Hi:

I have just read through this forum to find suggestions on how to choose a mic. It appears that you sound folks are really into it and I imagine you carrying bulk loads of mics to the set. Now, I come from photography and a good exercise is to go out with a fixed focal length lens and learn to use it within the restrictions it poses, and learn how to get good results although another lens would be better.

So I ask you guys a question: If you were to choose just one mic, which would it be? To be more specific: The mic should perform to 90% or better in 90% of the situations you encounter (ok, I just made up these numbers, but I guess you get the idea).

In my particular case, I am just making the move into videography, I'm a newbie, and the bulk of the budget has gone to the cam (A1). My objective is really just to take the step to get away from the built in mic. I am looking for a versatile mic, although the situation that I will target is theater/stage recording (maybe there will be a possibility of getting sound from the theater sound system).

Thanks. Erik

Canon XH-A1 or Sony HVR-A1? Well, both have XLR and phantom power.

If you plan to use it mainly on camera you will probably prefer a shootgun. I would stay away from the Sennheiser ME66 and head for a AT 4073a.

If you plan to use it off camera (more than half the rent on the way to good sound) get a hyper as your first mic. A good choice would be the Oktava MK12 with Rycote BBG and K-SSM Shockmount. You often get better sound with a hyper, especially indoors, as it sounds more natural. However, on camera it picks up more camera noise.

If you need both a shootgun and a hyper consider the AKG blueline.

[edit]
Personally I work with a Neumann KM185, a Neumann KMR81i and I have just bought an Oktava MK12 for a more risky field trip. I love the Neumanns but you can probably spend your money in a more economical way. If you go for the Oktava you might be able to afford a Mixer (e.g. Sound Devices Mixpre). That's where good sound starts.

Martin

Thanks, sorry for not being clear. It's the Canon XH-A1.

Since I'm starting out I'm looking to buy just one mic, I don't know if there is such a mic: A general purpose versatile mic.

But of course I won't exclude that I may wish later to catch up with you guys and later want to supplement this, but not to replace it.

I see many references to the ME66/K6 as a starters kit. Which you recommend to stay away from. I'm in Europe and Sennheiser seems to be easier to find here. Sorry, but who makes the AT 4073a?

Since you mention phantom: Is this simply a module that powers from the cams battery? Does it reduce battery life significantly? Is there any situation that I may prefer non-phantom over phantom?

Thanks, Erik

Thanks, sorry for not being clear. It's the Canon XH-A1.
I see many references to the ME66/K6 as a starters kit. Which you recommend to stay away from. I'm in Europe and Sennheiser seems to be easier to find here. Sorry, but who makes the AT 4073a?


I started with the ME66 (as so many people have). It was fascinated by the sound at first but once you start hearing other mics things change. I do not like the sound of the ME66 any longer. It is just not as natural as it should be. Furthermore the off-axis coloration of the ME66 is quite strong (shotguns all have this problem as they are only directive in their mids and heights but not for low frequencies). The AT (= Audio Technica) 4073a is only about 100$ more expensive but plays in a different league.
Read this shotgun comparison here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=42674

Listen to them here: http://dvestore.com/theatre/mics.html
(although I consider the real world differences bigger than what you here in this test where everything is neatly set up.)

What you absolutely need in any case is good wind protection (at least a Rycote Softie, but in the end only a full Zepelin from K-Tek or Rycote really does the job outdoors) and a good shock mount. Consider it to be part of the investment. Without you only get half from your mic.

Give the hyper option a second thought. It is really interesting: so many people I know start with a ME66 and feel a need to move on after one or two projects. You really want a hyper once you heared the difference indoors, especially in smaller rooms. Sometimes it's like




Since you mention phantom: Is this simply a module that powers from the cams battery? Does it reduce battery life significantly? Is there any situation that I may prefer non-phantom over phantom?

Phantom does not draw a lot of power, but it does draw some. It reduced battery life but nowhere near what you would. The only reason to use non-phantom mics is with recorders that do not have Phantom.

Audio is a chain, not just a mic. Mic positioning, protection against wind and handling noise, pre-amps, recording device. Think about investing in things that will finally lead to a whole setup.

Martin

The AT835b is the most verasatile mic I have ever used and is a great value.
It worked well in every situation and never clipped the pd170.

The only thing is the mic is long. When I had my light and this mic on a pd170 the mic blocked the light causing a shadow.

I'm going to disagee with EVERYONE here.

Do NOT get any kind of cardiod/hypercardiod "on camera" mic as your basic "GO TO" mic.

These are pretty much speical purpose mics and will be LOUSY for most typical beginner sound recording situations.

Get a solid dynamic stick mic first.

Dynamic so that there's NO NEED for power, neither batteries to go dead, nor phantom power that can get switched off.

Good choices would be the venerable EV-635a or EV-RE50, or perhaps a Beyer M-58 if you want something that looks more modern.

You want something with an interview length handle and perhaps spend a few bucks for the non-glare black finish for on-camera use.

Critical is a typical well designed dynamic mic's LOW handling noise. (something those camera/boom mount hypers WILL NOT HAVE.

This will cover... On-camera talking head interview situations. Basic in the field and even in the studio fundamental narration work. And in a sound reinforcement situation like a concert or lecture, you can put it on a tall stand right in front of a house speaker and get a decent recording without overdriving the mic.

If you only have one mic, you want it to be BULLETPROOF. No batteries to die, not too sensitive if someone shouts into it or drives by on a chopper - and so dependable that you can drop it a HUNDRED times and know that it will most probably STILL get the job done.

Mic's number 2-20 in your kit can do the fancy stuff. Make mike number ONE the kind of mic you'll still find useful 30 years from now.

My 2 cents anyway.

Great post, rather against conventional wisdom though...

I am curious. Do you really use a dynamic mic on camera or on a boom? Please post a recording done like this and let us judge with our own ears.

Dynamic mics are good for situations where the sound source is very close to the mic. They are good on stage to prevent feedback. But I have never seen anybody using dynamic mics on camera or on a boom in film or video, appart from TV style interviews where the mic is held by the reporter and visible in the frame. Have you?

If I wanted just one mic for News gathering, I'd follow Bill Davis' advice and get a bullet proof dynamic stick mic.

If I wanted just one mic and wanted to shoot documentaries, I'd probably follow Richard's or Martin's advice and go for a boom mounted shotgun.

But Erik, you're saying you primarily wants to do theatre and stage recording with the possibility of getting a feed from the theatre sound system. Could you be more specific, are you talking about recording plays, musicals or bands? Is the camera going to be too far away to run a cable making a wireless system the only option, or are your actors able to perform just for you? How much do you have to spend?

The less specific you are about what you want to do, the more divergent your answers are going to be.

Also keep in mind that the XH-A1 has both XLR and minijack inputs which allows you to also use less expensive mics like the Rode VideoMic, which although not a pro mic, will give you much better sound than the camera mic with the advantage that it can be both camera mounted and used with Rode's own short boom. You may also want to partner up with somebody who wants to do sound and is willing to invest in a little gear...

If you plan to use it mainly on camera you will probably prefer a shootgun. I would stay away from the Sennheiser ME66 and head for a AT 4073a.
Martin

This is a theoretical question that can not be answered properly. You can go 18 holes of golf with one iron (or wood) but it would be silly to do so.

Audio is similar.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Listen to Ty.

I must confess I did once watch a guy play 9 holes with nothing but a 3 iron on a bet!

Made every pitch shot a very interesting learning experience --- well, actually what *I* mostly learned were a whole lot of "colorful" new words & phrases - but it sure was an entertaining round.

Ty, you going to be at NAB?

Interesting comments - Thanks!

Do NOT get any kind of cardiod/hypercardiod "on camera" mic as your basic "GO TO" mic.

These are pretty much speical purpose mics and will be LOUSY for most typical beginner sound recording situations.

Get a solid dynamic stick mic first.

Dynamic so that there's NO NEED for power, neither batteries to go dead, nor phantom power that can get switched off.

Good choices would be the venerable EV-635a or EV-RE50, or perhaps a Beyer M-58 if you want something that looks more modern.


I didn't even think of a dynamic omni-mic simply because everyone here seems to talk about sho(r)tguns - what do I know, I'm new on this. An omni-mic seems to be most useful in interview situations where you can get the mic up close.

But I'm the crew, so in most situations the easy go would be a camera mounted mic. Some situations may allow a fixed mounted mic somewhere nearer to the subject. A boom is out of the question as of now, that would require another person.

If I wanted just one mic for News gathering, I'd follow Bill Davis' advice and get a bullet proof dynamic stick mic.

If I wanted just one mic and wanted to shoot documentaries, I'd probably follow Richard's or Martin's advice and go for a boom mounted shotgun.

But Erik, you're saying you primarily wants to do theatre and stage recording with the possibility of getting a feed from the theatre sound system. Could you be more specific, are you talking about recording plays, musicals or bands? Is the camera going to be too far away to run a cable making a wireless system the only option, or are your actors able to perform just for you? How much do you have to spend?

The less specific you are about what you want to do, the more divergent your answers are going to be.

You're right, I'm not very specific. Partly on purpose, because I wanted to know what to get first. I know as time goes you will go out and get other mics when you learn the limits of what you have. Partly I was not specific because there seemed to be an established conversion towards sho(r)tguns.

With regards to theater: I talked with one actor and asked how they promote their play. They make a dvd that they distribute to interested theaters, and I just thought this would be a fun place to be: You get to work with actors that like acting and can give creative feedback - although these are not the best paid jobs.

I imagine that such a video will be composed from interviews with the actors, recording of rehersal and from the actual play. If recording in the theater there may be access to the sound system, and if not it may be needed to have a separate mic because camera won't be where the sound is best, but I can't predict the situation, because I haven't done it and it depends on the theater anyway.

To start out, I can only assume what I have. My budget is 4.000 euros, the 3.500 has been spent on the cam and I need a tripod too. So for a mic I can't spend a fortune.

Cheers, Erik

Interesting comments - Thanks!

Do NOT get any kind of cardiod/hypercardiod "on camera" mic as your basic "GO TO" mic.

These are pretty much speical purpose mics and will be LOUSY for most typical beginner sound recording situations.

Get a solid dynamic stick mic first.

Dynamic so that there's NO NEED for power, neither batteries to go dead, nor phantom power that can get switched off.

Good choices would be the venerable EV-635a or EV-RE50, or perhaps a Beyer M-58 if you want something that looks more modern.


I didn't even think of a dynamic omni-mic simply because everyone here seems to talk about sho(r)tguns - what do I know, I'm new on this. An omni-mic seems to be most useful in interview situations where you can get the mic up close.

But I'm the crew, so in most situations the easy go would be a camera mounted mic. Some situations may allow a fixed mounted mic somewhere nearer to the subject. A boom is out of the question as of now, that would require another person.

If I wanted just one mic for News gathering, I'd follow Bill Davis' advice and get a bullet proof dynamic stick mic.

If I wanted just one mic and wanted to shoot documentaries, I'd probably follow Richard's or Martin's advice and go for a boom mounted shotgun.

But Erik, you're saying you primarily wants to do theatre and stage recording with the possibility of getting a feed from the theatre sound system. Could you be more specific, are you talking about recording plays, musicals or bands? Is the camera going to be too far away to run a cable making a wireless system the only option, or are your actors able to perform just for you? How much do you have to spend?

The less specific you are about what you want to do, the more divergent your answers are going to be.

You're right, I'm not very specific. Partly on purpose, because I wanted to know what to get first. I know as time goes you will go out and get other mics when you learn the limits of what you have. Partly I was not specific because there seemed to be an established conversion towards sho(r)tguns.

With regards to theater: I talked with one actor and asked how they promote their play. They make a dvd that they distribute to interested theaters, and I just thought this would be a fun place to be: You get to work with actors that like acting and can give creative feedback - although these are not the best paid jobs.

I imagine that such a video will be composed from interviews with the actors, recording of rehersal and from the actual play. If recording in the theater there may be access to the sound system, and if not it may be needed to have a separate mic because camera won't be where the sound is best, but I can't predict the situation, because I haven't done it and it depends on the theater anyway.

To start out, I can only assume what I have. My budget is 4.000 euros, the 3.500 has been spent on the cam and I need a tripod too. So for a mic I can't spend a fortune.

Cheers, Erik

But I'm the crew, so in most situations the easy go would be a camera mounted mic. Some situations may allow a fixed mounted mic somewhere nearer to the subject. A boom is out of the question as of now, that would require another person.

Erik, I hear you on the one man operation, as I am just that as well.
However, you should really have 2-3 mics in your kit.
Hyper cardiod (will give you great side rejection) for closeup recording (instruments and vocal)
Cardiod Shotgun for ambiant recording
or Omni for ambiant recording.

I use a Rode NTG2 for on camera recording. But I also use a wireless handheld for ambiant recording or micing of speakers (If no board feed is available), sent to my camera for recording.

Or I may also use an AT822 stereo mic or matched pair of Rode NT5 hyper cards (to record musicians or readers. Or direct feed from sound board) sent into a digital recorder (Edirol R4 or Zoom H4) and recorded to hard disk. At the same time I send a mixed down signal to my camera (RCA out or Line out) via wireless for monitor/sync/backup audio.

I set the channel with the wireless feed to my camera lower than my onboard shotgun mic and always get a good mix.

You really shouldn't rely on your onboard mic for anything more than ambiant mix of audio, as your sound source will always change depencing on what direction you are shooting.

The key is to set 1-2 additional sound sources for a constant audio signal.

Will work every time.

E...
However, you should really have 2-3 mics in your kit.
Hyper cardiod (will give you great side rejection) for closeup recording (instruments and vocal)
Cardiod Shotgun for ambiant recording
or Omni for ambiant recording.

I...

Good advice but a minor clarification for our readers ... there is no such thing as a "cardioid shotgun." A mic may be cardioid with a wide hemispheric pattern, or shotgun (more properly called 'super-cardioid') with a narrow spotlight beam-like pattern, but they're mutually exclusive.

You can get away with using a dynamic mic in interview situations. The news guys do it all the time. If you're a one man band, just hand the dynamic mic to your subject and off you go. The dynamic mics that Bill listed in his previous post are rock solid, professional level microphones that you will be using forever and they are cheap (under $200 US). The problem with going with an on-camera mic is that you often have to compromise either the picture or the sound since the best location for both is seldom the same.

One other option, if all of your interviews are sit-down style (or at least limited in motion) is to consider a wired lavaliere. They are less obtrusive than a dynamic, although probably a little more expensive.

Good advice but a minor clarification for our readers ... there is no such thing as a "cardioid shotgun." A mic may be cardioid with a wide hemispheric pattern, or shotgun (more properly called 'super-cardioid') with a narrow spotlight beam-like pattern, but they're mutually exclusive.
Woops, sorry typo on my part.

If you're in spain, you should be able to get hold of a Sennheiser MKH-416 for pretty cheap. Easier than an Audio Technica.... The US-based guys have to pay a premium for the 416, so usually recommend the AT. K6/ME66 and MKH-416 shouldn't be mentioned in same sentence.

The Senn 416 is an absolute workhorse-- it'll work fantastically well on-camera, or on a boom... plus you'd be unlucky not to get 20 years of use out of it ... not many bits of kit you can say that for.

ps, I use a second hand senn 416, plus an akg blueline hyper ... the blueline sounds better indoors when v close to your subject with not much ambient noise, ALL other situations the 416 wins. I say that the 416 has a habit of capturing better audio than it has any right to, in lots of "not ideal" circumstances.... in europe, it's affordable and ubiquitous.

My budget is 4.000 euros, the 3.500 has been spent on the cam and I need a tripod too. So for a mic I can't spend a fortune.
Well, if audio doesn't matter very much then you're right on track. Buy something with whatever money you have left over (if any) after camera and sticks. A camera-mounted mic is extremely versatile for consistently mediocre sound.

If the quality of the sound does matter, you'll need to find more budget.

Yes, you can afford a good omni dynamic handheld mike, and that will be fine for the use of putting it in someone's hand for an interview.

Or, a wired lavalier for interviews, you might be able to afford passable quality for that.

None of these mics is appropriate for a stage production. Sorry. You can search other threads for stage productions, concert recording, or whatever else you might be shooting.

If you have 100 euro buy a rode videomic and put it on your camera - maybe it will be acceptable to you for a while. While you're at it, figure out what kind of audio will come from a mixing board in a stage production, and buy some quality cable and whatever interface you need (again, this has been answered in other threads, depending on the specifics of your situation).

************************
You'll get the most value from the experience of contributors to this forum if you ask specific questions. Ask "what mic is the best mic?" and everyone has a different answer because everyone is shooting something different. What matters is what is the best mic for what you're shooting.

Ask "the sound engineer told me he can give me a line level xlr feed, how do I get that into my camera?" and you'll get a very specific answer - but you'd better tell us whether you have a canon a1 or a sony a1.

Great post, rather against conventional wisdom though...

I am curious. Do you really use a dynamic mic on camera or on a boom? Please post a recording done like this and let us judge with our own ears.

Dynamic mics are good for situations where the sound source is very close to the mic. They are good on stage to prevent feedback. But I have never seen anybody using dynamic mics on camera or on a boom in film or video, appart from TV style interviews where the mic is held by the reporter and visible in the frame. Have you?


Martin,

Of course not. That't not their purpose. A good dynamic mic is designed to be a simple, robust, dependable and reasonably accurate transducer of acoustical energy into electrical impulses. No more nor less.

THAT is the basic "square one" definition of audio recording.

Which is why they are where many people START. But no one suggests anyone should END there.

There are NO mics, dynamic, cardiod, hyper-cardiod, PZM or otherwise that record quality sound at a long "camera to source" distance. NONE. Period.

It's the physics of the inverse square principal.

The only reason you see mics mounted on camcorders is that it's the convenience position of last resort. It's NEVER for audio quality. And everyone who knows anything about sound recording will likely agree that the FIRST thing you do to improve your sound quality is to get your mic OFF the camera and closer to the subject you want to record.

You can do that by putting a hyper on a boompole. OR you can do that by hiding your cheap stick mic in a plant between two character. BOTH will outperform an expensive, sensitive mic mounted on a camera.

Don't get me wrong, so-called "shotguns" are great - for what they're good for. But lousy for a lot of things as well.

The best you can hope for is that in a quiet environment, in a not very reflective space, a tighter pattern or more sensitive pickup element on a mic will allow you to get SOMEWHAT farther from you source than a less sensitive dynamic and not mess up your audio too much.

This is the point of boom positioning. To get as CLOSE as pracitical while remaining off camera.

In regard to maintaining a good signal to noise ratio, mic to subject distance is pretty much the whole ball game.

Fine quality microphones do somewhat better at distance because their self noise is lower - allowing higher gain before problems - and because their pickup patterns SOMEWHAT SURPRESS off-axis sounds.

But even that "rejection" is typically limited by both frequency and environment.

For example, mic patterns do practically nothing to reject long wavelengths (low frequencies.) Take your hyper next to a road with truck traffic, point it 180 degrees away and you'll see what I mean. The hiss will diminish, the rumble will not. (Ever notice how many "shotgun mics" have a low cut switch?)

Sound is complex. If you learn sound by watching or talking to digital moviemakers - then just "buy what they use", then find out that the current market will really only PAY you for recording "lecture hall" audio - don't be surprised if your shotgun mics and wind socks (perhaps sensible gear for outdoor dialog scenes) underperform a $50 stick mic on a stand near the house speaker, or a $40 pad and a $50 XLR cable tapped off the FOH board.

To get sound right you MUST know that kind of recording situation you're going to face and equip yourself to do THAT kind of sound recording properly.

And that means that there will NEVER be single a "best" mic. Period.

For the OP, just keep learning. And don't spend more than you absolutely have to until you learn what you're REALLY going to need for the kind of recording you'll REALLY be doing.

That's why I recommended what I did. It's the cheapest way to get started learning the reality of SOUND, and when you do eventually decide the kind of work you're going to primarily do, it will not only hold it's value incredibly well, it will likely STILL be useful to you.

Something it's MUCH harder to say about sensitive battery powered hyper-cardiiod condensor that may be fine with the "camera X you own today, but languishes in your bag when you get a smoking deal on camera Y in two years which requires phantom power and a different connector.

For what it's worth.

Bill,

Great post. Lots of wisdom there.

Still, I would only recommend a dynamic mic for recording a person, drum or guitar amp up close. They're great for that. They handle high SPLs and aren't so sensitive that they pick up too much background noise. We use a dynamic for voiceovers and the results are just fine - even in an uncontrolled environment. Pick up a Shure SM58 and it'll hold its value forever.

But if you want the mic to not be seen in the video frame, I'd go for a lav, shotgun or hypercardiod. Get one that accepts batteries and you don't have to worry about phantom power. One problem with a dynamic is that the signal is so low that at distance, you have to crank the gain. Even if the self noise is low, the noise of the preamp and the limited range of your DAW gain controls come into play.

Every mic has its strengths and weaknesses. Our latest film, Milk Battle (http://colonelcrush.com/movie/index/00100000#10) required ADR (long story). We recorded the voices with our dynamic. But I needed some background ambiance. So I pulled out my $30 omni measurement mic (http://behringer.com/ECM8000/index.cfm?lang=ENG), set it out doors, and recorded between planes and traffic noises. I rolled off the highs, looped it, and, voila, the ADR voices were no longer in a sterile environment. (Then again, once I added all of the lightsaber sounds, it didn't matter!)

Anyway, a dynamic mic is a great tool, but if you don't expect to get it within inches of the source, I'd choose something else...

Get one that accepts batteries and you don't have to worry about phantom power.

IMO... I'd rather run off phantom than battery. If the battery is dying, it will impair sound quality. You don't have that problem with phantom. (Although I suppose you could argue that you could drain your field mixer faster, and THAT will impair sound quality. Some mixers don't warn you early enough.)

There are NO mics, dynamic, cardiod, hyper-cardiod, PZM or otherwise that record quality sound at a long "camera to source" distance. NONE. Period.

That is absolutely true. However, there are differences in how well different mics can record sound at a distance and what the distance is. The original poster stated that he is recording stage and theater productions. So the best way is to put everyone on their own wireless lavalier. However, it doesn't seem like that is realistic considering budget and logistics.

So what is the alternative? I'd say use a couple boundry/stage mics that lay flat on the stage. Get ones that have a 180 degree pickup pattern to reject the audience and room ambience. Space them at the front of the stage to reduce the distance between any one point of the stage to a microphone. Then in post, select the best mic for a given line rather than having them both up at the same time. You could get two Audio-Technica PRO44 for about $100 a piece (they have to be phantom powered like most boundry mics)

Then for interviews. To use a shotgun properly, it really needs to be mounted on a stand and just 16-24 inches from the mouth. That's more setup time and money. It might be better to just get a lavalier. You could probably skimp a little on quality here to save some money. You could get a Samson QL5-CL for $70 or a Shure SM93 for $150.

So I'd say for your purposes, get two boundry mics and a cheap lavalier.

Brett, Mt. Ranier!!! Wow, we're not that far away.

You can fly mics on monofilament above the stage. Lavs are less intrusive, but their small diaphragms mean more self noise. A network of small omnis pointed straight down can work.

I've also mounted shotguns at several places; stage left, right and under the balcony all alimed at the stage and run through an automixer.

If the theater is small enough (and with a little wall treatment to take the sting offf the reflections) you can get something pretty good.

Wireless lavs are best, though. If this is for a one time thing, you can rent the wireless lavs for the gig.

Regards,

Ty Ford

That is absolutely true. However, there are differences in how well different mics can record sound at a distance and what the distance is. The original poster stated that he is recording stage and theater productions. ...

You are quite correct. The problem is that so many people are incredibly optomistic as to what those distance are. Even the best professional mics have effective working distances that range from a few inches out to a few feet. Even the best shotgun mics working in a controlled environment perform optimally out to a maximum of perhaps 6 to 10 feet from the talent at most.

Even the best shotgun mics working in a controlled environment perform optimally out to a maximum of perhaps 6 to 10 feet from the talent at most.

Nah, that can't be true. I saw the movie "Airwolf" and they used a shotgun on the front of a helicopter to record sounds up to a quarter mile away, with special phase-based denoising software to eliminate all ambient noise (even inside the heli) so that only the dialog was crystal clear. ;-)

The misconceptions about shotguns are surprising
-stereo shotguns
-cardioid shotguns
-reach of shotguns
-magical abilities of shotguns
-short vs long

Nah, that can't be true. I saw the movie "Airwolf" and ....

Ah, that's great, and it got my day off with a good laugh. Thanks Douglas! We should start an entire thread on Technology as Hollywood sees it :-)

Get one that accepts batteries and you don't have to worry about phantom power.

IMO... I'd rather run off phantom than battery. If the battery is dying, it will impair sound quality. You don't have that problem with phantom. (Although I suppose you could argue that you could drain your field mixer faster, and THAT will impair sound quality. Some mixers don't warn you early enough.)Hi Glenn,

Yep. Phantom is best. Many mics give different specs for battery vs. phantom and, in general, the phantom specs are best. Our shotgun (an AT815b) works on both, so we can use a battery and transformer into the camera today, and phantom into a mixer tomorrow.

And you're right about dead batteries. We have a few recent ADR scars to prove it!

If you don't have the budget for a mixer today, get a mic that accepts batteries - and phantom as well. If you already have a phantom source, or the budget for it, then there's no need for the battery feature. (Then again, if your mixer dies in the field, the battery feature can be part of "Plan B"...)

Lots of advice here for you to consider. THE MOST IMPORTANT consideration for you is to get the mic -which ever one you choose- as close to the sound you want to record as possible. No mic will deliver great sound if it is too far away. So, having said that, consider what you will be shooting most and get the best mic you can afford that will get you closest to the action. A good mic will last years and not go out of style like the camera. As you save more money, get another mic that will give you additional capability. Over time you'll have the tools you need for most any job.