Editor's note: Following this 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. Please watch the video update below.
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.
I would like Canon to add a mode to shut off the video so it could be used as a sound recorder. They let you shut off the audio when shooting video - why not shut off the video? For a reporter who just needs high quality audio and an occasional image or video this would be a great option. I am sure you could probably record days of audio on a card too if you didn't have the 'elephant' video file along for the ride.
Can you also retest Sony's terrible video colors and worst video specs of the latest ILCs over $1000? Sound won't matter when you get lots of macro blocking when something moves and 8 bit colors breakup when when pushed while editing.
Strange how many there are that manages to create professional content with these cameras, and did for years with lower technical quality. I assume you are producing for Hollywood - oh, wait, they use Sony cameras too. :-)
You are confusing things, Canon has the worst video specs over 1000$ (except 1dxIII). Your cameras video maybe has terrible colors or macro blocking, i never saw on Sony. And 8bit doesn't fall apart if you can expose and color grade properly. And this audio test just wrong, other test proved a7III has an excellent pre-amp. So very poor trolling maybe next time...
Nothing wrong with Sony professional video cameras. Sony thinks they are protesting them by crippling their E mount line of cameras. Sony E mount 8 bit video is like highly compressed 8 bit jpegs. And their 100Mb/s bith rate (along with their older compression) is like try to push a gallon of water through a small straw. But obviously the bigger problem is those nasty Sony SOOC colors.
And now we find either Sony preamp is garbage, or that it quickly gets falters due to the famous Sony poor build quality
C plus plus You never used a Sony before that is clear from your comment. A7III has one of the best 4k output every review agree with that. And it is bit rate not bith rate. First learn the words if you want to troll LOL Oh and Sonys Preamp is excellent, this DPR test just faulty : https://youtu.be/YOvOjkJUQS8 if you ever used a Sony before you should know that to...
Anulu, I bet I've used more Sony's than you. I've owned everything from an A55 to the A7Riii. My A55 overheated, the IBIS on my A77ii died, the LCD panel on my A7S and A7Riii deteriorated. My NEX 5t and NEX 7 never had any issues though.
My guess is the preamp is OK, but is prone to failure like we saw in the video. Sony cameras are not made to last, and their video colors are some of the worst (and only 8 bit 4:2:0 100Mb/s) with no 4k/60p or C4K options)
but thanks for reinforcing the belief that Sony fans going around crying and calling people names rather than discussing topics.
The video in the article does a good job of showing the poor audio. Which Sony camera spec list do you want me to link to showing they do not support 4k/60p, 10 bit, or any bit rate above 100Mb/s, H.265, etc. (while many others do support 4k/60p, 10 bit, 400Mb/s, H.265, etc)? Also how many links complaining about Sony colors do you want? Try Google too. These are well established facts, but maybe you know nothing about cameras, so I'll be glad to provide links.
@ C plus plus: What about links that show what people can do with these cameras? Those who don't blame the gear for their lack of skills.
There are lot of complains, like for most brands. If you go into depth, you will find that all of them, with very few exceptions, are repeated popular "i think" and "say others" stuff. If you look at actual measurements, blind fold tests, ect., and sort out those "factory settings users" and those who can't differ between jpg and raw color handling, the picture is quite different.
Notice the Sony fans are responding with name calling and not addressing the topic. This only perpetuates the terrible reputation they have for not understanding photography and always responding with name calling. I can see why most Sony owners cringe when these few respond and worsen that reputation.
Update from Jordan on You Tube: "We're getting our hands on a second a7 III to figure out why our results were so different from Gerald's. Stay tuned!"
Put down your pitchforks boys, but keep the torches lit.
I have to say I am shocked that all the people that used this as a way to bash Sony haven't come back here and recanted. Maybe they haven't heard the news yet. Not holding my breath...
@ fjbyrne: I am more interested in how the Dpreview testers will respond to reports like this one. The tested A7III could be faulty, but the team could also be fooled by how the test was performed. Will they re-run the test, or will they act like everything is just fine?
@ BKLorenzo: Why? Have you never made mistakes? Then you probably have not learned much either. Masters have failed more times than most even have tried.
The question is: What do you do after you've done a mistake.
I have serious reservations about the validity of such a preamp "test".
That youtube video shows close-ups of the 3.5mm microphone plugs of all the cameras tested. It appears that only the Sony has an /explicit/ mention, next to the plug, that the mic connector provides plug-in-power — i.e. it provides the electrical energy needed to power an electret condenser mic.
If a mic input doesn't provide power, then, the microphone must have its own power source — typically a battery.
Connecting a voltmeter to the "plug-in-power" mic input of a Sony still camera, I've verified that it provides a 2.4-volt DC bias between the sleeve and the signal lines.
In the youtube video, the tester seems to be connecting a wireless mic receiver unit to the cameras' mic input. Needless to say, a wireless receiver unit has its own batteries, and doesn't need to receive DC electrical power via the microphone cable connecting it to the camera.
So, what the tester is doing with a Sony camera, basically, is superimposing a spurious, and uncalled for 2.4V DC bias on the signal line. Such an unexpected DC voltage bias might actually exert a negative impact on the electrical characteristics and operating condition of the wireless mic unit's output stage — e.g. induce noise.
An example of a battery-less microphone that /needs/ to be connected to a recording equipment that supplies plug-in-power is the Canon DM-E100 microphone.
Note that it's specified on that product page that the DM-E100 is "[..] Compatible with the following cameras: EOS 90D, 80D, 77D, EOS Rebel SL3, Rebel SL2, Rebel T7i, EOS M6 Mark II, PowerShot G7 X Mark III"
The DM-E100 leaves out from the compatibility list higher-end DSLRs like the 7D, 5D and 1D series, presumably because these cameras either don't have mic inputs, of if they have one, they don't provide plug-in-power.
In fact, in the user manual of the latest Canon 1DX Mark III, one can read that the recommended microphone is the Canon DM-E1, and not the DM-E100.
The DM-E1 is a microphone that is powered by its own lithium button battery:
This strongly hints that the Canon 1DX III's mic input doesn't provide plug-in-power.
In fact, I strongly suspect that ALL the tested cameras — except the Sony — do not provide plug-in-power — i.e. they do not have a DC bias between the common return and the signal lines.
1) using a more appropriate technical setup that takes into account, and eliminates — e.g. using a capacitor or transformer coupling — the DC 2.4-volt bias present on the Sony camera, or by connecting to the Sony a microphone like the Canon DM-E100 that is /specifically/ designed to accept plug-in-power.
2) making sure that possible other sources of induced electrical noise like wireless mic radio waves, which happen to be in the same frequency band as consumer WiFi, cause no interference, by turning off the camera's WiFi module, or, better yet, by using a wired — i.e. not wireless — audio test signal generator.
3) checking the on/off state e.g. of the camera's wind noise filter in the camera's preferences.
Also, take into consideration the gain-staging between the audio source and the cameras' mic input levels. -60dBU out into a high gain setting in the cameras might produce significantly different results from -40dBU into a low mic gain settings.
The A7iii provides a type of phantom power. It is a TRS plug with the signal symmetrically to the tip and ring, and the power on a divider between the signal lines and the ground sleeve. Any disturbance in the DC power is applied equally to both polarities of the signal and cancelled.
However this only works if the microphone is balanced. An unbalanced source will be subject to any disturbance in the phantom power, and possibly be susceptible to a DC bias resulting in distortion
After a year and a half with the Nikon Z6 I am very happy with it.
Its negatives, like the slight lag in video mode, the lack of a clear back display view option, no option for linear focus ring behaviour and lack of compact prime lenses are minor. The lack of compact lenses is the most annoying but those are on their way this year.
The positives are way stronger and I think it’s an amazing camera. To me the best in its class. The Z lenses I have tried are all extremely good so far. The “kit” 24-70/4S is amazing and took the crown from the now somewhat old Fuji 18-55/2.8-4. The primes are incredible value performing at absolute top level while being smaller lighter and cheaper than modern f1.4 lenses.
I never understood the criticism of the preamps and I am happy this article by DPR sets things straight. With the recent firmware update the Z6 has fantastic autofocus which was really the only point where it was slightly behind competition (but still more capable than older mirrorless).
When we are serious about audio, we just use a digital mic with the newest Sony FF SLT cameras, or an XLR adapter for previous models, if we dont't want to use an external audio recorder. Still very cheap, compared to some other cameras that were judged here.
You see, the tools are what they are, and good photographers and video makers know how to omit shortcomings or lack of features to make end products that communicate well. Those who can't get it right blame the tools. :-)
What I see are many Canon loyalists (“fanboys” lacks tact and reflects reductive thought content) seizing opportunity to highlight any/every relative flaw they can find in a Sony camera. Many of these communications appear to be motivated by compensation, a defense mechanism.
@theowl360 What I saw and heard in the video was a lot of noise on the Sony, in all 3 scenarios tested, that was not apparent on any of the other cameras tested. So if you are using the mic input to record internaly through the preamp then the Sony performed poorly. Of course you can record externally for better sound (the same goes for all of the cameras tested) but the test was about the internal pre-amps.
KZ7: You need to find out what the XLR adapter is about (hint: audio signal is directly transferred to the camera in digital form so that no degradation can occur). You might also take a look at the digital audio input for the A7rIV and A9II. You don't need an external recorder.
What is your underlying point and objective in specifically addressing your post to me?
Let me guess: Is it that you view my post as having deviated from the video review and you would like to somehow refocus my attention on the review?
If that is the case, you have a lot of work cut out for yourself, because there are myriad digressions and tangents in these comment sections.
But, honestly, I suspect your objective is to undermine the veracity of my post, which is applicable to many of those who post comments maliciously bashing photographic tools.
@Magnar I don't disagree with you regarding other ways to record sound with that camera, however the test was specifically in regards to the preamp which is a valid test as many people who are not well versed in audio / video will simply plug in a microphone to that connector and record as-is. @theolw360 There are definetly some Canon "loyalists" gloating over Sony's performance in this test, as well as some people from other brands, but there are just as many Sony "loyalists" dismissing this test as irrelavant and meaningless, unable to see or admit that the quality of the sound recorded through the preamp by the Sony was poor in comparison to the other cameras tested and that this may be an issue in how people percieve the camera, irrespective of how well it performs in other ways.
@ KZ7: Why not use the available tools if audio quality is important? Even for simple reportage work? For Sony cameras, these tools are available at a very reasonable cost.
How much do those who " simply plug in a microphone to that connector and record as-is" really care about audio?
Or perhaps those will use their cameras without a mic, since the mic is not included when you buy the camera?
@Magnar, Not everyone will use the best tools. Many people will have microphones at home that are used for other purposes and just use those because they are on hand, then be disappointed at the sound quality, without understanding why. The same issue pervades with still photography, how many people bought ILC's and use them as point and shoots, never getting out of auto mode, never shooting in Raw and never buying better lenses. One of Canons strengths was recongnising this and having really pleasing OOC jpegs. Think of the microphone jack and preamp in the same way as thats how many consumers will use it.
@ KZ7: I doubt these will realize that the sound is bad, since it is not that bad. Also, much might depend on the mic you use, and these don't have the best quality mics, I guess. The same for auto photographers, who blame the gear instead of training their own skills.
For people who care just a tad more than an inch about audio quality, there are tons of info if they spend a few minutes googling ... quality is way more about knowledge and skills than gear!
@Magnar I agree, the gear is less important than knowing how to use it and how to get the best out of it, that includes getting the right accessories, whether that is sound equipment, lighting or whatever. I recently bought the Canon RP, because I wanted a lightweight FF stills camera and it fits the bill well for what I want to use it for. It can certainly be used for video but I'd be kidding myself if I thought it was on a par with other similar priced cameras out there. I might however try out the preamp test at some point to see how it stacks up, just for the hell of it.
@ KZ7: Always good to know what your gear is good for, so that you can get the most out of it, or find ways around what eventual is limiting your work. Go for what you think you need, and then learn it to know. :-)
This have been my strategy from I worked with film and SLR cameras.
@Magnar, My first SLR was the fully automatic Canon T50. Like shooting in Aperture priority all the time. I used to adjust the ISO selector for exposure compensation :) Audio is something that I am interested in but have not spent much time looking into from the recording point of view, although I've always had good sound systems, my stereo system in my first car which cost twice what the car did and sounded great! It's nice to have a reasonable and informative conversation on these forums that doesn't degenerate into a brand war. Cheers
@K27.. to be clear, although Magnar W might be insinuating a "brand war" by no means do I have any interest in any. I would very much appreciate if the conversation here were much more about facts and less about "mine is better than yours".
Myself, I have been shooting for nearly 40 years...professional for close to 30. I shoot mostly at this time with a Canon 5DSR (it suits my subject matter/print size)...but I also still shoot with my Pentax 67 II's and always have my Ricoh GRII with me. All 3 "brands" are, and just about every camera "brand" I have used in the past, always shot in "M".
I find the Brandfanism (animal eye AF, 20 frames per second etc) ...whatever. I can see how some people, depending on what they shoot may find certain advantages to certain "advancements" in photographic equipment, but I am of the opinion that more often than not, it is really just another spec, that "gets in the way", a "crutch" of sorts, to make up for possibly lacking talent, time, skill....
We can disagree with what someone says and still have perfectly reasonable conversations as I have had with Magnar regarding the Audio quality of the Sony tested here. He quite reasonably states that it doesn"t matter because there are other ways to record the audio, my point was that many people will use the microphone jack and that may cause issues, both points are valid and brand doesn't come into it. It could just as easily be another brand. It's like the DR wars, for many people an extra stop or 2 is irrelavant for others its a deal breaker, its when the conversation degenerates into inane back and forth on my brand is better than your brand that we lose sight of the fact that cameras today, regardless of brand are really quite incredible tools and we each get the one that suits our particular needs and budget. I laugh / cringe when I see people extol one particular feature of a camera until another brand is better at it, then its irrelavant.
@KZ7.. I agree 100%. Although there certainly are brand-fans, here on DPR and other photographic sites, I find the Sony ones particularly...let's say "prolific" in their commentary of supposed superiority.
I have never, in all my years of photography, come across a group that can seemingly find no "fault" with an object/tool from one particular photographic company... it's very "odd" to say the least.
@ cbphoto123: Back to start ... "the Sony ones" ... who are they?
So trying to find real world solutions for shortcomings is the same as "can't find any fault"? Have you read my posts on the Sony forum about how to deal with certain issues? Probably not.
@Magnar W : you keep touting pro audio equipment, but this is not what the test was about. Plus there are many many users out there ( ie youtubers ) who find this valuable as they seek an all-in-one solution and don't want to mess with extras.
@ yazcui: Then use your camera as it is, no matter brand and audio quality, if it has worked ok until now. Or buy something that suits your needs. Or take some other action. Pretty simple.
@Magnar W: "So trying to find real world solutions for shortcomings is the same as "can't find any fault"?
Well...in a prior public "conversation" about weather sealing you had argued that pro sports photographers, when the weather gets bad, they just "put plastic bags over their cameras"... therefor Sony's weather sealing is "totally fine".
You have also shared 10's of times, in "conversation" here on DPR, on the same subject, a wonderful story of how you were shooting near the arctic circle was it? It was -20 degrees, blizzard conditions...and you had your Sony A7 with you. Everyone else was shooting with Canon 5d II's and III's, Nikons... they all quit working, and your trusted Sony kept on shooting. So you concluded/insinuated...Sony has better weather sealing than Canon.
This IS utter nonsense. This IS NOT about "real world solutions". This IS "can't find any fault" with Sony.
As I mentioned above..It's really odd, this "need" to "defend" one particular camera brand.
@ cbphoto123: Do you have a link to where I say Sony weather sealing is "totally fine"? No. This is a false quote. But I have suggested a solutions that works when using these cameras for reportage style work to earn for a living.
Actually, i have used the A7 extensively for years, earning money. This camera has followed me up to Svalbard in cold winter climate, and a lot other places with harsh environmental forces. No failures, which I find good, compared to ...
I also have colleges here up north using Sony mirrorless cameras for full time nature and wildlife shooting, and their gear stand the climate well. Isn't this good news?
What I say is that Sony weather sealing is not bad, and it is better than many think. So this is synonymous with "can't find any fault"! LOL!
You are funny. You can continue to hang on me with your claims about Sony apologists and fanboys, and more. But please, stay away from false quotes.
Magnar W, can’t be bothered to search back to the numerous times you have brought up this “story”... you full well know you have brought it up several times.
Certainly Sony cameras can handle incremental weather. I am not saying they cannot. I also do not need to, nor have I ever made up a “story” in “defence” of my camera brands of choice... about any “fault” they might have. Maybe this will bring an end to your blizzard story in the future?
@ cbphoto123: Make up a story? So now I am a liar too? You are really funny! At least I stay away from false quotes, and labelling people as fanatics.
Well, when you live here up north and work with reportage style over years, and also use the gear a lot at your spare time outdoor, you can't avoid these environmental forces. Neither can the gear, if you want photos taken.
Now: Back to the topic - what did I say about audio?
@ cbphoto123: It is not a fabel. And I could add more about photography in harsh climate here up north; wind, rain, snow, stormy weather and Atlantic salt water spray, biting cold days and nights, a forgotten camera outdoor a rainy night, etc. to tell you why I don't find Sony weather sealing that bad.
Then I would really look forward to your "translation" and false quotes from what you read to tell more about "those lying apologists that always say Sony is perfect" ... LOL!
Truly amazing your A7. From “Atlantic salt water...” to “forgotten camera outdoor a rainy night..”.. not sure who you are quoting at the end of your post though.
Well I wish you good luck with your brand of “choice”.. good luck with your “Fabels” of the north.. not fooling anyone, but yourself.
Edit: no one is following this “conversation” but yourself and me... and suddenly all your post have 1 like each. Oh Magnar..ts to ts.
@Magnar W: Do you purposely continue with your circular reasoning to waste people's time? FYI you're not convincing anyone with your "arguments" ( the history of your discussions here proves that), so it really just looks like self-sabotage. Unless you really ARE a Sony hater, hmmm, then I guess you're doing a good job.
@ yazcui: None of you bothered to ask about the camera left out in the rain, sea salt spray, or other instances. Eager to "prove" yourselves, you just jumped straight to a conclusion, and then assume that I said/wrote what you make up in your brains ... well, well.
“I recently bought the Canon RP....It can certainly be used for video but I'd be kidding myself if I thought it was on a par with other similar priced cameras out there.”
You make a good point—i.e., the RP is a cheap FF camera.
You know what?...so is the A7III.
While the A7III has excellent dynamic range, low light performance, and focus ability, Sony didn’t make it a secret that it was a cheap camera, with plastic build, outdated EVF, etc.
Why is anybody surprised they put a cheap preamp in the thing, when we all know everything excepting the sensor is cheap?
Dividing that kind of money between a camera, better recorder and microphone(s) would give much better overall results. $2k for camera, $2k for recorder and $2.5k for microphones...
For years I have heard comments that DPR is "owned" by Sony. Apparently not. I wonder what Sony can do to improve their sound. Is it possible that DPR just got a faulty pre-amp because this is not true of their video cameras? Why should I wash my hands? Is something wrong with touching cameras? Are Sony cameras dirtier than others?
Many of the comments say "great test". I'm not so sure. My problem with this test is that the testers don't tell me how the test was done. That is a more scientific approach and we (viewers) can do an equivalent test with our own camera and mic to verify, eventually reject the findings of dpreview. Well I did it with my camera Sony a6600 guessing how it was done. I mounted my Rode Videomic (cheap one about $60) on the a6600, mounted all on a tripod, put myself in front and started talking. Thereafter I imported to Final Cut Pro (with fix audio problems set to OFF). When playing the video using my Bose headset I could not hear anything like the dpreview testers did using Sony a7iii. In my audio test I could not hear any background noise. Conclusion: This is not a general Sony problem. What the testers found in a7iii is not found in my Sony a6600. With one reservation if my test is done different to that done by the preview people.
Comment to myself: I did also the test with the internal mic. Perhaps I can hear a very small background noise but not as much as testers recorded with the a7iii.
I predict we are going to see some more "but the A7000 and A7Siii are coming any day!" comments. Or worse " this will be fixed with FW soon".
A little off topic, but it appears electronics companies are going to delay some releases due to the Pandemic and speed up others. Video game demand is skyrocketing (try to buy a Switch), while camera demand is falling faster than ever. I doubt we see much new from any camera maker in the next 6 months. They don't want to release a camera when no one is buying.
Great test, brilliantly done, fun video. Comparable cameras would have been even better. DPreview needs to do more audio tests and perhaps include one in the usual excellent "full review" reports?
I was wondering if the audio of Alex is recorded with the earbud microphone? It sounds quite good, way better than mine anyway. I also don't see any other microphone. If it's actually the earbuds' microphone, I'd like to know the brand :-)
Good question! I was really only using the earbuds to talk to Chris over the phone, but for audio recording I actually hid a lavaliere in my clothing and then left a wireless audio receiver in front of my house for Jordan, which he cleaned up before using. Gotta stay safe these days, even when you’re trying to get good audio. :)
Thanks for the answer! I suspected there was another microphone, but I could hear it when you raised your arms. Which makes sense when that mic was hidden in your clothing. Too bad, would have been nice to have such a good earbud mic :)
Wow great test. Strange how all the Youtubers where putting down the Z6 saying it had bad preamps while not mentioning anything on the A7iii. Goes to show the level of shill happening on the tube.
No, the Z6 audio has always been quite okay, if not spectacularly good (zero noise). The A7 III did record very well with the right microphone when I had one.
Do ALL the cameras require a High Impedance microphone? Noise in some cameras maybe caused by using a microphone of the wrong impedance.
Another glitch? What is the bit depth (a Redbook CD is 16 bit) and sample rate. (Again, a Redbook CD is 44.1khz.)
The 'best' audio these days according to many digital audiophiles, would be 24bit / 384Khz. More is coming! Don't get me started on SACD (Super Audio CD)
24 bit recording makes level setting less stressful. BUT only if the gear is truly low noice (Sound Devices -quality), in-camera systems are not. Higher sample rates go to waste with the heavily compressed video codecs anyway. In any case higher sample rates are only "can do" type of hi-fi, nobody actually hears those frequencies, microphones do not record them and speakers/headphones do not reproduce them. Also the unnecessary higher components in the signal (if any) cause inter harmonic distortions in amplifiers which leak to the audible frequencies. So?
I am not sure you are correct. Does higher bit depth mean higher frequency? No, I don't think so. Sample rate matters, of course, but the filter and slope applied matter a lot, too. Early CD with 'brick wall' filters at about 1/2 the sampling frequency produced some audible artifacts. Like phase shift probems. My 1st gen player, which was 14bit (!) early Philips was also 4x oversampling and in blind tests was preferred to many of the first gen players. The Sony, in particular, had some audible issues. I honestly do not know how detailed the audio implimentation IS in the modern DSLR or Mirrorless. Even if you have a good DAC section, the noise in the electronics matter. I have yet to hear if the required microphones for these sytems is a highZ or lowZ type. Z being the agreed symbol for impedance. I keep the audio and video stuff seperate, in my brain, anyway. When I bought a Sony NEX-7 years ago, I tested the video direct to my TV and was impressed.
@leonski: Where did I say bit depth affects frequency range? I only mentioned level setting getting easier (and safer) if the system is noiseless enough. Cheap systems are noisy, often less than 16 bits even if they are marketed as 24 bit systems. Higher sample rates push the upper frequency limit up, but in practice it is worthless with video (and in reality everything). 48 kHz used with video is a good choice.
I have myself always used a separate audio recording system (Sound Devices/DPA/Gefell/Sennheiser etc) with video, unless at very stable studio conditions and using a pro level video camera with balanced inputs. For interviews and stuff those preamps and ADCs are plenty good enough, with decent microphones. I did run some tests with my prosumer cameras (Canon) and got S/N ratios of over 90 dB, which is like 1000 times better than any fancy Nagra reel-to-reel recorder used in most big buck Hollywood movies during sixties to nineties. So good enough...
My background is in audio. I've been a stereo guy since the 70s and bought one of the 1st CD players available in the US. The Magnevox-by-Philips FD1000.
Testing has SEEMED to show that in the analogue realm, that extended HF response DOES matter. The ribbon tweeter on the Magnepans is listed to having a response to 40khz. Perhaps this is the 3db 'down' point?
I have found I'm fairly sensitive to phase problems in the very highest frequencies even IF I can no longer hear much past 15khz. I owned a 'D' amp which made me nuts and I sold it to go back to a good linear PS'd A/B amp.
90db IS good. Some of the claims made for digital systems are even higher. In some cases a lot higher.... In a normal enviroment? I doubt it makes much difference past a certain point. I expermented with both Dolby on a cassette and DBx systems on a Reel-to-Reel a long time ago. DBx had some 'breathing' issues during dynamic changes.
My best AD converters (Sound Devices, Prism Orpheus) get about 21 bit resolution or 127 dB. With those it is possible to set (accidentally) levels 30 dB too low and still get practically noiseless audio for the final product. It is actually difficult to hear noses which are about 60 dB below peaks, unless listening for background noice in quiet places (classical) or between songs. So striving for hi-fi quality for "mere" video is not really worth it. Audio in classical movies was/is less than 10 bit quality, and it still sounds good even in theatres.
Much bigger problem than preamps/converters are microphones and mic placement anyway in amateur videos, and wind/handling noises.
I bought my first CD player in early eighties. Now running an "industrial" Tascam to Crane Song Avocet converter/controller, Hypex nCore D-amps to PMC IB2s monitors with Genelec 7071A subwoofer.
Newest D-class amps are so clean that they truly are wire-with-gain, try them again. Also small, cheap, no heat.
Same problems Always with 'D' amps. RMS power is far less than advertised. And the output Zobel causes phase problems. You're still limited to bridge or halfbridge topology with what amounts to an A/B output. Square wave is usually bad since it's difficult to be rid of the switching frequency.
Traditional OPTICAL movie soundtracks are really pretty good. And if from a GOOD copy? Worn film and old prints ARE a problem. And don't forget there were maybe half a dozen different systems.
I MET Bruno Putzeys at a show years ago when he was showing one of the BIG 700 watt (rated) amps of his design.
I have one of the REAL cheapest chip amps out in the garage. PE (Parte Express) DTA-1 which is on sale now for about 25$ or so. I use it and some cast off speakers mounted up on the wall as my 'garage' system. iTunes provides MP3-160 feed TO the amp which does very well, indeed. My goal would be to take this amp to a good stereo store and test with some very high sensitivity speakers. Over 93db 1watt/1meter would be fine.
I have a block diagram of an nCore amp for active biamping here somewhere. It has 2xnCore400 amps, a pair of SMPS and a MiniDSP as adjustible crossover. cost of such a setup with casework, even custom wood, could be nearly 2,000$ And you'd need a 2nd for the OTHER speaker. Each amp would have an unpowered sub-out.
I'm curious about the BEST possible performance from an old-school Hollywwood OPTICAL soundtrack.
No mas 'D' amps for me. Perhaps with a good Linear PS?
Following the R5 video specs released so far by Canon, you may have to wait longer for the A7sIII if they decide to re-think this camera if the underwhelming 15MP sensor rumour is true. It would have to have shoot some mega hight bit rates or crazy 4K frame rates if it were to get any serious appeal over the Canon.
Sony is going to do what’s good for Sony, whether that be providing firmware updates to existing models enabling higher bit rates et cetera or putting such upgrades in new releases. Let’s not forget what we’re talking about here; Sony is not some startup electronics company; they’ve been at this game for years and know how to play the incremental game of upgrade releases to maximize profits against the best of competitors. So, much of what I’ve read in these comments about Sony somehow falling behind is simply conjecture, much of it seemingly malicious.
Canon had to spec-out their 1DX III—which is sadly flawed (probably because they rushed it to market)—and then engage us, the consumer, in an unprecedented pre-launch marketing campaign to introduce the concept of their R5—a tactic to stop the bleeding of their consumer base.
Anyway, Sony will release the A7SIII and firmware updates and thereby silence many who habitually spew malicious, passive-aggressive comments in this forum.
I must have been using a different batch of Sony camera for the last five years as the only firmware features they had added were AF related. Considering how bad early A7 cameras were its understandable. Sony now has great AF however, its not as if any other manufacturer have not done the same. Canon snd Nikon mirrorless have received a slew of firmware updates over the last 12 months to transform their cameras.
@ TheOwl360 - yes it is likely that Canon heavilly market the R5 so unusally long in advance because they are stressed of their tanking SLR sales and their FF mirorless cameras not selling so well in competition with Sony's. It can also be that Canon have information about upcomming Sony cameras and they want pre-empt some of that news value by early announcing R5 specifications. Sony on the other hand seems to keep a tight lid on information about future cameras, perhaps because they dont need to spill it upfront.
All speculation and has no bearing on Sony having the worst mic input on their cameras and lacklustre bit rates/output options compared to the competition on all but their aged A7sII.
@ gazza73 - it was you who brought up the R5 in this thread 🙂
You generalize too much when making statements about all Sony cameras when the test was specifically about A7iii. What experience do you have on the digitial mic input on A7rIV and A9ii? I find it is works very well. Too bad none of the other camera makers provide digital mic input yet, else there could be a comparisson test 😋
I may have brought up the R5 but not the conspiracy toward Canons choice of marketing or sales figures?
All I know is my A7rii and A7riii are not great with a mic and by that I mean very noisy/hissy which is a big shame considering the importance of good audio. I’m back to using an external audio recorder which sounds much better.
When you used mic on those cameras did you you use 3.5mm contact, or the hot shoe? I previously had the A7rii and used the hot shoe with good sound result.
I’m using the 3.5mm jack with a Rode Video Mic Pro. Lots of hiss with this method when in comparison plugged into my old Zoom H4n recorder its excellent.
The question is if Sony really wants to come out with a mirrorless with top of the line video specs? Do they want to potentially encroach on their video camera business? Do they care about investing in much R&D for their stills cameras any longer? Are they willing to break with their small design philosophy and make a larger body to handle the demands of better video?
ok. I preferr using the hot shoe for simplicity as there are no cables whatsoever and everyting just works well. But if you want to use a 3rd party mic that doesnt have the hot shoe then you dont have that option obviously. Luckily Sony makes good microphones, and XLRs if you want, for the hot shoe.
Your post is intellectually honest and I appreciate that. You acknowledge that Sony, a literal GLOBAL JUGGERNAUT in consumer electronics, has capacity to innovate a top of the line MILC if they want to but likely choose not to do so because it doesn’t enable them to maximize profits.
@Thoughts R Us, I can see you are reasonable and because of that I know you will eventually buy Sony cameras and move on from Canon like many others who have seen the light.
Describing this as a "preamp test" is a bit misleading. The microphones used were clearly analog and the audio is recorded as a digital signal. There are three key elements in the path, 1. A preamp. 2. An automatic Gain Control (AGC) circuit, and 3. An Analog to Digital Converter. The first two elements were at least mentioned, but the third and maybe most important was ignored. A/D converters come in many bit depths, sample rates, and price points and it seems there was no attempt to even determine the actual bit depths of the subject recordings. More like a wine tasting than an actual audio test. :-).
For someone who has limited knowledge of sound recording I couldn’t disagree more. This video was perfectly executed for people like me. Knowing anything further about the converters or filters have little purpose to those who want to record audio internally on any of these recent cameras. I also find internal sound on my Sony to be noisy so finding a single box solution over external recording is very helpful.
The de facto standard for digital recording for video is 48 kHz, 24 bit depth. I doubt the A/D convertor is the weak link in the chain you mentioned. For me, the most problematic is automatic gain control (AGC), which is useful only if I do not intend to use the results beyond synchronization with a better sound track. For any serious work, AGC must be disabled.
@ Ed Ingold. Yes, I am aware of the standard. I helped to write it, but that is a data package spec and has little to do with the quality of A/D converters. Nobody I know of makes an A/D that has 144dB (24 bits) of dynamic range. Very high end "24 bit" converters don't make better than about 19 bits and change. Cheap ones are closer to 12 bits. So, yes the A/D converter is an important part of the system and very hard to make with high performance at the very low power budgets available in cameras. Those who have built both, know that very good audio is just as hard as very good video because the bandwidth x dynamic range product is in the same ballpark. Once you get the signal into the digital world, video is the big bit hog, but until you get there, audio is a challenge. Note that if you really had 144 dB of dynamic range in the A/D, there would be zero need for an AGC circuit because you can't make a preamp much better than that and there are no microphones that come close.
A supremely quiet studio (20 dB), in the wee hours of the morning, might provide and environment with 70 dB of usable dynamic range. People still rave about the sound of vinyl discs and magnetic tape, which have a differential dynamic range of about 40 dB (the noise floor rises and falls with the signal level). I use mainly Schoeps and Neumann microphones, which are considered quiet with a 62 db noise floor. Quibbling about 144 dB v 12 bit or even 10 bit conversion is a "bit" overblown.
That said, I record at 48 or 96 kHz, 32 bit, on equipment which has a measured noise floor of - 130 dB. Every other part of the chain is a weaker link, as it should be.
There are two major parts of audio recording - laying down tracks, and listening to the results. To get a clean sound without clipping peaks, you record at a very low level, typically -12 to - 20 dB from 100% modulation. The final step in mastering is to normalize the peaks to just under 100% (-0.1 dB). Even then the average sound level of raw music is too low for listening outside of a studio or audiophile living room (with $100/ft speaker cable). A little reverb and artful compression (fancy AGC) is almost always necessary for classical music, much less pop (in which anything goes).
@Ed Nice, a Schoeps user. I already have the 50 and was thinking of adding a 641 for 2 person interviews as well as acoustic guitar. The 50 imparts a lot of flavor on the guitar, though clients love the way they sound on the 50.
62 dB s/n is not the best Neumann by a fair bit, but nonetheless, 62dB is noise floor below 94 dBa, i.e. 32 dBa. However, that mic will most likely stay quite clean up to around 120 dBa or 26dB above the reference 94 dBa for a dynamic range of 62+26 or 88dB. A perfect 12 bit converter only has 72 dB (or 74 dB if you want to add the extra hand waving 2dB that A/D manufacturers are fond of) and that is not practical without a heavy dose of AGC. AGC has its place, but as you indirectly point out, it is best used in post rather than capture. Also note that your so-called 32 bit equipment (the 32bit package is capable of 192 dB) has a 130 dB noise floor below peak level or 130 dB of total dynamic range (just a tad over 21 bits) since digital s/n is measured differently than microphone s/n. A/D converters do matter and you have to dig into the specs to see what each one can actually do. Dynamic range isn't the whole story. A/D converters can also introduce distortion and aliasing.
@Dragonrider -- this is a distinction without difference. The test was to determine the audio quality for three common scenarios, and that's exactly what they did. You would have had a point if the cameras allowed modifications/customization in any of the processing stages, which they don't.
@forpetessake. I agree with your point. I was just trying to point out the rather sloppy use of terminology in the review from someone billed as an "audio expert". Had Chris done the test himself, I wouldn't have raised the question, since he doesn't claim "expert" status.
listened to this 4k via hdmi audio out of a pc, into a denon x4500h, with decent speakers.
I liked the audio quality of the overall edit, the background music was done perfectly, and the audio that alex recorded of himself being interviewed sounded really good.
not sure where the test went wrong, tho, maybe a defective camera? because sony a7-series has a history of decent in-camera preamps:
"This [a7s]camera has the best noise floor of all the DSLR cameras I have come across. The monitoring is also excellent, the throughput being second to none, meaning what you put in (signal) is equal to what you get out( monitored.) In conclusion, I found the camera easy to use, the mic pre amps are quiet. The noise floor is the best of the DSLR bunch and the monitoring is excellent.” Mick Close Sound Recordist" http://danmears.tv/a7saudio/
Would there be a difference if you fed the cameras a line signal?
Anybody who's serious about sound will record it externally. The onboard sound is just scratch usually so you can sync manually if TC fails.
So sony fans you can relax the quality if the onboard sound is irrelevant actually. If you need good sound you will record it externally and if its not crucial work the sound quality doesn't mattet anyway!
Most, if not all, of the cameras simply can't accept a signal as hot as line level. You're right though; if we COULD bypass the pre-amps then that'd probably solve a lot of problems.
That said, gonna have to disagree about external recording. It absolutely is higher quality and I recommend it all the time, but that doesn't mean that internal recording isn't any good. In some cases, having a smaller crew and a lighter camera package can mean getting shots that you wouldn't normally get. So yeah, I'd still say that double system audio is preferable but it definitely isn't mandatory.
Like you mentioned in the video its probably because of the historically bad sound of canons dslrs that everybody recorded their sound externally on zoom h4n tipically. Which also doesnt sound too good, but was much better than the cameras. Also i remember the use of an external mixer to not be on the mercy of the cameras automatic gain control and then feeding the mixer signal to the camera.
You should have included some early blackmagic cameras which are even worse than sony. :) would have gotten less backlash from sony afficionados maybe if another brand scored last!
Broadly speaking, "line level" is any signal higher than mic level, abut -60 dB. I normally record at a nominal peak level of -12 to - 20 dB. It I attenuate the output another 20 dB, the signal can be fed to a mic input with reasonable safety. The camera level must be dropped another 10 to 20 dB, but the preamp doesn't overload.
Most consumer (and some professional) preamps have a fixed input stage with an output trim. While that will prevent overload to the A/D converter, the preamp itself is subject to clipping. Some have a 20 db divider feeding the preamp, but the best bypass the amp stage altogether. The latter will usually have a separate input socket.
Interestingly enough the Olympus *can* actually accept a line level signal via it's audio input although this is something that doesn't seem to get any coverage and the manual is zero help in telling you if it's intended to be consumer or Pro line level. I'm not aware of any other consumer camera that can accept line level audio.
(Look for menu entries for PCM Recorder Link and Camera Rec Volume).
That said that if you have a way to feed it line level audio the results should be pretty decent.
Actually, I don't use my A7III for video, so it's not a problem for me, but what I like is that we see the Z6 is actually pretty good, much worthier of praises than people seemed to think when it was released. That and their nice lens line-up make Nikon pretty impressive from my point of view.
If Nikon adds a better battery to a Z6 V2 version, and Canon adds IBIS to its EOS R and RP cameras, the market will be flooded with exceptional cameras ;)
I’ve just started shooting some YouTube content for my daughter on an Sony A7rIII plus Rode Video Mic Pro. I was all set to upgrade the mic due to what I considered poor, noisy audio. While researching I stumbled on this excellent video it’ seems its actually the camera not the mic. The Canon R5 can’t come soon enough and I can finally ditch Sony.
Most of your noise problems may stem from the distance between your subject and the microphone. The further you are away, the less the desired sound is relative to ambient noise. With a weaker signal, you have to turn the gain up even further, but that amplifies noise as well in both the environment and preamp itself.
For spoken voice, you should be 0-2 feet. For singing, it depends on the style, but from lip level (pop) to 4-6 feet (opera style). Even a highly directional shotgun mic is usually held 4 feet away or less. Street noise you hear in movies is usually created by foley artists in a studio.
Using the microphone pointing down on a boom 60cm above my daughter and the Sony audio recording level set to 19. I hear plenty of hiss with this set up. Is this similar on other none Sony cameras. Might try boosting the Video Mic gain to see if it helps next time however definitely sounds much better into my Zoom recorder than the A7rIII but adds lots of work to the edit.
THANKS for the nice Review. It has lots of fun in it and useful information... of course it's also important who won, but nevertheless you made a great job here. Keep fighting Corona with that funny attitude! ;)
Interesting - Sony and Olympus make and sell digital audio recorders, with preamps and all. The rest of the brands tested do not make a recorder (except Panasonic, with a couple high end, very expensive units).
The A7III is a lower end camera that is not video centric. The test does not tell anything about other cameras those from Sony or the other brands that were not tested.
Someone made the same point Magnar makes on SAR. But these were some of the responses from Sony users:
"But the a9 is crippled without profiles for video and the full frame video from the a7iii is sharper than the a7r iv"
"Z6 is cheaper in many countries"
So the Z6 is roughly on par price point wise with the Sony, and for now the Sony A7III is about as good as it gets in Sony land for video in an ILC hybrid. And honestly, does one expect the sound pre amp to be any better in any other Sony ILC, where its clear that video is not a priority for Sony in these cameras?
@ Thoughts R Us: You don't get everything when buying a low priced full frame mirrorless camera. Just look at what is important for you, and get the best tool for what you intend to do.
Or you could buy some extra devices to record better sound if your really are into video making.
My point is that the test tells something about the tested cameras, not other models from Sony - or from other brands.
Magnar: my point is that you use the excuse that the A7III is a lower priced FF offering, yet it compares unfavorably to the comparably priced Nikon Z6.
And the higher end Sony MILCs show no signs of being better in any video feature.
@ Thoughts R Us: Link to other Sony cameras and audio quality?
No camera can be "best" in every respect. And what you THINK about the quality of audio from other cameras than those judged here is not helpful at all.
Magnar, in an earlier thread this is what Jordan of DPR said about the camera selection: "I grabbed every manufacturer's best video camera, that was the motivation behind the cameras chosen."
Magnar - Take it easy, we all know how you love your Sony. The fact is that the Sony fortress seem to be cracking lately. You seem to be sticking your head into the ground.
It is a bitter pill to swallow as to see how all of Sony's efforts and previous advantages are now fading away.
Competition does not sit still they finally also found their way into guerrilla marketing like Sony and are accelerating their efforts while Sony seem to be unable to respond quickly enough to these changes.
@ Prosecutor: Wow, you are really a brand war fighter!
No worries here. There wil always be Procecutors on photo forums, those who need to put down other brands, and users of other brands, to feel good themselves...
So now it is bad to use a specific camera brand, and to be satisfied with it? LOL!
I will leave the whining to people like you and your friends. No worries that your voices will be quieted, there are quite some of you.
Personally I prefer to overcome shortcomings and limits set by the gear. That's why I use a separate recorder when audio is important, or better, a dedicated video camera.
I read this great site every day, still, and will continue. (Sorry, didn't see the red reply flag). I had used Sony cameras for many years until a year ago, primarily for underwhelming and lagging video features and operation. I use now a widely sold brand not reviewed here. Sony plays within many of the same divisions of that other brand, and actually is broadly and successfully involved in many other industry divisions. I question Sony's business practices in not extending more of its successful technology to the camera models covered on the site.
Unlike Sony, other competing brands here do try to make this push. ???
It is once again hilarious to read the comments. People feeling offended their favourite brand didn't make it as nr 1, and blaming it on the tester. The poor guy even answers, maybe the DP Review staff should have given him a warning.
More interesting observation: if you do not use good headphones or good speakers to listen, but consume the video as you would normally on a PC, phone or tablet, there isn't much difference, except for the Sony (hiss all over the place) and the last test.
For Vloggers, the take-away can be that most cameras are perfectly suitable.
On the Sony Alpha Rumors site, some interesting comments on why the A7III is so bad:
"Probably the camera is a EMI nightmare, small body full of electronic noise sources."
So I do think Sony is paying a price for such a small body. One could probably engineer better at that small size, but that would take a lot of R&D.
"Its no surprise, the a7III also has the worst EVF and LCD of the group, great sensor and AF, but they cut a lot of corners to squeeze every last ounce of profit out of that camera."
And here I do think that the a7III, which at first was hailed as some breakthrough price point in FF MILC, is suffering for that and we are seeing the flaws surface. Although, realistically none of the Sony ILCs are really meant for great video, and so I don't expect any of their more expensive models to have better audio.
@ TRU - "I don't expect any of their more expensive models to have better audio". Have you tried the digital mic input on the Sony cameras? or are you just assuming things based on your bad intent towards Sony (your bad will that is since long well documented in DPR forum)?
@sillen: It's a fair point, but It's simple: track record. The newer, more expensive Sony cameras show no improvement or signs that they are any better in the video department. In fact, Sony users regularly complain and hence the want for the mythical A7S3.
So sure Sony may have neglected all of the other video features in the more expensive models but somehow put in a better preamp for better audio, but it's not likely. But again, I freely admit no tests on my part.
However, the overall track record for Sony of late is to neglect the video features in their ILCs. Perhaps Sony is protecting their lineup of dedicated video cameras.
@sillen: BTW, I just noticed this: Jordan of DPR states that: "I grabbed every manufacturer's best video camera, that was the motivation behind the cameras chosen."
@ TRU - you divert from the topic, your statement was "I don't expect any of their more expensive models to have better audio". It just so happens that the A9ii and A7rIV has digital audio input, while the A7iii has not. Neither does any of the cameras in this article. You could filander into all sorts of other video aspects beyond audio such as eye AF in video where A9ii and A7r4 shines and A7iii lacks. But thats beyond the point of audio and your statement on audio in Sonys more expensive cameras.
Too bad we don't have anything but subjective judgements. People have been measuring with great precision audio gear for decades. You know, old fashioned S/N rations, frequency responses, etc. Are his evaluations using the feeds from the built-in headphone monitors or is he evaluating the recorded signals? If the latter, aren't then he also measuring the headphone amp component as well?
Definitely took a lot of care to ensure that the tests were performed with controls to make them as objective as possible. As an example, we took a look at the recorded data from the camera in an NLE and even before we listened to it we could see the waveforms telling us a LOT about the cameras' noise floor. While we certainly could get in to the weeds about SNR and other technical measurements, for a video like this it's simpler and more effective to describe my experience working with the cameras.
An interesting test. However, I don't agree with the conclusions at all. You have three tests,: A. run normal levels into the cameras (an experienced user would nail that). Sony failed horribly here, So I would think the camera is bad and get a new review copy. If still that bad then Sony is a failure. B. Run low levels into the camera and need a boost . This is the most likely scenario for most people and should have the highest weight on the conclusions. Due to cheap microphones or mixed levels from various people coming in. Results here: 1. Panasonic 2. Nikon 3. Olympus 4. Canon but with digital pop noise 5. Fuji with noise and High pitch background 6. A must be broken Sony that needs repair.
C. An extremely unlikely test unless you have high level sound coming directly off a mixing board. This should have the lowest weight to the Conclusion, although seemed to be highest. This was only where Canon pulled ahead. So I don't agree with your results. But thank you for the tests.
For C, if you run your mics through a recorder then you'll have this scenario. I do this through a camera mounted H4n as it also enables headphone monitoring on a camera like the a6500.
Anyway, based on my experience with Sonys I agree something is wrong with that body. It shouldn't be so bad.
I agree that there was something amiss with the Sony test.
We get audio that measures ≥60 dB SNR on an a7iii via the mic input in our event installs.
The a7iii audio reproduced in this vid is audibly ≤25 dB SNR, something that I've not heard on any mic input since the 1970s. That is simply *not* how a properly functioning (and appropriately set up) a7iii performs.
I just did a quick test with the Rode VideoMic Pro (old version) and a6600. With +20 I was at just 1 for recording levels on my a6600 in a quiet room. There's no audible noise. With +0 I was at around 10 which was also quiet. I had to really crank up the gain to hear self-noise.
I am happy with 2&3rd joint place for Nikon Z6. At its introduction, the camera was so much unfairly critized for its preams, but it turns out that only extremely expensive Canon has better sound! So I think that I will use an external mike but internal preamps of Z6 more. With recent updates it is a true beast of camera. Nikkor Z lenses are truly amazing as well - even the F4 kit lens 24-70 is very good. So finally the camera's sound is rectified.
Nikon still builds some of the greatest cameras and lenses in the world, but unfortunately doesn't get the right amount of credit among online commenters and the Youtube crowd. Too many make snap judgements based on a thin list of specs, with no real understanding of what makes a truly great and usable tool.
Not only is the Z system proving to be a really great system, in spite of the usual suspects on Youtube that downplayed it, but their DSLRs are still world class as well. Their newly introduced D780 is another example of a really great, solid release that got very little love online, but users are loving it. And just like the Z, as time goes by more people will realize what a great camera the D780 is.
The D6 is yet another example, where many are bad talking a camera they have never seen or used, once again on a spec list. Want to bet it proves to be a beast of a camera?
@ TRU - ”where many are bad talking a camera they have never seen or used”. And similarly there are persons uptalking a camera that is not available yet and they have nerver used. You wouldnt know any such person by chance?
I must say I was really positivelly surprised by my Nikon Z6 : it's a real complement body to my D810. Especially for low light photo shooting and for video of course.
@sillen: I base my opinion on the track record of Nikon. They release substantial and high performing bodies all of the time, yet receive this lukewarm reception online with these snap judgements. Then as people actually get to use and know the equipment they see how great it really is.
With the D6, given the track record of Nikon with their pro series bodies, I would expect that it to will be a "beast."
So with Nikon you have earned reputation based on past performance. It's as simple as that.
I'm quite pleased with the quality of the mic preamp on my Sony 6400. I guess the reason for the noise-floor is that Sony doesn't allow the user to deactivate the limiter, even when the level is set manually. And the Sony limiter works like a maximizer, too. So if the gain is set too low (20 db in the video) is boosts the signal and the noise.
This doesn't have anything to do with the noise-level of the mic-preamp per se.
The thought behind this on Sony's side might simply be that if amateurs record a video and the recorded sound is too far away or the gain is set too low they want to make sure that the audio is still loud enough. I use the Sony mostly with external mics or recorders, but a lot of the times, I don't find it necessary to replace the camera-audio with the files from the recorder I used. I always set the output level of the mic or recorder high and the gain on the Sony as low as possible.
BTW, aside from the tests, I really enjoyed the humor in the opening and the ending. Nice human touch as always...although in today's times, perhaps I shouldn't say "touch"...maybe human element :)
I like that the video is straightforward and everyone can listen and judge for themselves. Some things are more subjective, but it is obvious who came in last. Great job guys .
I wish to thank DPReview for this article. While it is mostly a product review, it has the potential of engaging a problem solving session. It is surprisingly difficult to capture high quality sound with video, which leads to the question, "How do we do it better?" At an even more basic level, articles like this should make us better aware that sound is important.
I have all cameras except canon and panasonic. the best of the 4 that remain is the sony a7 III. I can provide audio files and spectroscopy analysis if you want. what happens dpreview? Veiledly, but more and more, you are shifting consensus to others, canon first
Or maybe he always recorded in the sweet spot. No gain, no limiter. Normal voice can be recorded with the Sony... Yes. But not much more and under difficult circumstances
My curiosity -not yet fully tested at home but still fascinated by stereo and pictures by all of us- relates to the simple observation and query for those who know--Q Let us say one buys a lower priced camera with a MIC input. And then a two to three hundred dollar microphone, such as a Sennheiser or Rode or even a Senal stereo from B and H. Question: Does the add on microphone not bypass the internal electronics as far as pre amp and noise? I am asking because I am in no position to test same....and does Run and Gun preclude any add on microphone of appropriate quality. Seems like a cost effective way to up your game. Any thoughts? I believe that audio is a moving target for most people. In a world of MP3 and CDs and even vinyl records with compression and some noise... : I have never been an audiophile and my frquency range may reveal that right off...but correct my quick review of Alex's interesting video post and his friend. Video will get more attention. Just wait,
The add on microphone does not bypass the internal electronics or preamp. It goes into the analog in of the camera. This said, if you use for example a Sennheiser MKE 440 or a similar mic, it delivers a higher level signal and allows you to set the gain of the internal mic preamp of the camera very low. So it lowers the noise level and unwanted side effects. Nothing worse than a low quality mic preamp set to its maximum gain. The philosophy behind using recorder/mic preamps like the ones from Sound Devices is the same. The recorders have a huge benefit: you send audio to the camera - so you have higher quality audio on the recorded video. And later you sync the high quality audio from the recorder with the video and replace the original audio track with the one from the recorder. Having the original track makes it easier to sync. A lot of the times, I'm too lazy and satisfied with the feed from the mic or the recorder directly into the cam.
Once you venture into the $300+ range of microphones, you are probably looking at condenser microphones. These generally require external power, typically 48 vdc, and have an internal amplifier. Condenser microphones have a thin membrane with a charge relative to a fixed plate. As it vibrates, the membrane gets closer to the fixed electrode, increasing its capacitance, hence the voltage between the plates.
In order to work, the measuring circuit must have an extremely high impedance, so the main purpose of the internal amplifier is to lower that impedance to something which can be transmitted over a long cable. They need less amplification at the camera than a dynamic (coils and magnet) microphone, but only 40 db vs 60 db.
Because the membrane is so thin and light, the frequency response is much wider and flatter. Electret microphones are also condensers, but with a permanent charge. They need an amplifier too, for the same reason. Dynamic microphones generate their own voltage.
I listened several time and thought the Oly was bit better overall than the Fujifilm camera. There is some subjectivity there. Honestly the top 5 were fairly close and usable.
For run and gun IMHO, the Oly can't be beat. It is has the most stable video. Its C4K is very detailed. With its latest FW, focusing reliable. It has a decent log option as well as great colors for when minimal processing/fast results. And the audio is very usable.
Of course the Oly has always been overshadowed by the camera used to make this video (but then so has almost every other camera).
Morphodone , in the eyes of fanatics in the Oly m43 camp { Hi Don :-) } unless the answer to any question is yay Olympus then you are clearly in the wrong .
The reviewer twice explicitly states the Fuji produces inferior quality audio compared to the Olympus when he summarizes the results of each of the individual round of tests during the course of the video.
Then at the final summary, the Olympus finishes behind the Fuji.
So the final results are not consistent with reviewers own comments during the summary of the individual test rounds. Simple really.
Whether he owns any of the gear/brand(s) being tested is irrelevant.
I'd love to run two races against Usain Bolt, come in second behind him in both races and get the gold medal, while he gets the silver.
That's exactly what happened here with the Fuji and Olympus final rankings.
Plumshots, in an overall review there will be areas of the test that have more significance than others . Hence the overall conclusion . I suspect for any serious video use external audio would be the better choice anyway.
The mix of cameras seemed a bit random, for the price of the 1DX III here in the UK you could buy the XT3, A7III, Z6 and E-M1III and still have £600 left for a very good external recorder
Weighting has absolutely nothing to do with it. Something else clearly is at play.
The objective data clearly and unequivocally establishes that the Sony is the worst performer, in a class by itself. The same data clearly establishes that the Fuji is the second worst performer, also in a class by itself., exhibiting anomalies that none of the four remaining camera/pre-amps did.
Yes, the ranking of the remaining four cameras would be more subjective, but the objective data clearly and absolutely eliminates the Sony and Fuji from being part of that discussion/process.
There is no way that a pre-amp that is decidedly inferior on tests two and three, could be so vastly superior on test one to pull ahead in any kind of weighting scheme.
Without question, the Olympus pre-amp is better than that of the Fuji and by quite some margin.
Well done you found another Olympus fan who agrees with you conformation bias at work . Every brand has its extreme fans . But from unfortunate experience as a user of m43 and still some Sony gear. It is a race to the bottom between their fanatics for who is the worst.
The guy doing the test is an Olympus user and this is his job. He has no reason to favour one over the other . And in the end most serious video shooters use external audio
To James Stirling, I see you calling users of Olympus cameras many different names like "fanatics" and such.
Since you posts are text definition of "trolling", do you consider yourself a troll? And why do you so very often resort to name calling and targeting users of one brand with your insults? I look forward to your explanations.
haha. Ranking is pretty much in terms of camera price. The most expensive rated highest. What a surprise.
Actually all I want as a stills photog is a *pure stills* camera. No video recording, no audio pre amps, no codecs, no mics, no speakers. None of it. Just peace, silence, great image quality at affordable prices.
“OK, since you asked so loudly, I’m gonna give you a stills-only camera,” Nikon said, proffering a Nikon Df. “Well, thanks for the gesture, but actually, we just like talking about such stuff on DPR, not actually spending money on them,” said the photo purists. “Oh duh, fool me once, shame on me,” said Nikon sadly, and went to work on the video capabilities.
I was all excited about the Df when I saw the teaser campaign. As brilliant as the campaign was (essence, photography, purity, no clutter, etc.) - as much did Nikon botch the product. Old re-used sensor, idiotic retro looks, idiotic frankenstein user interface mixing the worst of analog with the worst of digital, no communications interface, and all of it for a ludicrous price.
No, no, no, 1000x times no. I am very pleased to see that Nikon got an epic fail in the marketplace. It was not because of lack of video. It was despite of.
Panasonic has given its DC-S1 and DC-S1H full-frame mirrorless cameras some big improvements via recent firmware updates. Chris and Jordan take a look at what's been added and how the two cameras compare in 2021.
In addition to 5.9K Blackmagic RAW recording for the S1H, the S1, S1R, S5 and BGH1 are also receiving firmware updates to being a slew of new and improved features.
A new firmware update adds bird detection autofocus to the E-M1X and, oh boy, it finds all the birds. The E-M1X and E-M1 Mark III also get ProRes Raw video recording, but does it meet Jordan's standards?
This year, despite the disruption, plenty of amazing cameras, lenses, accessories and other products came through our doors. Now, as the year winds down, we're highlighting some of our standout products of the year. Check out the winners of the 2020 DPReview Awards!
DxO has just released PureRaw, a simple, standalone program that can automatically apply its high-quality lens corrections and impressive noise-reduction algorithms to your Raw files, and then pass those Raw files off to your favorite editing app. We're pretty impressed by it – find out why in our review.
The Fujifilm Fujinon XF 70-300mm F4-5.6 R LM OIS WR is a very versatile, compact telephoto zoom lens. But how does it perform? Read our review to find out.
The X-E4 is going to make a lot of photographers happy, especially those craving a near-pocket-size X-mount body with Fujifilm's latest IQ performance.
In our latest software shootout, we pit Adobe's Camera Raw against Capture One Express Fujifilm, included for free with every Fujifilm camera. Can you get all you need with the free option? For a lot of people, it looks like the answer could be yes.
The Pentax K-3 Mark III is that rarest of things: a completely new DSLR. We've got hands-on with the camera to find out just what's changed in the six years since the Mark II. The answer is: almost everything.
Family moments are precious and sometimes you want to capture that time spent with friends or loved-ones in better quality than your phone can manage. We've selected a group of cameras that are easy to keep with you, and that can adapt to take photos wherever and whenever something memorable happens.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that might be a bit older but still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
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.
Micro Four Thirds users can now enjoy the Speedmaster 35mm F0.95 Mark II manual lens that was previously limited to Canon EF-M, Fujifilm X and Sony E mount camera systems.
Hasselblad Masters contest opens to professional photographers, with a dozen medium format mirrorless cameras up for grabs. And you don't need to shoot on a 'blad to enter!
Fujifilm's latest prime, the XF 18mm F1.4 R LM WR, is a solidly built lens that we've really enjoyed shooting with. It's also a big departure from Fujifilm's previous 18mm F2 prime lens – get a sense of how it handles right here.
The new Fujifilm XF 18mm F1.4 R LM WR provides a 27mm-equivalent focal length for Fujifilm's X-mount cameras. Find out why Chris and Jordan like this fast, sharp 18mm lens.
We've been shooting with a pre-production copy of Fujifilm's new XF 18mm F1.4 R LM WR lens for a few days, which offers a 27mm full-frame equivalent field of view, and optically, we're impressed.
Fujifilm has announced its lightweight (370g/13oz) XF 18mm F1.4 R LM WR wide-angle prime. This 27mm-equivalent lens offers numerous special elements and a linear focus motor, and is also weather-sealed.
DxO has just released PureRaw, a simple, standalone program that can automatically apply its high-quality lens corrections and impressive noise-reduction algorithms to your Raw files, and then pass those Raw files off to your favorite editing app. We're pretty impressed by it – find out why in our review.
Canon has just announced a native RF-mount contemporary to its popular EF 100mm F2.8L Macro lens. The RF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM is an all-new design, and we've been digging into its feature set. Click through to learn more.
Sony's Xperia 1 and 5 Mark III smartphones introduce a variable 70-105mm telephoto optic, 120Hz OLED displays, and are the first cameras ever to shoot 20 fps with temporal noise reduction. Read on for an in-depth look.
Canon has just announced the development of what will be the highest-speed RF-mount camera yet, the EOS R3. It looks like a really interesting camera, but the R3 also points toward something else coming in the future; something even more capable. Here's what we know.
In today's episode of DPReview TV, Chris and Jordan answer the question everyone is asking: what do they think about Canon's EOS R3 development announcement?
Canon's new RF 100mm F2.8L IS USM offers a minimum focus distance of 26cm (10"), up to 8 stops of shake reduction, and the ability to adjust bokeh and softness by turning its 'spherical aberration' dial.
Canon has announced two new super-telephoto primes for RF-mount: the 400mm F2.8L IS USM and 600mm F4L IS USM. Both lenses share the same optics as their EF-mount counterparts, and will arrive in July priced at $12,000 and $13,000, respectively.
Canon has announced that it is developing the EOS R3, a high-end full-frame mirrorless camera. It will feature a Stacked CMOS Dual Pixel sensor and be able to shoot at up to 30 fps.
Adobe's latest addition to Camera Raw is a Super Resolution feature, which quadruples the pixel count of your Raw files and, in theory, doubles their linear resolution. Does that mean that you really don't need more than 12 or 16 megapixels anymore? We've put it to the test.
Tokina's atx-m 33mm F1.4 X is an affordable fast prime for Fujifilm's X-mount cameras that offers autofocus and solid image quality. Check out what it can do and our impressions of its image quality right here.
Following complaints in the U.K. and oversight from the Advertising Standards Authority, Apple has adjusted its Pro Display XDR marketing material in the UK, removing a claim about HDR performance and adjusting its materials regarding color space.
The three-axis pocket camera can record 4K video at up to 60 frames per second and features a 2.45" articulating screen for composing and reviewing images.
In a wide-ranging interview, Aki Murata of OM Digital Solutions updated us on the transition from Olympus to 'OMDS', the future of the Olympus brand and why he believes Four Thirds still has advantages over other sensor formats.
We recently took delivery of Leica's new APO-Summicron-M 35mm F2 ASPH, and in the short time between its arrival and when it had to be sent back, we prepared a preliminary sample gallery in and around sunny Seattle.
Tokina's 23mm F1.4 is one of two of the company's new primes available for Fujifilm X-mount shooters. With a 35mm full-frame equivalent focal length, this lens is perfect for casual, candid, and street photography, even in low light.
Panasonic has given its DC-S1 and DC-S1H full-frame mirrorless cameras some big improvements via recent firmware updates. Chris and Jordan take a look at what's been added and how the two cameras compare in 2021.
Comments