Following our recent microphone pre-amp shootout there was a lot of controversy surrounding the results from the Sony a7 III, so our team went to work.
Alex, our audio engineer, repeated his tests on a second Sony a7 III body. Using the same Zaxcom URX100 receiver ($900) he repeated his original test and got the same result as the first time. In an effort to rule out the Zaxcom as a potential source of error, he repeated the test with a second URX100 and once again got the same result.
Alex then repeated the test using a Rode VideoMic Pro + ($300) and saw similar results. However, when he did the test again using a Rode Wireless Go ($200) and Rode VideoMic Go ($59) the results were noticeably better. He also notes that in response to DPReview's video, Gerald Undone performed a similar test and saw good results using the Rode VideoMic NTG ($250).
How does this affect the rankings from first video? When used with a microphone that pairs well with the camera, Alex placed the Sony a7 III in the #2 position (in a tie with the Panasonic S1H).
Alex's advice is that if you're planning to use a particular piece audio gear with the Sony a7 III it's a good idea to test it first to make sure it works well with the camera.
Finally, Jordan notes that they have seen some inconsistent results from the Nikon Z6 as well. As a result, they'll be doing some additional tests on that camera to better understand its performance.
Allen Cavedo 3 months ago As a production sound mixer I appreciate DPReview and Alex taking the time to run these tests... twice. As cameras have gotten better audio over the years (and it has taken years) and as many more persons today are using cameras in single system audio recorded directly to camera, it is important to know how the audio will sound.
my observations: All tests were purely subjective with no noise measurements taken so each result was largely a matter of opinion except for the Sony. Objective noise measurements would have been nice.
I thought it would be helpful to put some numbers to normalization of audio inputs to a Sony A7iii, using a professional grade audio interface, a Sound Devices MixPre 10ii. For a source, I used the MixPre test oscillator set to -20 dB at 1000 Hz, which is the target record level I use in the field. The analog output is adjustable over a range of +20 dBV to -40 dBV. For the purpose of this test, I adjusted the MicPre output and A7iii input to a record level of -20 dB.
At the lowest setting of the A7iii, the MixPre could be set to no higher than -26 dB. With the MixPre set to -40 dB, the record level of the A7iii was 11 (out of 31). At -40 dB, the output of the MixPre is roughly that of a condensor microphone. At that setting, the end-to-end S/N ratio was 68.32 dB. While not great by digital standards, It is comparable to my old Ampex studio recorder.
My takeaway is that the Rode Videomic Pro is probably too hot for the 3.5 mm input, precluding normalization.
I've mentioned the problems that I've experienced with the 2.5 volt DC Plug-in-Power that Sony a7 cameras' mic input jack presents to the audio input source. I took the time to make a very quick and dirty video with my a7Sii to demonstrate the issue, and I thought I'd share it here. Note that the video is comprised of 5 clips and that I did no audio filtering, so what you hear is what the camera recorded. And, indeed my DC blocking circuit seems to have one channel shorted out ... probably a solder blob ring to sleeve.
Well, they took a HUUGE loss on all the gear of other brands they sold, just to be trendy for a year and be able to mock other peoples gear, so anything that hurts a Sony fanboys ego is pretty hard on them... RIP.
In HIFI, the 'steam engine' effect the tester noted is called 'breathing' and MAY be an artifact of COMPRESSION where low signal levels are boosted while higher level signals are NOT. Some early noise reduction systems had similar problems. I used an Original EXTERNAL dolby system back in the 70s and noted that effect in a poorly calibrated system. I later experimented with the DBX system and noted similar effects, but not as bad.
I'm still waiting for microphone IMPEDANCE data which in the real world of audio makes a big difference. Especially in low voltage / current circuits like Phono preamps and cartridge matching.
Also, I suspect there is a way to work an Audio Precision Analyzer into the mix for some REAL data, not more subjective impressions. https://www.ap.com/analyzers-accessories/
Impedance. That's exactly what I was thinking. Is it a voltage noise vs current noise problem? Maybe the Sony has a BJT input stage? Nice against 1/f noise but killing if your input impedance is high (sorry for the jargon, I'm an analog integrated circuit designer).
Finding a microphone compatible with the 3.5 mm socket on a Sony camera is a hit-or-miss proposition. Sony does not specify the pinout of that terminal, the sensitivity range of the input, nor even the most elementary flow diagram if its circuits.
On the other hand, Sony has the XLR-K3M adapter which fits into the flash shoe and communicates with the camera digitally. The inputs conform to those familiar to professional audio engineers - balanced XLR connectors, TRS input jacks, variable gain, and selectable line/mic/48V options. There is even a switchable 0/10/20 dB pad.
While a plug-in microphone might provide a quick-and-dirty solution, the XLR-K3M will accept nearly any conventional microphone in an engineer's locker, or line feed from an external preamp or recorder. While unbalanced microphones are limited to 25' of cable or less, balanced (XLR) cables can run in excess of 300' without significant signal or frequency loss, and be highly resistant to RF interference.
Even XLR has some wiggle room. I can't remember off-the-top but some discussions about stuff like 'pin2 hot' or similar. Not everybody does it the same. It would be more important that there be internal consistency when using a One Brand approach....Sony stuff with a Sony camera should...or BETTER....work.
DPReview should measure the DC voltage present between the tip and the sleeve of ALL the cameras involved in this preamp test.
My bet is that ONLY the Sony provides Plug-in-Power (PiP) to the mic, and will therefore have a DC voltage present. This should clearly show why the Sony is different from all the other cameras.
ANY TEST SETUP THAT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PRESENCE OF THAT DC VOLTAGE, INJECTED BY THE CAMERA TO POWER A MICROPHONE, IS ELECTRICALLY INCORRECT, AND INVALID.
A mic's output stage can use a negative feedback (NFB) amplifier to drive its load — i.e. the possibly quite long signal line and the input impedance of the recording device.
With a differential signal, carried e.g. over an XLR connection, a common DC offset between ground and the signal lines is irrelevant, as the NFB circuit can simply sample the voltage between the positive and negative signal lines of the XLR link.
OTOH, with the 3.5mm stereo jacks on these cameras, we obviously have only single-ended signals. Therefore, a DC voltage bias between the ground and signal lines CANNOT be eliminated by the NFB. A NFB-based output stage will thus NECESSARILY operate in a voltage envelope it's not designed for if such a DC voltage is injected into the output port.
People who don't even understand why that simple concept of DC offset and NFB output stage design are relevant, as well as the key difference between differential and single-ended signals when considering the impact of DC offsets, have no business trying to pretend that they can do something resembling audio signal metrology.
For metrology purposes, a TRIVIAL way to eliminate a PiP DC voltage would be to use two passive mic splitters. Such passive splitters, often used in professional audio, typically have a "direct" and an "isolated" output, where the direct XLR output port is directly connected to the XLR input, and the "isolated" XLR output port is coupled via a transformer to the XLR input, thus eliminating any DC coupling between the input and "isolated" output.
The use of such an isolating mic splitter is a frequent occurence in the professional audio recording space, to eliminate e.g. the current loop that might arise if e.g. two mixing consoles tried both to feed a 48V phantom power to a single mic via the mic splitter. It therefore boggles the mind why no attempt was made to detect and eliminate a DC offset, by using such trivial means as inserting an isolating mic splitter in the signal chain.
Furthertmore, a NFB output stage will present a signal level-dependent, and therefore dynamically variable current sink to the electrical circuit in a recording device attempting to provide a fairly stable and noise-free PiP DC voltage to the mic.
The PiP circuit's voltage regulator will thus presumably be stressed, and draw highly variable currents from the camera's internal voltage supply rail, possibly generating common noise. That's another reason why removing DC coupling between the recording device and the mic is so essential.
As to the compatibility between a camera with a mic input that supplies PiP voltage and the various microphones on the market: users should be careful to choose a mic design that takes into account the possible presence of a PiP voltage, and have an output stage that eliminates it, which could be done by the design engineer by inserting e.g. tiny capacitors in the signal chain.
With Sony cameras, PiP DC rejection would thus be a /necessary/, but not always documented compatibility feature of mics with built-in batteries.
Of course, one could also simply use microphones that are known to be compatible with PiP, simply by virtue of them having no built-in battery, like the Canon DM-E100 microphone. That would be a /sufficient/ condition for compatibility.
Lastly, the relationship between the mic's output impedance and the input impedance of the recording device — cameras, in this case — are unlikely to matter. You can be confident that these products (mics and cameras) are actually designed by qualified electrical engineers who know far more avout the subject than Internet forum denizens, and the mic's output impedances are therefore likely to be quite low, while the recording device's input impedances will be quite high, meaning that very little of the signal's voltage excursion will be lost over the transmission channel.
Thank you for spelling this out out in such great detail. I suspect that it will prove enlightening for those sound technicians here calling themselves sound engineers.
Which is why I wish Sony had provided a way to defeat PIP in their cameras with microphone input jacks.
same failure modes as the previous test: 1) no input/output gain settings listed 2) no noise floor measurements from an editing app, like gerald undone did
audio 101: "...when dealing with audio, your first clue that something isn't right will be the loss of one stereo channel, or a lot of noise coming through. This is generally a sure sign that the pins aren't in the right place." https://www.cablechick.com.au/blog/understanding-trrs-and-audio-jacks/
the zaxcom output is a 4-pin trrs headphone jack, while sony uses a 3-pin trs mic input jack, did you use a properly wired adapter between the two? are you sure that headphone jack impedance is properly matched to mic input impedance?
that zaxcom headphone jack doubles as an antenna, which not the same thing as a clean hardwired mic output: https://youtu.be/jsO6bsezUpw?t=342
so is the cable between the two picking up noise, given that it's an antenna? is it properly grounded? it's trrs vs. trs.
Two good points from these articles. 1) there is an issue with Sony camera where it does not work well with some of the better and popular microphones. 2) there are microphones that do work, and the article listed the ones they found that do work. I'd be curious to see if other Sony's (or any camera) have this issue.
I suspect the variation with microphone could be due to impedance differences. I have seen this when inserting a Fethead Phantom into the audio chain for different microphones. Some microphones have reduced noise with it inserted, others have increased noise. This means that the reduction in noise cannot be caused entirely by replacing some of the pre-amp gain with gain from the FHP, there must be something else at work, and my suspicion is it's the change in impedance it causes, and different microphones are affected differently by the change in impedance.
Testing audio is no different than stills and then hearing and looking at the results. Sound and pictures are perceived in their digital form. There are microphones, preamps, lenses and sensors doing the conversion.
Testing audio is a bit more true b/c you get to use the same mic for all cameras, while for stills each camera has it's own lens and some lenses are better than others, but nobody complains about that.
Testing audio is a REAL rabbit hole and mix of fact, opinion, measurments and listening tests. Over the years, I've see Very Highly reviewed equipment go from 'new' to resale market than disappear in about 12 to 18 months. NOBODY 'perceives' digits. Your perception is after some kind of conversion to either a visual or audible form. YES, by all means, 'hearing and looking at the results'. And in the world of audio, you simply can't connect Any Speaker to Any amp and expect 'best'. Some amps are simply incapable of driving the speaker properly due to either impedance or reactance issues. I even heard a highly regarded pair of ElectoStatic speakers destroy an amp in the blink of an eye. Speaker emitted a fairly loud 'chirp' then went silent. Amp was TOAST.
Here is a quick and dirty way to "normalize" an electronic microphone and camera. With this method, you are unlikely to clip the signal, and the S/N ratio will be about as good as you can get.
Set the camera level (gain) to mid-scale. Adjust the microphone level until what you're recording peaks at -12 dB to -20 dB on the camera's meters. If the microphone's adjustment reaches its high or low limit, adjust the camera level to achieve the desired recording level. If both the camera an microphone settings are at their extreme limits, you probably need a different setup.
There are other things to adjust as well. You can play/speak louder or softer, or change the distance between the microphone and the source. The downside is that it takes a lot of skill to modulate your voice or playing appropriately. The closer the microphone, the more you pick up production noises - pops, puffs, fingers on the frets, etc. The further away, the more ambient noise and reflections become relative to the source.
Complicated? That's why an experienced sound guy starts at about $80/hour, 8 hour minimum plus travel. Equipment is extra.
Incredible how DPR rushes out to do a re-test of the Sony. Why didn’t you do a re-test of the Nikon Z6 when Jordan said it’s preamps were bad? Or why not re-test the XT3 with more microphones.
Let’s do some reliability tests too. Let’s test the A7iii sealing against Canon and Nikon. Let’s test the A7iii resistance against overheating vs the other brands. And yeah, let’s test its IBIS too while we’re at it compared with the Z6.
They didn't "rush" to re-test but were obviously nudged so by other users and professionals as well who obviously did have vastly different experiences with the Sony A7iii audio quality.
It was even more important to re-test the Sony because it was light-years behind the competition in their first test comparison video, those results seemed to reflect some sort of abnormality or technical issue rather than the true capability of the Sony A7iii audio preamps.
Basically, as DPR stated, they re-tested the Sony because of the controversy in the comments section, where several people questioned the validity of the first test. In other words, they responded to reader feedback.
I would be more interested in an exploration of the technical reasons for this incompatibility. As microphones are analog devices, simple adjustments such as gain levels could make the mic "compatible". The digital way of thinking does not apply to analog systems, there is no automatic incompatibility because of the brand or device version, it's not an on/off state. Specs must be analyzed, gain levels measured, adjustments must be made. Simply plugging the mic in and observing the "incompatibility" is a very flawed technique.
Summary: NOT GOOD WORK. MUST DO BETTER. Get your act together DPR. Now is NOT the time to budge. If this is out of your league get the pro's to do the work. Its incredibly simple if You know what you do. It is incredibly difficult if you dont.
Nobody made a mistake. The one camera has a flaw and does not work with a number of mics. And they identified a few it does works with. This is helpful information.
No it is not easy to tell DPR they made a mistake at all! To me it is another proof of reading what you want to read. That makes ME laugh. DPR HAD to revise their flawed review because it was clearly proven flawed by someone seriously involved in video and sound. I wonder where are the video boys now? They do a great job always. Chime in Jordan!!
Until there is proof otherwise, the answer is YES. We have proof one camera does poorly with a number of microphones and so the answer for it NO. Speculation without any supporting information is bad, and in extreme cases can be dangerous. Anti-vaxxers and the people who said Covid19 is just another flu are examples.
Only one camera so far was found to have a flaw when using a number of mics.
Perry, they was not a flaw with the original review. The Sony does have issues with the microphone used in the test. Later it was found it has issues with other mics too. And it was found it works very well with some different mics too. Buyer beware. Test the mic before buying. This is all helpful information.
It is widely known that there are serious incompatibilities of various kinds between cameras and mics. Just testing 1 on1 like they did is NOT considered thorough testing. The test method was flawed. And when this is done by a reviewsite the likes of DPR, with incredible world wide influence on potential buyers, this is just plain flawed testing and could/(will for the not so experienced buyers) have serious impact on camera sales. Flawed in 2020 is flawed.
The article did expose a flaw. As you say flawed is flawed. I would like to see links to those other tests finding mics that do not work on the other cameras. More info is always helpful.
That is a classic fake argument. It’s called Russell's teapot. How do you know there isn’t a teapot orbiting the Sun? Some people when confronted by factual evidence they don’t like use it.
The Sony has a flaw. It doesn’t work with a number of mics. It works very well with others. If you have more evidence post it.
@ Raynaud: Depends. If the mic that was used in the initial test did not match the audio specs of the Sony camera, it isn't a flaw. Then it is a limitation.
We even don't know how compatible other cameras are with different microphones until an extended test is done. Not much teapots flying around here. Actually, more testing is needed to get a reliable answer, not just a claim like yours, where you look away from other possibilities with the other cameras. What is this called? Denying?
You can't put a Canon flash on a Sony or Nikon camera and expect full auto/TTL support either, or visa versa. Is this a flaw? And so with other add-on items that are not fully compatible?
I skimmed though the manual and found no mention of this.
You think “it isn't a flaw. Then it is a limitation.” It’s either an unknown limitation or one Sony isn’t telling owners.
Those criticizing this site are wrong though. They are telling people something Sony isn’t (or is doing a poor job of). A number of microphones do not work well on this one camera, and some do work well. Be prepared to test before you buy. Some call it a flaw, you call it a limitation. This site is letting everyone know about the “limitation “ and that is good.
And thanks to this site for letting people know about the “limitations” of this one Sony camera. (And mics that work) This is good information for prospective buyers that may save them time.
@Perry It is not widely known about incompatability of mics by the average consumer, so this is useful information. It would be more useful if they tested the other cameras with all of the same microphones to see if they have any issues or not.
@ KZ7: If people think that a mic is just a mic, they should start googling right away.
Sony offer many mics and even XLR adapters, to make good audio recording available for less experienced users too. Why not start here if you want something that just works after reading the instructions?
@Magnar I googled "Best microphone for Sony A7iii" Top of the search was an article from Soundmaximum titled "5 Best Mics for Sony a7iii With Crisp Clear Audio in 2020". The list includes the Rode Videomic Pro plus that had issues in this test. So as a consumer with a limited understanding of audio but wanting to get better sound quality I could very well end up buying a microphone that exhibits poor sound quality on the Sony A7iii based on this search. Like it or not this is an issue with the Sony A7iii. It would be nice if DPR follows up and tests these same microphones on the other cameras to see if they also have this same problem or if it is only the Sony. That would be good consumer advice.
The Rode Videomic has a built-in amplifier with a line level output, adjustable from -10 to +20 dB. Most outboard microphones for use with hybrid cameras are similar. The Sony A7iii has a microphone level input with unspecified sensitivity. It also has a 7.2 VDC power supply which may not be compatible with some inputs.
In order to keep from clipping, the audio gain in the camera must be set. For a hot input like the Videomic, this is probably at the minimum level. At the same time, the powered mic output must be set to its lowest level.
I have a couple of signal generators in my field kit (you need two of everything), which inject an audio signal at several levels, typically +4 dB (pro), -10 db (consumer) and -40 dB (mic). This can be used to test the signal flow at several points in the chain.
Most of the time I can use the test tone generator in my external recorder (e.g., Zoom F8) to inject a 1000 Hz, -20 dB signal into the A/D. I then adjust the output of the F8 and input of the camera so that the camera also reads -20 db. When recording, For a mic level camera input, the output is usually -20 dB (the low limit) and somewhere mid-range in the camera. I shoot for a nominal -20 peak level while recording, with transients generally no higher than -6 dB.
Ed, the 7.2 volts that you mention is the Sony battery voltage; it also takes 5v from USB.
I've seen a few contradictory values for the Plug-in-Power bias voltage at the mic input jack. I just measured my Sony a7Sii's mic jack, and it's 2.55v + on tip and ring, with respect to sleeve.
It must be a dpreview thing: If at first the Sony does not do well, we'll test and test again; even change the test parameters so it suits the Sony. If there was any sort of objectivity, all cameras would, at least, have received the same treatment.
@ Vivid1: Simple. Look at the facts. Then look at your theory about a strong Sony bias. Do you really think they would not redo the test if one of the other cameras did bad, and others who tested got results that highly indicated a flawed test?
Every test DPreview does is 'flawed' to some extent because of verdicts based on personal bias (for example the percentage and 'awards') but in this case, the Sony is clearly flawed because it does not work with most mics out there for some mysterious reason - and THAT should be the message.
My question is what if does not work with the mics you own? I would think it would rank last. If you are lucky enough to own one it works with or you are willing to buy one, then it ranks higher. But they can’t say it always ranks higher.
It’s a flaw with the camera if a number of good microphones did not work with it. But nobody said don’t use the camera. Either don’t buy it to begin with, use an external recorder, or buy a mic that has been verified to work.. Work around the camera flaw or get a different camera.
EthanP99 theres obviously a fundamental problem with its preamp and it certainly will happen with many more microphone. This cant be sugarcoated, also they dont work not only "not well" its a disaster o.O listen to that noise! Its insane! Try some good headphones or monitors, in case you cant hear it.
@pahnson: Remember that the other cameras only worked well with one mic, as they were only tested with that mic. It is very well possible that they work well with all mics, but there also is a possibility they do not work well with some other mics too. It is not sure, so it makes no sense to ditch a camera on this review only. You could take a mic that is working fine, you could use an external recorder to make perfect sound recordings, you could use the internal mic for better results then the not working external mic. This goes for ALL cameras.
@ pahnson - ”The fact alone that it does not pair in an even remotely acceptable way with so many microphones would be reason enough for me to ditch this camera”
Wow, are you this strict on the lens mount interoperabillity as well? Will you ditch all cameras that don’t have really good AF with Zeiss, Tamron, Sigma and Samyang lenses?
@gfrensen - so far I heard about no problems with the other cams with any microphones so far. And I didnt experience any on my 1DX II with different mics so far. And the internal mic is realy not okay as an option... But well, it may be happening to the other cameras, I didnt searched for it so far.
@pahnson, nobody had heard about problems with the sound on the A7III either, and there it is.I'm not saying there are problems, but we just do not know if there are... And when you ditch a camera because a few mics doesn't work on it well that is your choice as there are solution to the problem, like asking online what mics work well
Is anyone serious about video using the A7iii though? I can think of 5 or 6 cameras like the S1H and GH5 and XT3 which are better. 8 bit video is pretty dated in 2020. My guess is the A7iii is fine for vlogging and no one cared much about sound. Also, serious shooters who do use the a7iii probably record externally anyway.
Well it all depends on your use case. A7iii It has great AF no matter 4K or 120fps HD. Some cameras will simply miss focus regardless of nr bits used. But yes, the more serious you are about filmning the more likely to use external recorder.
sillen - jeah, I think the a7 III is still the most bang for the buck if you photo AND video and can only afford one camera for this. If you can go for dedicated tools, its certainly the better way to go.
The A7iii just isn’t a good camera for anyone who wants great video. AF doesn’t work the same as in stills mode, and other cameras are just as good. IBIS is a step below the competition. But the real problem is with the bit rate which is 1/4th what the competition uses. 8 bit also is behind. Nice camera though for stills though.
@Raynaud: You are right, the A7III will never be the video camera for professionals, but to be honest, a real video professional wil buy a dedicated video camera, not a stills camera with video. The A7III is for the casual video shooter, who don't want to be bothered by S-log, 4.2.2.2 or what ever, they are pleased with 1080p and files that are not to big and still very good and easy to process. So Sony created a camera for amateurs who do both video and stills, but do that not professionally, although wedding shooters can make excellent videos with the A7III and their results can be very, very good, even with the limitations the A7III has.
@ gfrensen, pahnson - I think you are spot on. The high level of automation in A7iii makes it very easy to make good movie quality with a "one person do it all". Good quality 4K with very good AF and decent sound (without any mic cables if you want). Good quality 120fps HD with good AF for action and sound.
The a7iii with a power zoom would make it a good consumer camcorder. It wouldn’t be as flexible as an RX10 though. For serious work there are many superior options. This site uses the GH5, GH5s, S1H and sometimes the XT4 and GFX100. I’d argue the Z6 is a lot better too, and for run and gun where IS is an important factor even the EM1 (which has double the bit rate) is a much better option. All those cameras are said to have nice colors to work with, though that is a matter of taste.
Btw, I still have my A7s and shoot low light 1080p with it still. But it is no longer a preferred camera for video amongst the video crowd.
If bitrate was the only factor impacting video quality ... You have smaller or larger sensors with different capabilities to gather light, different readout rates, different AF capability, different capability for depth of field, oversampled from sensor or not, etc. All of which affects the video quality. So it depends on what you want, what looks of the movie, how many person are available for the work, do you want a camera with cable free audio solution, are you serious on unpredicable action or on slower scenery with manual focusing, do you use tripod or gimbal, do want large native lens selection and 3rd party lenses with AF or is it ok to add on aditonal adapters, etc.
“ If bitrate was the only factor impacting video quality...“
Pure nonsense since no one said it.
Do you next want to talk about if bit depth was the only factor impacting video next?
But then you’ll want to have another silly talk about if chroma subsampling was the only factor affecting video.
Let’s just say between Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Fujifilm, it’s Sony whose best ILC Is the lowest of all 3 combined (Olympus is arguably better too).
So there... If bitrate/bit depth/chroma subsampling were the only factors impacting video quality...well all 3 do. Oh and guess who doesn’t support h.265 compression. 😝 Of course Color Science does too, but that is another topic I doubt you’ll like. 😂
It is Sony sensors in most of those cameras so they have good foundation for video. But even within Sony sensors there are differences. Eg an a9/a9ii sensor has faster readout rate with less Jello effect than the others. Not to mention that it can read focus 60 times per second so it will hit focus all the time, sharp movies is also key for the quality. Some of the cameras mentioned really lag behind in focus. Some dont even AF in slow motion and lose the sound. Then you have the DR and noise levels where the APS-C and MFT suffers from being smaller. Same with shallow depth of field capabillity. Then of course you have the system aspect, what lenses are available effect your movies, is it a large eco system, do they have goof AF also in 3rd party lenses for the mount. Etc. It all depends on what you want / need.
Yeah, some mirrorrless systems only have a few thousand lenses that can be adapted and used for video. According to you that is a real negative, but it is pure nonsense. Virtually every professional film is shot using manual focus, so your AF comment is more pure nonsense. We can talk when a Sony camera finally offers 10 bit or higher video, or a bit higher than 100Mb/s, or 4:2:2 or higher in camera, or h.265, or ProRes, or when most sites say Sony has good color science. It will be a very long while sadly.
@ Raynaud - hello troll Raynaud who joined the DPforum last week with this new username, would you mind telling us your normal username?
Now you tells us that in professional fiming they don't use AF no matter how good AF is or no matter the context. Havent we heard that story before in many versions. "Real pro's dont need eye AF", bla bla bla.
Perhaps REAL pro's can only use REAL film cameras such as Canon c500 and Sony Venice Cine Alta. And darn them if they use an AF lens 😊.
@raynaud: There are better video cameras indeed. When you main goal for a camera is video and you want the best results, with the highest quality video, then the A7III is not for you. Sony did not aim that camera at that group of people. The GH5(s) and the S1H are all better video cameras, but looking at them, the lack in other places, like the cameras lack in AF capability, especially in continues AF. Maybe not important for video, but important for stills. Then bitrates, yes higher bitrates CAN give better video IQ, but when looking at some brands (like Canon) we see that the higher bitrates for the EOS-R doesn't result in sharper videos in 4K. But it looks cool on the spec sheet to have 480MBPS vs 100 for the Sony. I prefer the smaller and sharper files over the Canon files...
Chris of DPReview TV just mentioned the GH5 is the camera he uses for both video and stills. There is no doubt for video the Panasonic cameras, like the G9, GH5, GH5s, S1H and S1 are better than any Sony on the market today. And people like Chris use them for stills too.
The one Sony I’ve held on to is the A7s. It’s not worth selling anymore and it does well in low light. If I could exchange it for a GH5 I would in a heartbeat.
The GH5/S1 are not good with AF and erratic action, and slow motion action, especially not with shallow depth of field. The A7iii serves that very well in its price class. But the GH5/S1 are good quality for slower and more static shooting scenarious.
I’ve been using the A7S for years. The Panasonic AF is miles better than the A7S and A7Sii. I’ve never complained about AF, if the A7S is good enough, then so are the Panasonics.
So while AF on the Panasonics is acceptable (and MF is what I’d recommend with ANY camera anyway), they also are better in all the other ways that I find important. There are good reasons why this site and most people not paid to use a brand pick the Panasonics.
A7S and A7Sii are 6 and 5 years old, and have bad AF. The A7riV, the A9, A9ii, A7iii autofucos very good, and way better than the lackluster pulsing GH5/S1 AF. Wether or not you need the AF capability depends on in what context you are filming, as stated in the comments above. I think its fantastic to have eye AF with shallow depth of field when you want, regardless of how the subject moves, and concentrating on other aspects than manual focus pulling.
I think we will se more and more use of AF in general filming as such good capability is there now. Also on dedicated film cameras onwards.
But automation admittedly takes time for some persons to understand and adopt. Eg there was much resistance to eye AF just a few years ago, especially from the camera owners who lacked the capabillity and who had invested much effort to learn how to do things more manually. Just 2 years later every camera brand is trying to show how good their eye AF is becuase now most photographers want it.
I do agree for those who don’t who what they are doing, newer cameras are better for AF. But for video if you know what you are going even the A7s is fine.
For video, I’d rate 8 or 9 things more important than these differences in AF. And Jordan and Chris agree with me since they consistently use the GH5, GH5S, and S1H for everything.
@ Raynaud - ha ha ”I agree for those who don’t know what they are doing, newer cameras are better for AF”.
Its fine if you only want to do manual focus pulling forever more. If it suits your context thats great. Good for you. The thing is, if you have a system with good AF then you can chose for each context if you want to do manual focus pulling or use good AF. Perhaps you consistently work with static or semi static persons talking into a camera? And perhaps you foresee you will continue to film only static situations for the foreseeble furure.
”Its fine if you only want to do manual focus pulling ”
Oh how ever did we get by the past 5 years with all the those AF systems? How did all those great sports photos get taken? How did all those movies get made? How do Chris and Jordan shoot those videos so fast when AF doesn’t work?
Like I said the difference between AF in recent cameras, ranks very low when considering a camera for video. This is why there are 6 or 7 cameras better for video than any current Sony, and this site would rather shoot Panasonic or Fujifilm or Nikon. I’d greatly prefer Olympus too (better color, better IBIS, higher bit rate, etc).
Don’t worry Raynaud, you can still use all the old capabilities. In all the cameras. You as a person can choose to stay with only the old capabilities. There are persons who only do manual focus in photo as well and thrive with that. And yes, they managed for a hundred years with only manual focus. But there are moments and scenes you simply will not capture without fast automation. Precise and fast Eye AF is such a capabillity. Its no coincidence the cameras lacking good eye AF sell worse. Then there are other moments and scenes where you can be more present if you remove some of the manual activities. If you have a camera with the automation capabilities, then you can choose your approach on a need bases. If your camera lacks the capabilities then the choice and some limitations have been set up front.
For all the things that matter most you can stick with the very old capabilities that Sony has stuck with, or buy a modern camera for video. 100Mb/s bit rate, 8 bit, 4:2:0, avc-s, and more, those are all old and outdated.
For the very reason you mention, Chris and Jordan use the more modern cameras. They simply shoot better video. And it’s not even close. It’s a real shame Sony has become so poor for video. Another example, rolling shutter on Sony APSC cameras makes it almost unusable.
Thats a funny joke Raynaud, you show a good sense of humor. Btw you can check the comments in DPR on Panasonic S1/S1R on the latest SW upgrade. Not so happy customers. Lagging tech, especially AF.
Agree, Jordan does use the S1H frequently and prefers it. You won’t see any of his videos shot on a Sony these days because there are a dozen reasons why it has fallen so far behind for video. As we know, Panasonic, Fujifilm, Nikon, Canon, and even Olympus all make cameras better for video these days. 100Mb/s 8bit video with no C4K option and a poor color science reputation is the last thing people serious about video would want. (Along with all of Sony’s other short comings)
Don't quite understand the advice. Test to make sure pairs well. So do you buy like 4 different microphones, run your tests and send the three you don't like back? Isn't that why prices are so enormously high, the retailer has to account for all these returns? Who has friends to go around and test theirs? How practical is this?
As a studio owner and sound engineer myself, I would be interested in knowing exactly what was causing the Sony camera to perform badly with certain mics. If the preamp in the A7III is well designed, ie supplies adequate power has generous gain and s/n ratio (and I think that it most probably is), there could be some differences in tonality when trying different microphones but not such drastic differences in performance. Even an (unlikely) impedance mismatch would not cause such behaviour. Why exactly were some microphones giving out noisy results and other weren’t?
I think that how the output of the driving device (microphone, wireless receiver, etc.) is coupled has a lot to do with it in the face of the 2.4v Plug-in-Power the Sony drives back into it. A transformer coupling or non-polarized capacitor coupling would probably work best, and an output transistor maybe not so good. The Zaxcom URX100 receiver's output jack doubles as it's headphone amp output.
It's a great question and I've been thinking about it myself. I think the most likely cause is an improper/non-optimal gain configuration between the mic and camera. The two mic setups Alex had the issue with on the A7III were the Zaxcom URX100 receiver and the Rode Videomic Pro+, both of which have configurable gains. I'm guessing the gain selected on those mic setups relative to the configurable gain levels on the A7III yielded a non-optimal result. That's not to say Alex made a mistake but that the selected input gain from the mic setup is one the A7III's preamp doesn't handle well/ideally.
Sorry but this has to be one of the most misleading reviews ever. Why the Sony gets a special treatment but not the others ?? yeah because Gerald Undone called you out. Weird that Sony and Olympus, both companies specialised in audio equipment are at the bottom, but then Sony rises because you were caught with your errors. Just admit you don't care to learn how to use these cameras and your ranking is purely subjective.
I don't think this is misleading. They revisited a review because one of the cameras was reported to perform very badly, the others did well. So they looked into the camera that did badly and came to a new conclusion: This camera works as good as the others, but not with all mics. That is an honest conclusion. Was it better when they tested the other cameras with the other mics too? Well yes, as the other cameras could have problems with the untested mics and so Sony could have looked not that bad. And for ranking, well it is always a bit subjective as what is important for one can be less important for others. So an over all ranking is just what is important to the reviewer.
That was unexpected. I've gotten consistently great audio from a number of Sony cameras (A7RM2, RX10M3-4, A6300, A6500, A77II) along with cheap mics (the crummy Takstar shotgun, the most basic Audio-Technica wired lav, the Sony XYST1M), and for certain none of that hiss.
It seems that I'll stick with the cheap mics for the foreseeable future 😬
sony users would want a retest on that too if they didn't like the results and deem zoom5 inadequate or not as compatible bs... Fuji and Olympus users need to whine more here.
I have a zoom5 also and used it on my z6. Works great. Better then the rode mic on my camera. but I had to run cable to the zoom. Or I could record remotely with the zoom and sync it in video editing (no, i am not a pro so I am not going to do that yet). Otherwise you do need wireless mic system for recording people in front of the camera not the environment (unless it is you talking behind the camera)
Magnar, Was it a test or an entertainment video. I didn't find the test too scientific at first. The results here were based off personal preference, which is as scientific as Froknow's wind test. They were talking to each other between a window in the video at the intro. There were no chart, just opinion and sample. These are product users, not engineers doing test. I am fine with samples as I can make my own conclusion. As for the methodology. It is very limited for sure in the beginning, small variable. But the result/ output were the same. They retested got the same issues. They added other variables. The new issues was some equipment works better then other for a certain camera. They expended the variables. Now there are tons of recording equipment out there, they aren't going to test them all. Even in scientific research there are variables, covering everything. Guess what most data will pass off as fact and didn't cover all the variable in a study or test.
Just don't take youtubers too seriously. I know froknow photo is a god to some people. The sony users were acting like canon users condemning it like dxomark, because they didn't like the results. The test just lacked variable or in this case not as compatible with some equipment then other.. But these are camera with video options. If on ewaanted better audio result I image they use better recording equipment rather the camera audio, yay? I thought it was a fun video, I use an external zoom5 so I wasn't that invested in the results.
@Spectro: I like these kind of tests, without exact numbers and graphs better as they show us more of the real life test then the charts and numbers do. When I look at DXO and I look at the Noise performance of many sensors I see that one camera is better then an other camera, but when I see the real life pictures from both cameras the differences are minimal. So the numbers are real and very scientific, but the end result is very close, then the endresults counts more for me then the numbers. This sound test shows how the quality of the sound is in a way that we can hear it ourself. And I heard that the most cameras were very close and one was bad. They tried again and found what was the source of the bad sound and they informed us, that is a good test for me.
@ Spectro: I agree that "test" implies more than just the quick look at audio Dpreview did here. On the other hand, such presentations often show the main characteristics and performance, if properly done. Good enough for most of us, most of the time.
Test chads with measurements is great (especially when we also know sample variation), and real world tryouts (properly done and skillfully presented) will tell how images/audio etc. are affected.
Each are fine, but in combination measurements and real world tryouts are great.
Maybe in the future you could do articles about which microphones works best with specific cameras. Maybe a shoot out of some sort with popular microphones on different cameras so we would know which mic to buy for our specific camera needs.
Do you want to fish, or go to a fish fry? DPReview is on a roll with how-to articles. Stay tuned, you won't be disappointed.
The process of establishing compatibility starts with a process called "normalization." Any sound engineer can do this in his sleep, at least with a little urging. Most of the time you zero the faders and adjust the mic trim on the sound board. It gets tricky when something unknown is connected, and even worse if poorly documented.
It looks like there is a real problem with the Sony the reviewer found. It deserves and asterisk if ranked higher. Many of us already have microphones and do not wish to shop and test new ones to find one that works. maybe one you have will work very well, but maybe you get the awful his and need to buy another microphone.
Well the same thing could be said about the Z6. Listen to Jordans preamp test between the Z7 and GH5 in the "Z6/7 for video"...video. The Z7 sounds really bad in that test, seem to have similar issues as the Sony.
I've had problems before now. But when finding a way to feed from line-level external audio. If my project requires pristine sound, then I use an external recorder. But it's way easier in post if the audio tracks in the video file are good enough.
It's always a cheaper (and easier) option to use something like Zoom/Tascam and add sound in post. Or record it directly from your mic to Zoom/Tascam and avoid typical analogue mic mumbo-jumbo.
As a owner of a multiple cams (incluiding broadcasting camcoder with +48 and BM Ursa), the problem with matching camera and a mic is not exclusive to Sony, because there are ton of variables, considering what are you gonna use. Do you need phantom power? Maybe your cam is bad at specicfic ohms? What is optimal signal/noise? Will your camera's power consumption generate some noise in peak scenarios? Etc.
So yeah, you can torture yourself, but sooner or later the recorder will be your gear of choice.
That being said. That's why Sony is pushing digital mics via hot shoe. This could potentially mitigate a lot of analogue compability and signal issues. Like USB mics are helping with easy podcasting setups. Hope that digital sound connector will be universal for MILCs in 5-7 years.
Sony's digital adapter is looking better and better to me. At very least, there would be two fewer cables dangling from the camera. I'm already wired for pull-focus motors, viewfinder, battery pack and SDI cable to a switching console. Enough is enough! As it is, recording audio or video in the camera is for backup, and backups are needed far more often in field operations than you can imagine. Oh wait! Did I leave out tally lights and talkback?
can you record timecode instead of audio? Zaxcom has a whole kit for sharing timecode wirelessly, then you collect SD cards from each transmitter to combine while editing. I imagine others do as well.
If it's just timecode, who cares, needs to lock and that's it. Converting a digital audio wireless signal to analog then back to digital seems very amateur, though. When it's a matter of combining lego boxes we should be able to achieve a single conversion.
There are wired and wireless ways to record time code with both audio and video. Only professional level cameras and recorders have separate I/O for time code (or genloc), although it can be embedded in HTML. A Zoom F8 audio recorder has both BNC and HDML ports for this purpose. While time code is extremely useful for correlating audio and video clips, it is only accurate within a frame or two. That's enough delay to cause an audible echo under certain circumstances.
LTC timecode is line-level audio that can replace microphone audio. Editing software can match up timecode in recorded video with timecode on SD cards collected from the Zaxcom transmitters around the set. Wireless signal quality, camera preamp quality, none of it then matters.
What's the alternative to the audible echo? Maybe you're saying a mechanical slate from talkie days is more accurate than timecode, so if mics are being mixed together timecode can't substitute? I'm speculating. Your ramble seems informative but is frustratingly non-actionable.
Does any wireless mic have word clock? The latest Lectrosonics can take word clock over Dante, but it sounds like they're resampling, not using 2-way radio to clock remote ADCs. Zaxcom does 2-way but only at frame resolution not word resolution.
because I think Avid will not drop frames to keep clips aligned. It just sets the start point as if one clap per clip, "good enough" for 20min clips. If the camera's getting fed both genlock and LTC-over-audio, this becomes a fully legit way of synchronizing longer clips.
I also found reference to "BWF timecode" which is wordclock resolution:
It sounds like higher-than-frame resolution can be extracted from LTC but often isn't. For example, RED cameras will interpret an LTC signal as metadata instead of just recording it as plain audio, but they won't attempt to genlock to it even though timecodesystems.com suggests theoretically they could.
I've no experience here and am not sure. just googling for answers.
Audio is hellaciouly hard because of the mix of electronics and lack of audio memory in humans. A lot of snake oil is sold by hifi sellers. Apart from noise (usually an integration issue), even laptop standard audio chipsets (realtek etc) reached hifi DAC a decade ago.
The only way to do it is with professional audio guys preferably with a degree in electrical engineering.
Colour/Video is theoretically harder, but in practice visual feedback helps a lot.
If you can plug in a lamp you can connect a microphone, EE degree notwithstanding. I've had far better luck teaching musicians how to record sound than techy types. Largely, it's a matter of matching what you hear with what you want, and musicians are much better listeners.
Ok so final rank is 1. Panasonic 2. Olympus 3. Nikon but may have issues 4. Canon with some pop noise 5. Fuji with pop and hogh pitch 6. Sony you need to buy dedicated eqipment.
Olympus maybe number 1 with their excellent audio recorders.
Yes based on first test and comments. But now realize the whole test is useless. If you find the best recorder for your camera, regardless of the camera then they are all number one as Sony can go from 6 to 1. If you have a specific audio recording that you love, best weight good clip. Then test is still useless. You will need to rent a bunch of cameras to find out which camera works best with your favorite audio equipment.
I did not test any microphone with those cameras. I shoot stills, but I have a Sonyvideocam and know how they interact with hardware from different vendors. I have a Sony to USB cable... my flashsocket has a bussystem like a SD Card and the remote control has a different wavelength than anything else on the market, so open source remotes never worked. Nope, I didn't test microphones but I tested Sony since decades.... business as usual. Leave their universe and you're screwed.
@ vscd -” Leave their universe and you're screwed”.
Really? So which mirrorless camera do you think has the most 3rd party lens support? Which has the best functioning 3rd party lens AF? Which has the most 3rd party lens in camera corrections?
It's not about supporting your competitor or a mount for all lenses. It's about using open standards, you know. That won't be understandable by Sonyfans, but the USB cable has a standard, the flash socket, too. And yes, even audiocodecs tend to be standards... I'm only responsible for what I write, not for what you understand.
Sony as manufacturer also had some peculiar preferences having to do with sound. Back from the days of diskman or MP3s, even in its (quite a lot I recall) implementations of mini/midi sound systems (low/medium level hi-fi market) or even its cellular/wireless phones. And a rather strong obsession with proprietary formats. Well, it's a Sony, after all...
While I'don't like their old obsession for their proprietary formats, I have to agree that they've build a hell of a know-how on DSP design via this obsession.
I've used their MiniDiscs and my 10+ year old hi-fi has a digital amplifier built on MiniDisc Type-S DSP. It sounds unbelievable for a micro hi-fi system like this.
I´m quite sure the Fuji is number one, just find the right microphone. And, if I´m not wrong, the Nikon is number one with the right microphone. And of course the Olympus and the Panasonic are number ones. So what I'm asking for is please repeat the test for all cameras with a range of preamps. So the test would have some practical meaning for the photographers. I think you will hear some major differences between a Sony and a cheap preamp and a Panasonic with a high-end preamp and a high-end microphone.
@ gfrensen Maybe. But Fuji for example was also not very satisfying at the extremes. And maybe Olympus could do better also. So, please give us a base for a realistic comparison and repeat the test, please.
It would be interesting to see how the other cameras fare with the same assortment of microphones. Good, bad, indifferent? Understanding that you will get better sound from a certain brand / specification of microphone and not necessarily the most expensive one would be useful, and just as importantly why that is the case.
I have the Z6 and the audio is quite unusable. I have no problems saying it, the camera is only a tool for images, and which it does really well! If you want decent audio with any camera you'd get an external recorder meant for the work.
I agree somewhat. But it depends how it's used. An external mic with its own gain and the Nikon volume set very low (<4), and it's not bad. But a phantom powered mic like the Rode Videomic Go and the combo is useless.
This sounds all too familiar (pun intended). Decades ago, when I was in high school, I used to record concerts at my school with my Sony real-to-reel and sell cassette copies to parents, etc. The music teacher had a very similar Sony, but had way more expensive mics... and my cheaper Sony-branded mics sounded way better. Why? A simple matter of impedance and equalization matching. Especially now, even the huge differences between line inputs and mic inputs have blurred, so I think there is a larger potential for serious mismatches between the signals inputs were designed for and what they get fed.
Perhaps it's time to make some real signal measurements and thus be able to create a mic+camera pairing buying guide? After all, mics can be a pretty serious expense....
I agree with ProfHankD that it's likely to be "explained" by an impedance mismatch. I had a quick look and it was not easy to find any specs but the URX100 has an output impedance of 16 ohms whereas the Rode Videomic was 200 ohms.
If the Sony input impedance is high (is it?) then admittedly that wouldn't make much difference to levels. But there is no information on the resistive and reactive parts that make up this impedance and which could lead to problems. I guess that is what ProfHankD calls "equalisation.
I agree with ProfHankD. The only way to really get to the bottom of this is to make some signal measurements. What can each camera take at the input before clipping? What's the input impedance? How much gain is each camera actually applying? How does that match with what the popular microphones (or at least types of microphone) are putting out?
For what it is worth I have a couple of Rode Video Mic Pros and a Sennheiser K6+ME64+transmitter/receiver system which I generally use with Sony A7RII, A7RIII. The Sennheiser clearly sounds better. The Sonys seem to like their internal sound gain settings turned down low (I'm usually on about 6 or 7 out of 30) and a hotter signal from the input compared with my RED or GH5.
Impedance matching issues with modern mic input/output devices isn't really a thing. Microphones are universally low output-impedance devices and devices with mic-in preamps are universally high-impedance devices. The rule of thumb is about a 10x impedance differential between the mic output and device mic input for optimal voltage flow. However the differential can vary greatly without a significant impact to noticeable audio quality, certainly below the threshold to the hiss observed on this test.
Kudos to DPR and Alex for doing more testing, but now of course finding an explanation for this behavior would be of greatest interest to the community. After all, it's clear that it wasn't always the quality of the pre-amp that was tested, which was ultimately the goal. And obviously it is impossible to test ALL camera-microphone combinations.
EDIT: ProfHankD'S comment above is very interesting in this regard. Back to you, DPR ;-)
I am on very thin ice here but when I bought an audio interface to my video setup some time ago somebody told me that the impedance of the audio interface (pre-amps) should be around 10x higher than the source impedance (mic). Maybe that is the matching issue we see in this case.
So often the Sony was the worst, but with a couple micro phones was 2nd? Were the other cameras tested with multiple microphones or just one? Very confusing.
What is more confusing is the Sony was poor with the more expensive microphones such as the Zaxcom URX100 receiver ($900).
But did better with the cheaper microphones.
So does the Sony do as well as with a $59 or $200 microphone as the others do with the Zaxcom URX100 receiver ($900)? That would be impressive, but doubtful.
Does the Sony work well with any higher end microphones?
After the first test people said: Forget about expensive extras and external recorders. This is a test about in-camera audio, and those without extra knowledge will be disappointed if they buy a Sony.
Now those say: Why don't the Sony do well with a mic that cost way more than some external recorders with a decent mic? As if most people who use the camera for storing audio are using $900 microphones.
Sure, those video-makers who really care about quality and content use proper gear for the job, and many in this category would also use a dedicated video camera.
@Raynaud I was one of those who commented in response to the original test that the results did not jive with our experiences with the Sony here.
We use the a7iii with a variety of different mics and other inputs and we have never seen noise performance anything like what Alex reported. The difference is several orders of magnitude, so much so that it seemed that something was seriously amiss.
The rigs we use with the a7iii include high end mic rigs from Neumann, Schoeps, AKG and Sennheiser and in each case the measurable noise performance is at least 30-40dB better than the ~20dB SNR result Alex was reporting.
In light of that, I would also question whether the Sony is particularly picky WRT mics. We get excellent results with half a dozen different pro setups, and in fact have yet to encounter anything like the initial result in Alex's shootout. However we don't use Rode mics, so maybe *that's* the source of the issue. ; )
People who care about decent audio quality use external audio recorders saving to at least 24 bit WAV files, when using cameras like these for video.
Remember basically all of these cameras, with the possible exception of the Panasonic and I'm too lazy to check, record audio in not great compressed formats, which I realize has nothing to do with the noise from the A7III in the first test.
Yes, there's even a smallish Sony field recorder+mics that will record to DSD, which is even better than WAV, but there aren't too many editors for that audio file type.
About DSD: quite bold to say DSD is better than WAV. It has its strengths, but actually high frequency dynamic range is worse than even 16/44.1 WAV. The biggest problem is that it can not be edited (practically) at all in DSD domain, making it totally useless for video, which is heavily (audio) edited. All the (presumed) advantages over WAV are lost when it is converted to PMC/WAV for editing in video editors, which can not handle DSD at all.
There are indeed DSD editing programs, Sony and Korg have them.
Assuming the audio person is half competent, DSD is better than WAV, especially important is that DSD uses 1 bit recording. Yes, emphasis on super accurate bit depths, something high bit rate PCM (largely WAV ) recording does introduces problems that can't be fixed.
For the most part, the better capture would be DSD, then it would exported, after some editing, to PCM for import into an NLE.
"All the (presumed) advantages over WAV are lost when it is converted to PMC/WAV for editing in video editors,"
Not true, and you can confirm this by downloading a decent DSD file, if you don't have one, and simply playing it back with say Potplayer through your computer's builtin soundcard, no special external DAC needed. You'll hear something that sounds much more realistic, even though Potplayer, or GOM Player, or Foobar2000, will be converting the file to PCM for playback through your soundcard.
> Remember basically all of these cameras, with the possible exception of the Panasonic and I'm too lazy to check, record audio in not great compressed formats
I have just checked an old video recorded with my E-M1 II and it has 48 kHz / 16-bit PCM audio (stereo).
Sorry I mean microphone sensitivity. Same with headphones: all outputs hiss but some hiss more than others and that is only a problem for sensitive headphones and sensitive ears. The same goes for microphones.
Following our recent microphone pre-amp shootout there was a lot of controversy surrounding the results from the Sony a7 III. Our team tested a second a7 III body to verify the results and discovered some important things that could impact the rankings – depending on what microphone you use.
We invited a professional audio engineer to test the microphone pre-amps in cameras from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Fujifilm and Olympus. Find out which ones deliver the best sound.
Sony, Nikon and Panasonic all now make 24MP full frame mirrorless cameras, but each has its specific strengths. The best choice for you depends what you're planning to shoot (and which lenses you need).
In our conversation with Sony's Kenji Tanaka, we discussed various topics, including how the full-frame mirrorless market has evolved, and why he believes Sony will maintain its competitive edge.
Sony has announced major firmware updates for the a7R III, a7 III and a9. All three cameras gain improved Eye-AF, the ability to recognize and focus on animals' eyes, and timelapse capability. The a9 gets more sophisticated subject tracking.
The Insta360 One R is a unique action camera: it has interchangeable camera modules, including one with a large 1"-type sensor and a Leica lens. We show you how it works and ask, 'who's it for'?
Exposure X6 is the latest Adobe Lightroom competitor from Exposure Software. With great image quality, impressive speed and powerful features, it's a compelling option that doesn't require a monthly subscription.
Sigma's 35mm F2 DG DN designed specifically for mirrorless cameras is a compact, well-built lens that produces lovely images. Is it a good fit for you? Find out in our field review.
US manufacturer Really Right Stuff just released a new lightweight travel tripod, aimed at active and weight-conscious photographers that don't want to compromise on quality. Does its performance justify its high price? Find out in our initial review.
Fujifilm's latest X-S10 is a likeable mirrorless camera with some of the company's best tech packed inside, and it doesn't cost the earth. We think it could be a good fit for photographers of all kinds – find out more in our full review.
Whether you make a living out of taking professional portraits, or are the weekend warrior who knows their way around flashes and reflectors, you'll want a camera with high resolution, exceptional autofocus and a good selection of portrait prime lenses. Click through to see our picks.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera costing over $2500? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2500 and recommended the best.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
There are a lot of photo/video cameras that have found a role as B-cameras on professional productions or A-camera for amateur and independent productions. We've combed through the options and selected our two favorite cameras in this class.
Which high resolution mirrorless camera is best for you? This week, we compare the Canon EOS R5, Sony a7R IV, Nikon Z7 II and Panasonic S1R to answer that question.
As part of CES 2021, Canon launched a new website allowing users to view select locations on earth from the Canon CE-SAT-1 satellite. Using the onboard Canon 5D Mark III and Canon telescope, you can zoom in and see our planet from a fresh perspective.
The new Pro+ and Platinum+ plans cost $150 and $300 per year, respectively, and add additional benefits over the complimentary 'Pro' plan Nikon Professional Services offers. These NPS plans are limited to residents of the United States and U.S. territories.
The Insta360 One R is a unique action camera: it has interchangeable camera modules, including one with a large 1"-type sensor and a Leica lens. We show you how it works and ask, 'who's it for'?
Considering getting your hands on a Soviet film camera? Good for you! There's quite a few quality options out there and many can be had for a reasonable price. But before you go and pull the trigger on a Zorki-3C rangefinder, we suggest reading the guide below, from our pals at KosmoFoto.
Although the announcement wasn’t set to be made public yet, we’ve been able to confirm with Venus Optics the details of its four ‘Argus’ F0.95 lenses set to be released throughout 2021.
Samsung has unveiled a trio of new Galaxy smartphones, the S21, S21 Plus and S21 Ultra. The S21 and S21 Plus incorporate new cost-saving measures amidst a variety of improvements. The S21 Ultra, on the other hand, showcases what Samsung can do with a $1,200 price point.
MacRumors has come across a bit of code that suggests Apple may soon show a warning in the Settings menu when the camera modules inside iOS devices have been replaced with third-party components.
We've been pressing on with our review of Panasonic's Lumix S5, and have put it in front of our studio scene to see what it can do. Spoiler alert, its JPEG engine and high-res mode are both really impressive.
Our team at DPReview TV recently published its review of the new Sony 35mm F1.4 GM lens. How good is it? Take a look at the photos they took while reviewing the camera and judge the image quality for yourself!
Costco has informed U.S. and Canadian customers that all in-store camera departments will be shut down on February 14, 2021. Costco’s online printing services will still be available.
It's been a long time coming, but Sony has finally announced a G Master series 35mm lens for its full-frame mirrorless system. This compact alternative to the Zeiss version has some impressive spec: click through to learn more.
Dora Goodman got her start customizing existing analog cameras. Since then, she and her team launched a company offering open-source designs for 3D printing cameras and selling customers 3D printed parts and fully assembled cameras.
We've been busy shooting around with Sony's brand-new, compact and lightweight FE 35mm F1.4 G Master lens and initial impressions are quite positive: It's extremely sharp wide open across the frame, and controls ghosting, flaring and chromatic aberration with ease.
The 35mm F1.4 GM brings one of photography's classic focal lengths to Sony's G Master series of lenses. How does it perform? According to Chris and Jordan, it's pretty darn good.
Sony has just announced their 39th full-frame E-mount lens, the FE 35mm F1.4 GM. It comes with a complex optical formula and fancy autofocus motor technology, but it's among the lightest fast 35mm lenses on the market.
In an article published by ICAN Management Review, Sigma CEO Kazuto Yamaki speaks to the future of the company, including the possibility of RF/Z mount Sigma lenses, future camera systems and more.
ViewSonic has announced new ColorPro monitors at CES. The monitors, available in 27" and 32" sizes, range from 2K to 8K resolution and have been designed for color-critical applications including photography and video editing.
BCN Retail, which tracks online and in-person sales of digital cameras in the Japanese market, has shared its end-of-year data, showing the COVID-19 pandemic further compounded the already-shrinking camera market in Japan.
Fujifilm's main macro lens for its GFX system is the 120mm F4 Macro – a lens we've been playing around with for some time. We got the opportunity to update our gallery using the GFX 100, and we jumped at the chance to see what this lens can really do.
A new license or upgrade for Capture One for Fujifilm, Nikon and Sony used to cost $129 USD. A newly-instituted price hike has increased the cost to $199 (or $149 for an upgrade). Alongside the price change, Capture One has added a seat to new license purchases. Subscription costs have also increased.
The OWC Envoy Pro FX is constructed of an aluminum closure that’s IP67 rated to ensure your photos and videos are protected from the elements (and clumsiness)
The new CV5 system on a chip can encode 8K video at up to 60 fps, while also providing enough overhead for AI-powered features and capture modes, such as face-detection in action cameras and collision avoidance in drones.
What is field curvature, and why should you care? In this article – the second of two – professional optics geek Roger Cicala goes even deeper into the subject. Warning: many swirly graphs ahead.
Exposure X6 is the latest Adobe Lightroom competitor from Exposure Software. With great image quality, impressive speed and powerful features, it's a compelling option that doesn't require a monthly subscription.
Researchers at the University of Arizona have used NASA's HiRISE camera, which is onboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, to capture high-resolution images of the Valles Marineris canyon on Mars. The new images shed light on how the canyon formed and help better our understanding of Mars.
The Nikon Z7 II has the same great ergonomics as its predecessor, but has more processing power, dual card slots, 4K/60p video, improved autofocus and more. Chris and Jordan tell us why it's a solid choice for many shooters.
Our team at DPReview TV just wrapped up its review of the Nikon Z7 II. Check out the photos they took along the way and judge the image quality for yourself!
Comments