LCT 240).

• A matched pair of pencil condensers (LCT 040).

• Field shotguns (SSH-6 mid-side, MKE-400).

• X/Y area/ambient (H1n, XYH-5, 040’s-also A/B).

Or to put it another way;

• Soft or deep voices needing a lift (LCT 240, sE V3).

• General instrumental (LCT 240, TT1, sE V7 & 3).

• Bassey instruments or adding body to higher voices (sE V7, MTP 440, SSH-6, TT1).

• Acoustics and strings (LCT 240, 040 Match, sE V3, SSH-6).

• Maximum detail-field/studio recording (LCT 040 Match, 240).

• High sound pressure levels and messy sources (MTP 440, sE V7, TT1).

• Overheads, wide coverage (040 Match, 240, SSH-6)

• Rough handling (sE V7 & 3, TT1, MTP 440).

That is it.

Maybe too much, or sometimes not enough. I am splitting myself between a full service sound and visual offer or just too much sound stuff for a videographer, but it has been fun and to this point has still only cost me roughly as much as an ill-considered camera or lens above the minimum needed*.

Unless I suddenly become a sound engineer or go full-nerd in field recording, I need nothing more, until I do that is.

*Sennheisser MKE-400 and some LAV’s.

Field Recording A Thing?

Not an area I have had any real interest in before, it occurs to me I have a decent kit built up to try this.

The H1n was a good start, H5 even better, the H5 with LCT 040 Lewitts better again, F1 with those or MTP 440 etc (possible now with the EXH-6) are genuinely field grade.

This is how it looks, but how does it sound?

I used to struggle to see the point, but like most things, the more you learn the more intriguing it becomes. I learned that with spiders. My father in law is the local expert and through him I have shifted from simple loathing to interested weariness.

Maybe the cure for a frustrating day chasing birds with a camera, might be stopping and just recording where you are, eyes shut, ears open. My habit, and I doubt it is just mine, is to close my eyes when I am somewhere quiet and peaceful, enjoy the sunshine, feel the breeze and listen to the sounds. Sometimes even when you are somewhere that seems quiet, if you count them, there are an amazing number of sounds.

After recording the place what do you do?

Offer it as a stock sound recording or maybe just play it back to remind you of where you were, what it felt like. A sleep aide maybe? Visuals have always been my thing, but apparently smells and then sounds actually trigger your memory better. Can’t record a smell, but with both sound and vision at my disposal, the two could possibly support each other.

My imagiation can recall the sounds here, but of course they are faulty by nature.

An idea (literally came as I wrote this), would be to offer a picture or series of pictures, with supporting sounds (The old fish market in Tokyo would have been awesome, bamboo creaking in the wind or rainy days in Kyoto). My next trip to Japan was possibly going to be a video based one, but now I am thinking all three disciplines need to be explored.

This also creates a stop and listen dynamic, which may be a very nice addition to the journey.

Kit?

Panasonic cameras, maybe the OSMO, my Zoom F1 and XYH-5 or the H1n so I can record separately from or to the camera. Recording linked sound into the camera for video is likely not as relevant as recording supporting sound. Grab some stills where I can and I have a multi faceted offer.

If I was going fully sound guy, it would be the OSMO and my F1 with EXH-6/040 Match rig. More sound than video, the OSMO just supplying context.

Something I have noticed also, is the field recorder exponents* fly further under the radar than street photographers. Recordists are a curiosity, not a threat like photographers can be. Maybe one can distract from the other?

Free To Use Sounds https://youtu.be/27LaMUzxgWw is a great one.

Why Are Phones Often Good Enough?

Mobile phones are good enough for a lot of uses. Quality is a many sided coin, but at the end of the day, if is ok to the eye, then it is ok.

As with all things, there is always better, but as with those things, quite often better is subtle, subjective or just plain too much.

Z9 too much for this type of thing? Probably.

The reason phones are good enough for some uses is simple.

We have had far too much for a long time in the bigger and better cameras and formats and even the camera designers know that. The phone engineers know they are not competing with a full frame DSLR or mirrorless, even though there are plenty of examples of coming close enough in some comparisons, but like car manufacturers, who may make F1 cars at one end of the scale they are only making for a speed limit restricted, low expectation audience on the whole.

Phone image? Could have been easily. No movement, nothing hugely enlarged, decent light. All possible.

Nice pic or video easily done for sharing on social media? A phone is fine.

Multi million dollar Hollywood production or Olympic grade sports? No hope (yet).

The rule of advances lower in the range reflecting improvements at the top always holds true, but as with the way of things, the bell curve of expectations to outlay and effort is in favour of the lesser offer providing the far greater user base with all they need.

Phone? No hope. Movement, distance, low light, all out of a phones reach at the moment.

There is still room for specialists, but they need to let go of the low end of things. It is no longer good enough to just have a better camera and know how to use it, because far too often, that untapped potential is overkill for the end users needs.

The smoke and mirrors that photographers have always employed to their own advantage is biting back, but all is not perfect in phone-camera land. The latest Google Pixel add highlights the magic eraser option, but even on fleeting glimpses on the TV, I have noticed missing feet, odd cloning effects, plasticky shadow recovery, all non professional looking work (at least they were honest).

We have to do better.

We have to do it regularly.

We need to remember to do the basics well before getting caught up in tricks.

We then have to employ the tricks better than others do.

Such is life.

The Last Piece Of The Puzzle?

My sound kit is at risk of getting out of hand, but still has a hole that needs filling.

I bought possibly the last (dynamic) mic for now, the Lewitt MTP 440 (not to be confused with the LCT 440, an entirely different beast).

The sE V7x which was my preference over the SM57 as an instrument mic, because rather than the aggressive presence boost, it has more bass depth with smoother highs (the sE V3 is actually closer to the 57). This is an instrumental specialist mic, poorly suited to vocals, although it is sometimes used here, but needs careful employment for that role (pop filters, handling noise).

The Lewitt MTP 440 can actually function better in the same space without extreme measures needing to be taken. It is also cheaper ($50au+), smaller, is matched in tone and relevance to its other instrumental partners my 040 Match pencil condenser pair and last but not least, fills the hole in my sound landscape (a versatile bass/guitar cabinet handler) every bit as well as the 7x and 57. This is actually the mic I needed first up to round out the 040’s, but the vocal side needed addressing first.

The little Lewitt 040 Match are often used with the MTP 440 in the Lewitt drum kits, so even they think it is a good idea.

The pair of sE’s are my general vocal specialists, the Prodipe TT1 a bit of a generalist/wild card and the Lewitts cover instruments. If anything more is to be added, the Prodipe M85 or Lewitt MTP 550 are in the “mix” (groan) for lighter, more transparent vocals, but I already have more mics than I will likely use or can run at once for little real difference. Maybe another 440 to balance the set or look at something completely different.

Some things with me just become obsessive rather than productive and I do suffer from self recognised “completists” syndrome.

If I could only use one type of mic, things would be tougher, but the MTP 550 Lewitt would be a good neutral and versatile choice as would the sE V7.

If only one brand was to be adopted, it would be Lewitt. Easy choice. The basic drum kit (2x 040 match, 340 Rex, MTP 440), LCT 440 Pure, DTP 250 and 550’s (basically the V3 and V7 equivalents). I could probably do the same with sE, except for the amazing 040’s. Hard to beat.

The big question still to be answered is whether the mics I have chosen will give me any real world differences through to a camera via the H5 or F1 Zooms. It may well be that a handfull of cheap TT1’s or sE V3’s would have been fine, but not being a sound engineer, I feel the front of house choices will be more decisive.

We will see.

Zooms For Video, Primes For Stills?

recently I asked “what lenses do you like” and pretty much ignored zooms, because the idea was do help define my (your) eye without the redundancy of the any focal length available zoom dynamic.

How about I contradict that now, go fully hypocrite even.

When shooting video, a zoom may be the better option.

I am going to assume that at least two focal lengths are required in most videographers kits.

Video has different needs, some of which can be hard or expensive to service, but also has some handy mitigations for the negatives zooms can bring.

Changing focal length in video is the same as for stills except it can interrupt your “rig” setup. Balance of cages, follow focussing attachments, filters etc can all be changed, but not fast and sometimes not fast enough. You could argue that the more contemplative nature of video production makes this irrelevant, but let’s be real, modern content creation is not that space.

Cinema prime lenses are designed to match each other and often come in sets (size, weight, ring placement, filters and even colours), but they are not cheap and often, to be consistent, each weighs as much as the heaviest of them. There are zooms available and often for less than a full set of primes, but these are at the top end of the range, quite rare and often massively proportioned.

Without a matching set of cinema glass, you may need to adjust to;

• changing filters and re-set their rotations (or buy duplicates of the same),

• re-balancing a gimbal/cage centre point,

• different focus throw and even direction if changing brands,

• shifting ring placement, especially with a follow focus,

• a different aperture range,

• changing rig balance,

• matching colours in post. Only cinema matched glass avoids this.

Some of these still need doing even with with matching glass.

A zoom fixes all or many of these issues. The only thing that may need some, but often not much adjustment is gimbal balance (or don’t zoom when using one!), but again, all the other stuff is fixed, so this is the only problem.

Situations that stretch stills cameras are sometimes less problematic for video.

For video, a slower aperture zoom may be a blessing and is certainly less of a problem.

For stills, movement in low light may need a minimum shutter speed of 1/250th or higher pushing your ISO into less pretty places, or forcing a wider aperture/shallower depth of field if available, but with video 1/50th or 1/60th usually tops you out (180 degree rule at 24/25/30fps).

These shutter speeds with a maximum aperture of f2.8 and ISO’s up to 3200 handle most situations and are available to most camera and lens systems.

Depth of field? Even a MFT camera at f2.8 has decent shallow depth rendering for many practical purposes, especially if you are a manually focussing, enough room for smooth transitions without “more out than in” often being the case. Super shallow depth in video is desirable, but less so and often less practical than for stills.

The Oly 12-40 f2.8 on my G9’s provides (in 1080), a 24-215* equivalent range using the loss-less tele converter mode, takes the one filter set (62mm), with full time linear manual focus and good close focus. The colour and overall look matches obviously because it is the one lens.

If I want very shallow depth, some of the prime’s available match well enough with the added bonus of having their own set of 46mm filters.

The S5, 20-60 and 50mm are similar except (ironically), they do share the same filters so duplicates or some switching is needed. The variable aperture zoom is used at f5.6, giving me effectively the same depth as the f2.8 MFT lens.

Tricky for a stills camera, this is much easier to achieve and suitably “cinematic” in video.

My intention for the work G9 rig (or non-rig I guess) is to carry the Olympus 17 with ND filter mounted for video which gives me two focal lengths in video (FF 35 and 90mm), the 25mm as a low light stills lens indoors. This means really only having one very light weight lens more in the bag that can be used for stills in good light, but video in any light (bright light being the problem for video).

The fully rigged video G9 on the other hand gets the 12-40. It is a heavy lens, but one that works well for video with all the advantages highlighted above. This has the matt box ring, any filter needed and like the 17mm has linear manual focus that turns the same way and a fixed aperture. I have also grown to appreciate the light and bright Panasonic sensor and organic Olympus lens combination.

That kit also gets an EM1x and the Sigma 30mm, Leica 8-18 and 12-60 and the Oly 40-150 f2.8 for stills, any of which could be used for video also.

*The other zoom. There is another option available with a few catches. The G9 and other cameras I assume have some form of built in teleconverter or format change (the S5 has full to APS-c switch), that can “zoom” your lens providing two focal lengths. Limited to 1080 usually, because it is using a 4k sensor to crop without loss to 1080 (same as in post), this allows you a two step zoom.

Ohhh...I Gotta Stop

Deeply mired in mic-land here.

Dozens of comparison tests, lots of jargon (that I am starting to understand!), lots of A vs B vs C scenarios.

Maybe a trip away. Some time far from a computer (and my own head).

Take aways;

• No decent mic is the one answer (extreme solutions like the 441 Flex maybe, but nothing less and it can only be in one place). Every source and listening ear is different. My personal dislikes are compressed, flat, wooly and overly nasal sound with excessive sibilance, but we are all different.

• No decent mic is a poor choice, they all have a place. Avoid repetition of overt specialists and you should be ok.

• Know your limits. Output, input, audience, own tolerances. All have limits and like stills and video, they are likely lower than you think. Some test results were lost on me with a very decent set of headphones, so the rabbit hole goes deeper than I need. Mic choices can make a difference, but subtle differences are lost or can be processed out. Think Bass/Mid range/Treble, nothing more complicated.

• WATCH OUT FOR FAKES. I almost bought a super cheap SM57, but researched fakes and found it to be a common thing (apparently only missing serial numbers and lighter weight are the tell, something the provided photos conveniently did not show!). Ironically, I may never have known the difference being new here!

• Some things are constant. Most mics suffer from plosives and handling noise if used badly, some more than others, but all do.

• sE is apparently pronounced “Say”. Who knew?

My purchasas so far are;

• The sE V7 ($135au via Amazon ex Japan) as the best all-rounder when compared to the industry standard SM58. More open and detailed and prettier, it is the SM58 evolved. Personally I find the SM58 flat, nasally and compressed compared to most other options.

• The sE V3 ($130au locally, $111au on Amazon ex U.S.) as the brighter and more punchy alternative to the V7. A bit more like an instrument mic “lite”, the V3 is more about boosted presence (like the SM57), less about safety and neutrality.

• The Prodipe TT1 ($70 ex UK), a smoother, darker mic (I think/hope). Like the V3, this is a more open than the SM58 (hard to find comparisons, but an Eastern European singer had a good, clear sample video). We shall see. It was cheap and apparently punches well above its weight, so a decent filler anyway.

• A matched pair of Lewitt 040’s which are class leading overhead, acoustic condenser mics. Anything delicate, stereo, or light will be covered by these, with only low end underwhelming.

• A Lewitt MTP 440 for the bottom end that the matched pair do not cover. This can also do darker vocals.

My next purchase, as I possibly intend to end up with more mics;

• The Prodipe M85, which looks to be a good vocal specialist (San Lyon have some great clips). A rip-off of the SM58, comparisons are favourable, with the French mic offering lighter and more open sound.

• Another 440, V3 or V7 depending on what I hear. The main thinking here is if one shows superior handling and plosive rejection.

• The LCT 440 or 240 for a condenser option, but that still leaves me with the problem of only being able to run 2 of 3 condensers.

• The Lewitt dynamics (250 or 550) are a more versatile, open vocal option. In hindsight an all Lewitt kit* would have worked and has merit, but their Dynamics just failed to blip on the review radar before I committed to other options. The curse of being the new kid I guess (for both of us).

I will only bother with another mic if I can tell a difference between the ones coming and find one that either reinforces the best of them or adds something different/missing**.

Other cool purchases include a set of 4 Gravity flexible arms (2x 60cm, 2x 46cm), an elegant solution to my mic stand needs. These will screw into the top of regular light stands and bend as needed. They take plenty of weight, so mics will not be a problem. For $100 I have converted 4 light stands to mic stands.

I looked at dedicated mic stands but just ran out of care factor. I have several levels of Neewer stands from cheap and unused to super light, to medium and heavy weight. Can’t use them all for lights, all bought when things were cheaper, so some can be re-purposed.

A bag of coloured pop filter foams. You never know.

*2x 040 Match, MTP 440, MTP 550 and another vocal maybe like a LCT 240/440 Pure.

**Went with the MTP 440.

Workflows.

I seem to be developing two defined video work flows

For the paper, my stills are set (RAW to Capture 1), but video has had a transformation based on realistic needs and my own expectations and observations.

It is hoped that we will be making a small clip for every job, which even if we can get the processing down to 20 minutes each is unworkable. Travel time, taking and processing of stills and video for an average of five jobs a day does not fit into the time allowed and that assumes the jobs are evenly spaced (rarely) and five is the lot (also unlikely).

Level 1 is for fast turn around for above shooting Standard profile (contrast maybe a little reduced for safety) cuts out a lot of grading time and matches across all my Panasonic cameras as well as the OSMO Pocket well enough. It also looks similar to Iphone footage if I need to blend. This goes to DaVinci then out to 1080 .mov.

Most situations have a contrast range that this profile can handle. if not, I have to decide how far I want to crush shadows to retain highlights. Basically like shooting JPEG’s really.

For “better” work, like school projects, personal stuff and commercial work, I lift to one of two levels. There is an expectation for both of the below that processing will be for quality, not time constraints.

Level 2 is employing the Flat, Cine-D or modified Natural modes (as available*) which, across all my cameras, even the Olympus, can be aligned well enough. This has plenty of processing room if I am careful and allows me to use what ever tool is the best for the job. I do the work podcast in Flat on the S5.

Level 3, saved for pro jobs is the 14 stop dynamic range Vlog. Limited to the S5, this is the top end and will rarely be used, but nice to know it is there. If there is a call, I will front up for Vlog-L on one of the G9’s which matches reasonably, maybe get a S5 Mk2 or just shoot in the above for supporting footage.

Both of course help develop skills for the other.

*Flat on the S5 and EM1’s, Cine-D on the OSMO, G9 or Natural on the G9.

Priorities

Why have I been obsessed with microphones again lately, when the end product of my work is basic sound capture into a hybrid video camera?

A few reasons.

• Bad sound is more off-putting than bad video and screams “amateur” far, far louder (literally I guess). Ask anyone in broadcasting, sound signal is designed to hang on longer than video signal because it needs to. People will tolerate temporary video degradation if the sound is still good, but not the other way around (would you rather listen to a radio or look at a movie with white noise?).

• Bad sound is less easily fixed than bad video and often sneaks up on you. Not that bad video is that easy to fix, but it is often more obvious at capture and can be replaced by other clips or stills if needed. Often bad video is also a matter of degrees, where problems with sound can quickly be catastrophic such as uncontrolled plosives, drop outs or feedback, things that often the main subject of your footage has no idea about. The odd crackle or crunch is annoying, but more than that and people switch off, or over.

• Improving sound is relatively easy and cheap to do. The entry point for sound is the limited and often rubbish in camera mic, so improving on that is easily done simply by trying. This also means you can tackle the problem a few different ways, all within the price range of a single top end lens or new camera (all my sound gear has cost me less than my 40-150 f2.8 new, which includes 3 Zooms and a dozen mics/capsules). From camera mic to cheap shotgun to better shotgun to cheap interface and mic to better mics is a range of say $20 to $600. After good enough levels have been reached however, throwing more money at it for my uses anyway is pointless. Only a sound engineer would know any different, while nuanced video continues to deliver for everyone.

• Finally, I have found that sound is fun and to this semi-jaded old shooter, both video and its required running mate sound have opened new and exciting horizons for me, so I reserve the right to dwell a bit in this space. I have awoken my inner cinematographer and roadie.

What an I trying to achieve?

I want to provide my employers and clients with decent video and balanced, better than ok sound for use from social media up to local TV commercial grade. Mostly I want to avoid bad sound first, then improve on it where I can easily and effectively.

I am realistic and aware that gear can climb and climb into stratospheric levels of cost and complication, but I am also aware that the time tested truism of “know the gear you have” always trumps big dollars poorly spent or worse, under used. Balance is as always of primary importance.

Capabilities, needs and where they meet.

The Zoom H5 is the crossroads tool at the centre of my kit. Not the best of its class, it is still highly capable and probably the most versatile option of its type. As a mic to camera interface, it is ideal. Basically if I cannot fit it to this, I probably don’t need it.

The engine room. The X/Y capsule is handy, but probably the least useful of my many options. Up to 4 XLR feeds (with the EXH-6 adapter), shotgun with mid-side, direct interface with external sources, including computers, backup recording, mono to multi line recording (in RAW also), built in effects. It has more than I understand at this point.

Mic choices do make a difference, but again, nothing over the top, just the right tool for the right job. Dynamic, condenser, cardioid, omni directional, mid-side, super cardioid, hyper cardioid are all available to or through it.

The Zoom F1 is the H5 lite, but with other tricks. Smaller so it can be worn with a LAV mic, it is the remote presenter, or on camera Zoom capsule option (the H5 is too big for either). The pre-amps in the F (Field) series are a smidgeon quieter than the H (Handy) series, so if the lowest noise is desired, the F1 is it. This can even feed to the H5 adding more mics and placement options. The cool thing with Zoom gear is it all fits in with itself.

The Zoom capsules are the easy solutions to most problems. The SSH-6 is a directional shotgun with mid-side capability (directional mono to front with some, more or no ambient stereo sound). I have found this excellent at picking up a group of four panelists evenly around one side of a round table.

The X/Y and EXH capsules add other options.

The matched pair of LCT 040 Match Lewitts are highly respected overhead, fine detail condenser pencil mics, punching well above their weight for acoustic instruments, drum overheads and wide area recording (concerts etc). Condenser mics need phantom power to work, the H5 supplies that.

A matched pair mics that take on many up to five times their price. Good as they are though, they are not designed for the more brutal sources out there (i.e. no bass). If combined with something more audibly robust though, they are ideal.

The sE V3 & V7 combo are dynamic mics. These are a very different fish to condensers, less sensitive, but handling what the more delicate Lewitts don’t like, like grunty, high pressure, in your face sources and rough handling. They can be directly handled by the talent which adds another dimension to my offer. These do not need phantom power, so the H5 and/or the EXH-6 adapter can be used.

If I do not want to use a Zoom, mainly for the paper where room is an issue, the excellent Sennheisser MKE-400 shotgun is used.

If only sound is needed or a handy backup employed, the Zoom H1n is an option as are the Zooms above.

I do have a couple of LAV mic solutions (F1, H1n with wired LAV’s, but have not gone heavily into this and synching multiple sources is likely a pain). I may look at the Hollyland Lark M1’s or Smallrig W60 options later, but don’t love the idea of these. Mic-ing up several people is impractical and not necessary for me, but the odd far away source may be a thing. For most group situations, the SSH-6 has worked or a dynamic each.

So sound is a front of house priority, but once fixed to the level you need, move on, there is always more to improve in other areas. Sound needs to be “not bad” with little praise to be gained for a videographer after that.

There is even a whole level of quality lift still available to me. I can record RAW audio from the Zooms and sync later in post. Not sure it makes enough difference at this point, but nice to know I have a next level option.

Mike Me Baby.....Again!

With a new school in the mix, thoughts are turning to more exciting mic options.

My sound set-up, is I feel quite capable in most areas, but not masterful in any. I can film groups, do run-n-gun, some instrumental recitals, interviews, groups podcasts, but there is something missing.

My ambition is to be true “music” level.

True vocal recording for best quality, not just efficiency and deep, resonant frequencies. These have so far been handled by the SSH-6, which has turned out to be a bit of a fix-all option, but considering I can get specialist mics for most tasks, I feel I need to lift this a step.

Oops, forgot the MKE-400, but this is the core of the kit now. Plenty of versatility, great fine detail, but lacking a tactile element and some vocal/full grunge instrument handling.

For sound at the moment I have all the videographer options covered, like a couple of good shotguns (MKE-400, SSH-6+F1), two sensitive and accurate matched pencil condenser mics for X/Y, A/B or close instrument placement (Lewitt 040 Match to H5), a few fixed X/Y options (H5, H1n), but nothing that is purpose made for voices or deeper sounds.

This is the current fit, both Zooms on shock mounts. The pending EXH-6 will fit in the hole on the right where the H5 shock mount did go, but I will have to look at more storage options with the dynamics on the way.

What if I needed to do a singer and guitar, small group or a full drum kit recital? How about bad environments, odd voices or some instrument combinations. I need to think genuine problem solving.

How much would I need it?

Cannot say. Maybe never, maybe regularly. A bit like a Tux or little black dress in the wardrobe, if you have one, you can plan to use it, if not you need be ok to just say no sometimes.

Keep in mind, and something I tend to loose sight of so very easily when I dive into the world of sound engineering (or most things), is that all this eventually goes into is a camera via a humble 3.5 jack. Also, the H5 has the ability to interface with supplied sound, so do I even need my own mic if I have it?

The common problem with vocal and instrument mics is that not all sources are the same, so if only one is a available, a neutral, work horse all-rounder or top of the line fully transparent model are the only two sensible choices, nothing with too much attitude or colour. Otherwise a choice of several would be better?

The search started sanely enough.

A Lewitt LCT 240 medium diaphragm (sub-1”, over 1/2”) condenser. Unlike the 040’s, which get universal praise regardless of price, the 240 is more a “good value” option. Solid but not as giant killing as the little pencils. This has kit balance, is well priced and feels controlled (maybe constrained is a more accurate term).

To my ear (with sooo many limits assumed) it sounds similar to the 040’s, close enough to the mic below and is different enough to be worth bothering with. This combined with one 040 pencil could make the perfect high end-budget voice + instrument setup. Even though it is considered “entry level” by Lewitt, the reality is the end point is limited (see above).

Being a condenser, there is no way I can run all three Lewitt’s out of my Zoom H5, so the little Zoom AMS 24 or 44 popped up as an interface fix that feeds to the H5 or to run on their own. Versatile, some new features, depth, but familiar dials and interface. Basically a non-32 bit float capable F3 solution for less than half the price. May still get one, just for convenience.

Messy though. Things into things into things potentially adds little nasties and more chances of failure.

While reviewing the 240, the LCT 440 naturally rose to the surface as the next step up, reducing self noise to less than half, adding some warmth and depth (this does get class leading reviews like the 040’s), but the price is actually higher than the 240 and AMS 24 together with the same problem of sharing ports!

I then discovered the LCT 441, which is actually four or five mics in one (eight if you believe the hype), giving me a genuine problem solver of 440 quality. Another class leader adding “shapes” to my offer. Most of these shapes though can be done using the 040’s.

Still messy and now we are talking $400+. Overkill and more to the point, is this actually adding anything?

By now this may be getting out of hand and balance*.

I have to remind myself that these are reviewed by musicians, not videographers, so I have to shelve the budding sound engineer in me and stay on task, think of end uses, not pie in the sky potentials.

Looking away from Lewitts, the Rode NT1’s of various generations are owed due respect. The mic most often compared to the 440 in reviews as a good base line, this is an industry work horse, comes with great build quality and warranty, lots of accessories and the newest/dearest, 5th Generation, even has 32 bit float out (needs a DAW, via USB connection) and some software cleverness. Cheaper than the 441, some even as cheap as the 240, it seems a no brainer.

Problem is, it looks and feels like a stage mic, but does not act like one. It is side directional, does not love handling and is ugly (sorry Rode). It is also very directional, making it a great studio mic, but less versatile than I would like.

This planted a seed though.

I have never looked at dynamic mics because, based on the ones I have seen, which were wireless, I assumed they needed their own power and I have more than enough batteries to worry about (be kind, I had never looked closely).

They don’t, being noise driven they need nothing but a cable, but are generally less sensitive than condensers. They can however be handled, are far tougher, provide better all-round studio grade quality at a lower price point*. and with a $99 accessory (Zoom EXH-6), I can run a pair into either the H5 as well as the condensers or the F1, which has no XLR ports. So the F1 can be a separate recorder, or even feed into the H5 like the interface above while also recording its own backup.

What a potential problem solver.

Rather than getting the F3 as a small XLR recorder, the F1 gets an upgrade (no 32 bit float though or phantom power through this capsule) and the H5 turns into effectively an H6. I could even use four dynamic mics in a panel situation through the H5.

The Shure SM57 & 58’s are the industry standards, genuinely respected and proven with millions of users and thousands of performances and recordings made with them (apparently Bon Iver made his whole hit album with a single SM57 as just one example). It looks though, like the 50 year+ reign of this pair is under threat with a ton of options, the slightly sexier and clearer sounding sE V7/V7x and cheaper, livelier sE V3 just two.

The V3 seems most like the SM57 with a wide cardioid pattern and less noise, the V7 is slightly different, safer and more neutral like a refined SM58 (?) vocal specialist and tighter in pickup (super cardioid).

The pair make for a good problem solving duo. Voices are different so it makes sense to offer different mics. The V3 is more up front, punchier, the V7 more reserved and controlled. Neither is “right”, but both are relevant, so both makes sense.

For less than some of the above condenser solution and less complication, I can get the sE V7 ($135au) or sE V3 ($120au) and the Zoom EXH-6 ($99)** capsule. This gives me a vocal mic, but also an instrument option with the added advantages of direct handling, robustness and near bullet proof high decibel tolerance.

As proof of the benefits of a little thought with sound, I could build up an arsenal of dynamics each suited specifically to different tasks, all for the cost of a mid range lens.

A little more aggressive than the V7, but for into camera work, the extra punch is preferable and it is cheaper than the V7. I will likely end up with both to handle different voices and subjects.

Looking further, I also found the budget-not budget sounding-Prodipe TT1 Lanen for under $100au. This one has a silkier, deeper sound apparently like a Sennheisser E835, is highly efficient and also robust so it offers a third option to the two above. These were made from hand selected Chinese parts by a respected sound guru (Ludovic Lanen) for ridiculously low cost and are regularly compared favourably to multi hundred dollar mics.

For deep or soft voices needing a lift I can use the V3, for neutral voices the V7 and for high pitched or thin voices the TT1. The NEAT Worker Bee II or Prodipe MC-1 are also on the radar for plosive prone subjects and the sE V2 may need looking at. There is room for a fourth or more, but I will sit on this one until I have the three ordered ones in hand. The ideal would probably be a set of one type for consistency and a few problem solvers.

This would also add student interviews (student to student even), high sound pressure instruments like straight down the mouth of a horn, kick drum, amp etc, as well as take some serious physical abuse (all things condensers are less well suited for). With the F1, it would even be possible to wear the kit interview style and sync later if needed.

Still coming in (with adapter), under the cost of just the LCT 441, I now have several ways of recording anything from a rock band, a full orchestra, stage play, interview, a panel to a solo instrumentalist, all with backup options.

The EXH-6 can also take inputs from sound boards etc, so I could potentially feed into both Zooms.

Zoom recorders are known for their relatively noisy pre-amps, especially in their H series (and the AMS interfaces apparently). This is less of an issue with condensers, but with less sensitive dynamic mics it is something to watch. The F series field recorders though seem to be better, so the F1 and EXH-6 capsule may well be better than an AMS anyway.

Where am I right now?

Tool kit;

• Robustness (physical and audible) > dynamics (Se V3/V7, TT1).

• Sensitivity > condensers (040 Match).

• Convenience > on camera mics and capsules (MKE-400, F1/SSH-6 or X/Y caps).

• Versatility > external feed into H5/F1 or one to the other.

• Discreetness > LAV’s (not strong here, but something useable).

• Safety > a Zoom not used with a capsule (H1n, F1 with SSH-6 or X/Y).

The future?

If I do need to add wireless to the kit, something I want to avoid for a variety of reasons (added complication, sound quality and technical inconsistency), I may look at the Hollyland Lark M1 or Max, Smallrig W60 kit or make my dynamic mics wireless with adapters.

Versatility, my favourite strength.

Something else I have learned is the baseline for some microphone types seems to be the Rode NT1 and Shure SM58’s. Look past these though, because the market is evolving in exciting ways.

*Podcastage podcast, which is good fun and very informed, has a great episode about the threshold of money spent to benefits gained. The Dynamic mics in particular tend to flatten out at the sE V7 level, with little to be gained after that for reasonable value. Condensers on the other hand tend to keep improving to the $400+ range, so my research was on point and my path went the right way it seems.

**Just ordered the sE V3 and EXH-6 from a local supplier, then I got an sE 7V for less than the price of the V3 on special ($135au) through that rain forrest crowd, ex Japan. Pays to keep poking. Total cost $370 for 2 mics and adapter (or the cost of the Lewitt 440 alone). Then I grabbed the TT1 for $70 ex UK (the big river guys again). I may grab another TT1 to make 4 all up if it is good or the V3 or NEAT worker bee.

Cinematic Movies Or Modern Video.

Cinematic looking footage is the holy grail for most videographers at the moment.

What is it?

Depends on who you ask.

Generally, shallow depth of field, high sharpness veiled in overall “bloomy” softness with good dynamic range, especially in highlights with a little added colour magic seems to be the core it.

How do we get it?

The sharpness thing is fun. Most videographers complain about the over-sharp video look, so they soften it with a variety of antique lenses, some introduced haze or filtering.

Odd really. We chased sharpness for ages, now it has become the enemy for some. I guess the ideal is “natural clarity” rather than “clinical perfection”.

It seems you need to achieve it first, then you need to take the edge off it. Unsharp is just poor and gritty not acceptably mushy. Clean and sharp first, then smooth and soft combined is the business.

Depth of field is a double edged thing. You do not always need shallow depth, but you need a feeling of compression and grandeur, even at smaller apertures. This is often why full frame cameras and anamorphic lenses are used, because they add this easily, but M43 can also. Super-35 film, the Hollywood format of choice for decades is actually as close to M43 as full frame.

Dynamic range and colour science are intertwined also, because one without the other is less than half the story. Hard to explain, but you know it when you see it, there is an edge provided by some cameras, even with smaller sensors, when compared to many larger sensor cameras, often down to capture profiles, colour gamut and processing options. The BMPCC4k for example has that “something special” even though it is dated, less sharp than newer cameras and uses a smaller sensor.

Lighting. This is nothing to do with the camera, so anyone can achieve this.

*

So, where does that leave digital video, or more to the point using the bulk of cameras used as they were designed?

I have recently discovered a few things.

I love the Standard profile from the G9 with full sharpness (i.e. left at “0”, maybe reduced to -2 or -3, still testing), but with contrast dropped to -5 for some headroom. When I first researched the G9 and video, everyone** pushed Natural at -5/-5/x/x. I did as I was told, but it has never been a perfect fit. Natural tends to make highlights a little milky and I keep trying to bring the contrast back up, often too harshly. Standard profile gives me crisp whites, reducing the need to push contrast.

This breaks many of the above rules.

It is still contrasty*, but has a tiny bit of head room in post. The trick is, get it right in camera. I am competing with iPhones on auto here, which are not to be sneezed at, but I have the advantage of sensor size.

Ken Burns enough? A snap from an M43 camera, with nothing “cinematic” done except for lighting. The video on the day, though ruined by banding, looked similar. Just concentrate on the highlights then push your post as far as you dare. Shadows = drama, so what’s the harm? Snappiness is wanted, complete background mush is not.

It has limited dynamic range*, probably around 8-9 stops, but that just means I have to pick my fights (locations), live with dramatically crushed shadows or blown out highlight or preferably supply some lighting. Often if I do not have much control over the location it is because TV are dictating a setup, which actually helps me no end.

If I keep the histogram centred or to the left, I am usually ok. I have a custom setting with Cine-D loaded just in case and might get the Vlog-L key.

It is too sharp by the cinematic school of thinking*. So why do I love how sharp it looks? A very mild Black Mist is available or some post. We will see.

I get basically straight from the camera, what I process towards. Just like shooting JPEG’s. If I nail this process, my footage does go beyond the basic video on the run look.

*

Because shooting both stills and video is tough, I need to get some things sorted. The above helps, but more has to be addressed.

Leaving a Variable ND filter or a BM, even a weak one on my main shooting lens for the paper does not make a lot of sense and changing mid stream is also not viable, so I am going to probably carry a dedicated “cinema” rigged out lens, maybe the legacy 25 Pen lens, or the 17 with the 15 as my low light stills shooter.

In good light the 17 is fine, but in low light, the 9 or 25 could cover me.

My filter kit is a mess, with multiple sizes and redundancies, but this is where poor choices and hoarding come to the rescue. I can basically kit a single 46mm lens out for video just for the work kit and have a full set of 62mm filters for the main video kit on the 12-40 zoom and 67’s for the S5 rig.

Using an Olympus lens on both G9’s keeps manual focus consistency and feels more natural to me with the advantage of the tactile manual snap back (the switches on the Lumix lenses are not). The Sigma 30 goes the Pana way, but will be used more for static interviews as would the S5’s lenses. If I get an S5 mk2 I would have serviceable AF available. This is for run-and-gun shooting so these two set-ups need to be intuitive.

So, back to the original question. Cinematic-soft or snappy-modern video? I actually like the snappier video look with maybe the slightest softness.

*If I add a 1/8 Black Mist filter I get some pleasant highlight softening and slightly increased dynamic range.

**Rich photo was the rare exception and I have to say, I liked his super sharp, super saturated footage.