Economical On-Camera Shotgun for Interviews

[Gary Nattrass]

And two clips of an AT875r in use on a boom:
YouTube
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature...&v=NbvCcjrAueI

[Steven Digges]

Byron,

As an aside to your original question but in response to a statement you made I have a suggestion. In my experience, people love to touch professional equipment. A microphone is at the top of that list for their “fun factor”. It makes them feel good. I use a Sennheiser transmitter plugged into a SM58 because that works for me. The SM 58 is an almost indestructible mic, it is as close to “drunk proof” as you’re going to get. It also just occurred to me that if you bought a cheap mic flag and put the name of the bride and groom on it you could add to the fun. Mic flags are the blocks on a mic that usually identify a broadcaster and have a logo on them. I use them for some of my corporate clients when we make “news skits” and other fun stuff. You can reuse them by changing the logo or whatever you put on them. Not trying to sway your shotgun approach, I get it. Just adding food for thought. The mic flags would not work if people are in too serious a mood, but the drunks will love them! You could capitalize on a bad thing and let them run.

Steve

[Byron Jones]

Steve, what model do you use? I found the SKP 100 G3 online that looks right for that.

[Steven Digges]

Mine is the SKP 100. It is part of the original EW -100 set before they became EW-100 G3. It is a heavy metal block that locks securely onto my SM58 (or any XLR mic) and will not fall off. The buttons are tiny and recessed on the bottom so they don't get messed with, and there is a talent lock off. It is as close to drunk proof as your going to get. Good Mic set. No scan function, all manual.

My receiver is the ENG camera mount and I also have the lav. The only thing I would like different is they all run on 9V batteries. No biggie, just convenience, a lot of my other stuff is AA so I have cases of them.

Steve

[Byron Jones]

Seems like a good setup. I might have to add that to my shopping list. Probably take me a couple more weddings before I can pick it up. The 58 was already on there. I have used them before and they can take a beating.

[Rick Reineke]

The 58 is a great rugged mic., but designed more for on-stage vocal use. For this type of situation where the mic will not be integrated with a PA system, an EV RE50, 635, Sennheiser MD42 or 46 would be more suitable... especially with folks not accustomed to microphones.
All these mics are extremely rugged as well... Though I'm not aware of tests dropping them from a crane or running them over with a tour bus to see if they still work.

[Steven Digges]

Good choices Rick. I am not super familiar all of them but I have used a couple of them.

Byron, what ever handheld you pick make sure it does not have an on/off switch on the barrel. Those are always problematic with everyone except pros.

Steve

[Bruce Watson]

Originally Posted by Byron Jones

The goal is to use the mic to allow wedding guests to say well-wishes to the bride and groom during the reception. I am hoping a shotgun style mic will help tone down some of the background noise. I imagine a handheld plugged straight in camera would produce higher quality, but being a one-man-show, I like the ease of the on-camera mic for this part of the job (plus I don't like handing my gear to strangers...who might have had a few too many). Funds are tight as I am already purchasing another camera. What would give me the best bang for the buck for this?

The biggest bang for the buck is the http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/102900-REG/Electro_Voice_16502345_RE50N_D_B_N_DYM_Dynamic.html. You can find them for around $100 used, they have nearly zero handling noise, and they are nearly indestructible (can double as hammers if you're really in need, or so they say ;-). The omni pattern is perfect for your needs -- no matter where the speaker is relative to the mic, they won't be out of field and sound pinched like you sometimes get with a shotgun. Likewise, the background noise will sound "natural" which you don't always get with an interference tube shotgun.

I've seen news reporters using these to cover hurricanes on the coast -- massive wind, rain, and blowing sand, water dripping off them, and they sound pristine. Without even a foam windscreen.

I've used mine for tradeshows, and it's amazing how good they sound, and how the person being interviewed's voice sounds perfectly clear and "pops" up above the ambient noise.

It has a nice "professional heft" to it, people like to hold them, and if they drop it, even on a concrete floor, they aren't likely to hurt it beyond surface scratches. And all you're risking is $100 anyway.

No mic mounted on camera (which is absolutely the worst place for a mic to be), even a Schoeps CMIT, will sound half as good as an RE50N/D-B held 4" from the mouth in this duty. Just sayin'.

I mean really -- what's not to like?

[Rick Reineke]

If I were to choose an EV, I'd prefer the newer N/D model which has a higher output level, among some other 'improvements'.
The Sennheisers are extremely good mics as well, the MD-42 is omnidirectional whilst the MD-46 is a 'wide' cardioid with a great off axis response which would be desirable in the high background noise scenario. There are other omnidirectional 'reporter's' mics available worth considering as well , from Shure, AT, Beyer, depending on budget, availability and features.

[Frank Glencairn]

For that scenario a NTG1 or NTG2 (depending if you camera has phantom power or not) would be just fine, or even a NTG3 if it's within your budget.

[Jay Massengill]

I used my AT875r last night as the ambient mic on the XA10 wide static shot of our dance academy's first recital. It does require extra padding to fit correctly in the XA10 mic mount.

I rotated the mic 90 degrees to put the openings at the top and bottom. My theory is this reduces off-axis coloration by placing the openings in line with the less reflective surfaces of the carpeted floor and the fully-treated auditorium ceiling. This could be complete hooey, but the sound was beautiful. Granted, this was a pro-level acoustic environment. The XA10 was mounted next to me in the front of house audio mixer position with the Yamaha CL3 digital mixer which I was running. Quite an impressive facility for a HIGH SCHOOL! (Of course, it's very expensive to rent such a place and pay their TD and other staff, but well worth it!)

The XF300 was the active camera at the top of the stadium seating. Both cameras were receiving the program feed from the digital board on channel 1. The XF300 was receiving the AT4021 mounted like a boundary layer mic on the front of the stage as ambient on channel 2. I used the AT4021 because it's my most modern mic built with reducing the chance of cellphone interference, while all my boundary layer mics were made before cellphones were likely to be in close proximity to the mic by the dozens.
I did use two AT831 boundary layer mics on the stage for the tap dance numbers. I figured at the low gain they were set for and their intermittent use during the loudest numbers, any cellphone interference would be acceptable if it happened at all.

My AT 3000 series handheld wireless rounded out the mics used during the program.

The AT875r was the totally independent source of ambient audio connected directly to the XA10 at my position. The mic input attenuation was set to ON and the recording level was set to just above 4.

So I have two recording channels of program audio, two independent recordings of two different ambient sources, as well as the original stereo music files.

Last night while backing up the cards, looking and listening to the files and doing a quick Vegas edit of just one dance, I was extremely pleased with the results!

In the test edit, I simply combined the two audio channels on the XF300, adjusted the unified volume with a touch of EQ and rendered with a little USM sharpening on the 1920x1080 video. It was easily acceptable as a finished product with no further work, but of course I will work on both audio channels independently and both cameras when editing for real. The XA10's ambient level was much louder, but simply reducing it to the proper relationship with the program audio channel gave great results and very pleasing sound while playing back some selections to confirm all was good.

And I promise I do own many other brands of mic! It just worked out to be an all Audio-Technica evening.

[Marco Leavitt]

You're getting good advice on using a handheld mic, either wireless or wired. I've shot lots of weddings and I can promise you that any camera mounted mic will be totally unusable for interviews unless you can separate the subject from the reception by taking them outside somewhere. I've used an SM57 and an SM58 many times in this situation and it has worked out well. I would expect the RE50 to be better still, as Rick suggests, but I don't own that mic. If you go cabled I would caution that you make sure that the cable is wrapped around something strong, even if it's your wrist, before going into the camera. All you need is one sharp pull, like somebody tripping over the cable or a drunk seizing the mic and toppling over to have the camera torn away from your hands or to break the XLR inputs.

On the first wedding I shot I lacked a lot of gear, and my only recourse was to shoot the reception and then position myself in the outer hallway and capture the guests as they were leaving with the dreaded camera mic and it worked out well. Visually, it came out pretty interesting actually as everyone cued up to take their place in front of the camera. I just kept it rolling continuously.

I do hope you take the time to get the interviews. This often ends up being the most prized part of the wedding as the years pass.