rparmar

Joined: 23rd February 2008

All Forum Comments

Topics Created Topics Contributed Forum Comments Photo Comments

All Forum Comments

rparmar
Fair enough -- sorry for any ill will.

It is in fact very hard to tell what is a "good enough" product, since people are generally very unsure of the standards they require. Microphones are far more important than the recorder in any case.

As for cassette... I used them all the time with no problem. Sony Pro Walkman FTW!

Comment by rparmar posted on What microphone for video? at 08/06/2011 - 22:28

rparmar
pezking wrote:
I've recorded acoustic guitar, electric guitar and singing with them and it sounds great.
Any recorder will sound great for that application, since noise will be masked by the relatively high input signal level, as you should well know from being an audio engineer. However the application under discussion is not recording your favourite band or practice session, for which you may as well use a cassette recorder.

The application here is video, which I assume means capturing both dialogue and ambiance in the field. Recorders with high noise floor cannot be recommended for this application.

pezking wrote:
If I had to critique two points they would be that it doesn't feel strongly built (so don't treat it roughly... why would you anyway?)
That's an odd statement. In field use one doesn't have the choice of babying equipment. I cannot tell from the lack of context, but if you are referring to my comments on build quality, they were made regarding the H2, not the H1, which I have never used.

pezking wrote:
As for some of the opinions listed here: I can't believe that you're comparing a cheap personal recorder to field recorders costing many many times the price... Compare apples with apples eh?!
I think perspective is a good thing. If a distinctly better recorder can be had an extra 50 or 100 monetary units then anyone serious about their task should pony up. Having knowledge of what different price points buys you can only be a good thing.

For what it's worth, I have been recommending inexpensive gear with a distinctly better ability to get the job done than gear the same price or slightly less. The fact that Zoom recorders are often recommended in certain circles only points to a lack of knowledge about alternatives. That's all well and good but aren't we on a Pentax forum? Look to other options.

Comment by rparmar posted on What microphone for video? at 08/06/2011 - 21:22

rparmar
Oh yes, the actual price depends on local taxes etc. Thomann have personalised pages for each country, which is handy. Best of luck! Maybe let them know you are in a hurry?

Comment by rparmar posted on What microphone for video? at 08/06/2011 - 20:54

rparmar
Thomann has the LS-5 for 175 Euros. I don't mind promoting them as I am a happy customer. I have found their service to be excellent. Never had to return anything but twice have needed telephone service.

Avisoft Bioacoustics are authorities and have tested the LS-10/11/5 as having the same low noise pre-amps:
http://www.avisoft.com/recordertests.htm

The LS-7 is 4dB noisier, which is still amazing for its form factor. I don't see the point of going that small, however. It becomes self-defeating.

Getting this sort of recording excellence under 200 is insane. Imagine if a K-5 was that price? That's how these recorders make me feel.

Comment by rparmar posted on What microphone for video? at 08/06/2011 - 20:21

rparmar
I haven't read anything about its audio abilities. Frankly, I doubt what they already have out there can possibly be improved at this price point.

So instead they add video and paint it black!

Comment by rparmar posted on What microphone for video? at 08/06/2011 - 03:45

rparmar
Stefan, if you can get the LS-5 it is a lot cheaper than the LS-11. Difference is:

* It comes with custom software instead of Cubase. I use neither so it doesn't matter a bit.

* It has 2GB internal versus 8GB. Anyway, I prefer to add SD cards as needed.

* It's missing the remote and pouch. The pouch is too tight a fit once the windsocks are in place, so that is no loss either.

For all this you save 100 Euro.

Comment by rparmar posted on What microphone for video? at 08/06/2011 - 00:38

rparmar
Ah. Just so.

Comment by rparmar posted on 16-45 or 17-70? at 06/06/2011 - 17:11

rparmar
Further on Kim's remarks...

Depth of field suffers proportionately with increased magnification. This results in two issues. First, focusing is a lot more critical. A tripod is a necessity and macro rails recommended.

Second, you have to stop down more to get enough of your subject in focus. Therefore, you need more light, and this needs to be targeted on your subject. That's why there are special ring lights, etc. available for macro.

All of this results in greater commitment to macrophotography. Macro of up to 1:2 may be sufficient for your purposes and avoid some of this expense.

Comment by rparmar posted on recommend a macro lens please at 06/06/2011 - 17:10

rparmar
Ah sorry, I missed that last post before replying! Only speaking from my own (limited) experience. Every wedding is different with different rules and expectations of conduct as a photographer. Important to check with officiant beforehand to get it all straight. And to do a site visit to see what focals are required.

Comment by rparmar posted on Which wide & fast lens...? at 06/06/2011 - 16:24

rparmar
Another vote for the DA12-24 which has the best IQ in this range. Unless size is the overwhelming priority and then the DA15 of course.

Random recent image:

[IMG]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5107/5768780381_67ee3115fa.jpg[/IMG]

Comment by rparmar posted on 12-24mm or 15mm at 06/06/2011 - 16:14

Proudly supporting Pentax User

Samsung Logo Asahi Pentax Logo