HF-G10 and Mini Advanced Shoe Adapters

[Bryan Worsley]

Just by way of follow-up:

Originally Posted by Bryan Worsley

.... What I need to know though is whether the available CMS-FLAT v2 adapter, with larger tightening ring, definitely fits.

I purchased the CMS-FLAT v2 adapter, and yes, it does fit on the HF-G10 mini shoe, with adequate clearance all round.





I subsequently found on the web this photo of one attached to an HF-G30 also.



One thing I noticed was that the two-pronged 'foot' of the adapter I received is thinner than the one pictured in that HF-G30 photo, as well as the product image shown on the DM Accessories website. I contacted them about that. Apparently, the foot shape had undergone some modifications because of difficulties in inserting the originally thicker foot into the mini-shoe plate on the HF-SXX models, where the plate is located in a concealed, recessed compartment in a forward position. So the foot was made a bit thinner with some curvature (radius) to the underside of the prongs, so that it could be inserted at a slight angle.

Not a big deal, as once the thumb ring is screwed down, the foot is lifted up and secured very tightly to the two side flanges and the front flange, so there is absolutely no movement. Had the adapter been plastic construction I might have been more concerned, but the adapter is all metal - aluminium (I’m British) with stainless steel foot. Very solid.

The only thing is that, until secured, it jangles a bit loose in the shoe so you need two hands to hold it in place whilst tightening down the screw, or else tilt the camcorder down to make sure it doesn’t fall out. Since taking that photo, I’ve attached a thin square of adhesive backed foam (picture hanging strip) to the underside of the foot, so that it slips in more snugly, and avoids scraping the base of the shoe plate. Most importantly, the adapter foot comes no way near the hot-shoe contacts.

The top ‘standard’ shoe adapter is a single molded piece (powder coated aluminium) attached directly to the metal screw shaft. So, there’s no ‘front stop’ like on the Pearstone and the ‘MSA-1’ mini-shoe adapters - but, once tightened down, all of the standard shoe accessories I’ve tried secure very tightly.

Once attached, the top side of the ‘standard’ shoe adapter sits around 2cm above the mini-shoe plate, about the same as the ‘MSA-1’ adapter. Which is fine for me, as it provides adequate vertical clearance to comfortably use the zoom control.

So, all in all, a very solid secure assembly and I definitely prefer it to the plastic MSA-1 adapter.

@Tim -BTW, I received no reply from Diffcase about that DiffCage bracket, so I guess it must be "dead in the water" as you suggested.

[Bryan Worsley]

@Dave - if you are there - you mentioned having a Rode SVM. I'm assuming it's this one (and not the SVM Pro) :-

http://www.mondo24.pl/userdata/gfx/f...dd1744f8f2.jpg

A couple of questions; I know the SVM is supplied with a Rode 'Dead Kitten' fur wind cover, but I can't see any mention of a foam windscreen. Does the 'Dead Kitten' itself have a foam lining, or is it just the fur with a fabric liner?

Also, how does the wind protection performance compare with that of the Windcutter fur/foam combination on your Canon DM-100?

Testing a Windcutter Stormchaser fur on Sony EMC-MS908c stereo mic, I found the fur on its own didn't really protect any better than the foam, but when fitted over the foam, there was a dramatic improvement in wind-noise reduction.....at least when tested out of a car window.

That said, as we are coming into Autumn and the 'real' blustery winds are picking up, I'm finding that in stronger gusts (today around 25 mph, for example), some low frequency rumble is coming through - not to the extent that it interferes with 'desirable' sound (dialogue etc), but it's there. To what extent that is due to air pressure pulses penetrating the fur/foam layer or vibrations coming from the force of air hitting the exposed microphone casing and/or camcorder body, I'm not sure. The EMC-MS908c is certainly very sensitive to handling noise and, until now, I've only had the microphone mounted on the extension bracket that came with it, which has a fairly basic integral rubber 'isolator’ in the shoe mount. I’m thinking to try covering the exposed portion of the mic casing with felt or some other dampening fabric to see if that helps. But as far as shock-mounts go, the only workable options would be something like a Rode SM3 'cats-cradle' support (or knock-off/DIY versions thereof) or else a pricey Rycote InVision Lyre shoe mount. But then it starts getting cumbersome again, and how far do you go?

Using the integral mics on the HF-G10 with a stick-on fur pad (one pad covering both mics), I’ve found that applying a ‘Low Cut’ filter (in the equalizer options) does help to reduce the residual wind-rumble that comes through in stronger gusts, albeit at the expense of thinner audio - but still quite usable, nonetheless. As you know, attaching an external microphone to the HF-GXX camcorders disables that option - and I think that applies to a DM-100 on the mini hot shoe also?

Unfortunately, the EMC-MS908c doesn’t have a high-pass/low-cut filter option, but (correct me if I’m wrong) neither does the DM-100 - whereas the Rode SVM does.

So that’s why I was interested in your experience with the DM-100 and SVM in windy conditions. Also, any problems with rubber bands on the SVM suspension mount under blustery conditions - I’ve read that it doesn’t take much to dislodge them?

Cheers.

Edit: Well, a Rode SVM I was following on Ebay, that was looking like a bargain until the last 20 mins of the auction, finally went for more than I'd pay. Amazing how sought after that older model still is.

[Bryan Worsley]

Actually, looking at specs for my Sony ECM-MS908c, I see the quoted frequency range is 100 Hz - 15 kHz, with no bass roll off, so it's probably not picking up some of the really low-frequency wind-rumble anyway.

From what I've read, for on-camera external mics, the output impedance should ideally be at least 7x that of the camcorder mic-in. Input impedance of the 3.5mm mini-jack port on the HF-G10 is 5kΩ. Output impedance of the EMC-MS908c 1kΩ (+/- 20%, unbalanced), which would explain why it is a tad on the quiet side on the HF-G10. The Sony DV camcorder I first bought the mic for had an input impedance of 6.8kΩ, so better matched...as would be expected.

Output impedance of the Rode VideoMic "R" (along with the VideoMic Pro and Stereo VideoMic Pro) is quoted at 200Ω. So, as sub-200$ Shotgun/Super-Cardioid mics go, the Rode VideoMic is tempting. I just can't see one perched a top of my HF-G10, nor the older VideoMic with the rubber band suspension system.

As for more compact, light weight, self-powered mics, two that might fit the bill are:

Sennheiser MKE-400: fairly dated, but still popular. In various test videos I've seen, the sound seems a bit thin compared to say the Rode VideoMic (older model), but most of those were on DSLR's. Anyone know what the output impedance is for this mic? None of the specs I've found state it. I've also read comments that it is rather sensitive to 'wind-noise', but is that any more than other shotguns when relying on just the foam windscreen?

The other would be a Sony EMC-CG50 Pro (with the standard shoe): many attestations to the high quality, but, again, I can't find any specs stating the output impedance.

Anyone have experience with either of these mics on an HF-GXX who could comment?

I've seen the occasional S/H EMC-CG50 going for sub-200$ on Ebay, but MKE-400's in the $130 - 180 range are not uncommon.

Otherwise, I'm back to looking at a DM-100. My only reservation there is lack of flexibility in placement of the mic.

[Bryan Worsley]

I've gone for the DM-100. Having sourced more complete specs for the Sennheiser MKE-400 it did look like a good, "small form factor" alternative to the Rode VideoMic, but a very good deal came up on a DM-100 that I couldn't pass up.

Still, I have the options covered for attaching a third party mic to the HF-G10 if I ever go back to that. I did purchase one of those Skier flexible arms and screwed onto the base of the Manfrotto quick release assembly it works very well as an alternative means of attaching standard shoe mount accessories. Perfect in fact for mounting my HDV-Z96 LED light in a high, forward position. Mounted with the CMA-FLAT v2 adapter on the mini-shoe, it's just too far back.

And so endeth my monologue.

[Dave Baker]

Hi Bryan,

Sorry for the delay replying, I have been in sunny Greece for a couple of weeks.

Yes, that is the SVM I have, no the dead kitten does not have any foam lining, but it works very well. I have not compared it with the DM-100 Stormchaser, but I did compare it with a Rycote and found it better in a not-too-scientific test at home.

I much prefer the performance, in the wind or not, of the SVM to the DM-100, but the DM-100 is so much more convenient and quicker and easier to set up plus, with the switchable shotgun/90/120 it's more versatile and it usually gets used.

Dave

[Bryan Worsley]

Thanks Dave,

Well, I'll see how I get on with the DM-100. Convenience, in addition compactness, is a prime consideration, but how well the mic copes under windy conditions, and the feasibility/effectiveness of any affordable solutions that can be applied to improve that, are important factors for me also.

What I found a little discouraging was seeing this comparison of the Rode VideoMic Pro with Deadcat and the Senny MKE-400 (with the MZW400 windscreen and Rycote Mini-Windjammer), especially the outdoor section of the video.

http://www.sam-mallery.com/2011/04/r...0-indoors-out/

At face value, the Stormchaser fur-over foam on my Sony ECM-MS908c fares better than that in stronger gusts.

So, it will be interesting to see how the DM-100 with it's (enveloping) stock fur cover compares with the EMC-MS908c with the foam/Stormchaser fur combo, in the first instance.

Cheers.

[Dave Baker]

Hi Bryan,

One thing I have realised about the DM-100 is that it is the worst mike that can be used outdoors on the HF G30.

Not having been able to filter out the wind noise the Stormchaser couldn't stop while on holiday, I have just had a chance to check the camera audio settings against the manual.

The built-in mikes have selectable Wind Screen, Frequency Response and Directionality functions. For the mike terminal there is a selectable Low Cut filter, but not the others which are greyed out. When the DM-100 is attached, all the options are greyed out, the one exception being Microphone Attenuator which works for all mike configurations. How crazy is that, Canon's own accessory mike being nobbled in favour of third party units?

If I use my SVM, I will have two selectable low cut filters, the one on the mike and the camera one, so I will be spoilt for choice. Time for a re-think!

Now I have to see how well I can clean the audio up in post.

How are you getting on with your DM-100?

Dave

[Bryan Worsley]

Hi Dave,

I only received the DM-100 yesterday and so am still testing it out. For the retail price it still commands (new - $CAN 190 - 210 here in Canada), I would have expected a better build quality and something more substantial than the fragile plastic mini hot shoe foot; I can see it will need to be handled with TLC.

To my ears, the sound quality is a bit better than the HF-G10's internal mic - richer/fuller mid-tones in particular. I've just run some fairly crude frequency response tests using a 20-20,000Hz sweep audio sample, which bare that out. Frequency range looks about the same as the the built-in mic though; quoted, in the specs as 100-10,000 Hz, but you can see a "roll off" up to 20 Hz from the spectra. I think it's well suited for dialogue. Close range off-axis rejection in the 90o and shotgun modes is quite good and adequate for my needs.

I haven't had opportunity to test the mic with the supplied fur cover in decent winds yet. The fur itself is not what I would call optimum quality - heavy-duty weave backing (literally a 'sock'), no lining of any sort, sheds the fibers like crazy and there is no means of closing down/sealing the rather generous opening on the underside that the mic is inserted through. I sensed some loss in sound fidelity and the frequency response tests I've just done confirm a fair degree of attenuation of the upper-mid/high's. So not exactly 'acoustically transparent' - not surprising considering the dense backing.

Yes, it is annoying that the DM-100 disables all of the useful on-board manual audio options except levels and the attenuator. So in combating wind noise you are left entirely at the mercy of what physical barriers can be applied to the microphone. But I did know that.

A bit discouraging that you found the Stormchaser fur-over-foam combination insufficient on your recent excursion, as I was under the impression from your earlier post that it was very effective. How strong were the winds and are you sure the SVM (with Deadcat, I assume) would have fared any better, with or without the Low Cut filter? Referring to that comparison of the Rode VM Pro and Sennheiser MKE-400 I linked to above, and the outdoor segment of the video:

http://www.sam-mallery.com/2011/04/r...0-indoors-out/

You wonder to what extent the 'wind rumble' coming from both mics, with their respective furs and high-pass filters engaged, was due to wind buffeting the exposed mic casings. At least with the DM-100 enveloping the entire microphone tube is a practical option. Anyhow, I'll see how I get on with the 'Canon' fur initially.

It is nice though to be able to connect the DM-100 to the mini-shoe and not have to be thinking about adapters/brackets, cables, batteries, whether the mic is switched on (and then off) and overly fiddling with levels. I guess it's that convenience that you are paying for to a large degree.

Cheers.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Dave Baker

For the mike terminal there is a selectable Low Cut filter, but not the others which are greyed out....... How crazy is that, Canon's own accessory mike being nobbled in favour of third party units?

Just double checked on that using my old Sony EMC-MS908c mic. With the external MIC terminal on the HF-G10 you don't even get the Low Cut Filter option !!

Another thing I've noticed is that the DM-100 does pick up a fair bit of handling noise, especially with the transverse zoom control being located just in front of the mini hot shoe on the HF-G10. Also picks up the battery knocking in the compartment as the camcorder is moved around - even worse with the longer BP-827 'replacement' I'm using as you tend to catch it when controlling from the hand-grip. Is it just the HF-G10, or do the BP-828's also fit a little loosely in the battery compartment of the HF-G30 ?

Pity there's not some hot shoe extension cable that could allow the DM-100 to be positioned on a bracket away from the camcorder body. Again, surely Canon could have made that option possible, as it wouldn't have compromised their proprietary stranglehold. I can see myself making more use of the 'soft' on-screen zoom control with this mic. Anyhow, no point in nit-picking. It is how it is, and I chose it.

So, I dunno, as yet, I have mixed feelings about the "added value" the DM-100 brings to my HF-G10. A lot will depend on whether it proves possible to achieve more effective wind-noise control with it.

[Don Palomaki]

Dead cats/Mic muffs need to fit tight to be effective, for many/most mics that means fitting over a foam wind screen. If they are a lose fit, they will likely move in the wind making their own noise as they rub on the mic body and grill. In general they are also much more effective than foam only. And if shooting outdoors, don't leave home without one.

FWIW: The DM-100 is a recycled model number. Canon offered a DM-100 short shotgun (mono only) for camcorder use back in 1984! The frequency response spec was something like 200-10K Hz. . The current DM-100 is different.

Mics like the DM-100, MS908, MKE400 are designed for convenience and retail price-point as much as for sound quality. They are generally a significant improvement over build-in camcorder mics on camcorders such as the G20/30 and XA20, but arguably less so for camcorders such as the XF-300 or XH-1A.

Impedance matching is an interesting topic.
In general the mic output impedance should not be higher than the recorder or mixer input impedance. And lower (up to a point) is usually better. Maximum power transfer is when the impedances are equal, but power transfer is not an issue given that we are mainly interested in amplifying small signal voltages in this day of solid state circuits.
If the mic and input impedance are equal you see a 6 dB reduction in voltage at the terminal (compared to the open circuit output of the mic). If the input is 10x the mic impedance, you see a 0.8 dB reduction - less amplificaiton needed for the same recorded level.
The other potential (no pun intended) issue is possible clipping and distortion at high sound pressure levels. Typically condensor mics have a miximum output current capability and that limit can be reached at lower scound pressure levels as the input impedances drops compared to the mic output impedance. But this may not be obvious from the mic specs.

[Bryan Worsley]

Thanks Don,

Yes, I came across that earlier DM-100 model when searching more detailed specs on the current one.

Canon Microphone User Manual | ManualsOnline.com

Strange that they would use the same model name.

As far as (Dave and) I know the only people who produce a fur-over-foam combination set for the DM-100 are Windcutter - their foam set (in four parts) is designed to fit over the entire microphone tube, including the portion that passes through the support structure.

It's predecessor (as perceived), the DM-50 differs from the DM-100 in having more of the rear portion of the tube protruding from the back. For the DM-50, Canon provided a pair of foam windscreens to cover the front and rear sections, but leaving the portion that passes through the support exposed. So for added wind protection it was necessary to purchase a third party fur designed to fit over the whole structure, or else make one. Rycote made (and I think still do) a Mini Windjammer specifically for the DM-50.

What is puzzling though is why both mics have side slots along the entire length of the microphone tube at all. I've tried in vain to obtain more specific information on the inner workings of the DM-100 that might explain this design, or at least provide clues. All that the provided specifications state is that the DM-100 is a '"Back Electret Stereo Condenser Microphone" with "Super-directional/ Uni-directional Stereo" capabilities. On that basis, it might be reasonable to suggest that it uses a dual-capsule Mid-Side system to achieve the Stereo (90/120 degree) and 'Shotgun' pick-up patterns, but even if a section of the slotted tube does comprise an ‘interference tube' for a mid-line (Shotgun) element, it is hard to believe that it would extend so far back. Yet it's also hard to believe that Canon would put slots there purely for looks....or to confuse inquiring people like myself. I contacted Canon (Canada) Technical Support and they could shed no more light, other than to suggest that if Canon had elected to provide a fur cover that envelops the entire microphone, it would probably be best to apply any additional foam layer in like manner. This was before purchasing the DM-100.

What I have now tried is covering the front segment of the tube with some faux-fur (that I know works very well), sealing it as tightly as possible with rubber bands. Pointing the (so-covered) mic directly at a fairly gentle fan, there is some wind noise which intensifies sharply as the air stream is directed onto the exposed rear portion of the tube. So it would appear that all of those slots do in some way actively serve the microphone system.

Can't say that I have anything more than a very basic understanding of microphone acoustic dynamics. Any ideas as to what might be happening in the DM-100? Does it possibly use some element of rear pick-up in the merging of polar patterns to achieve more efficient close range off-axis rejection in the 'shotgun' and 90o "stereo" modes? I have no idea. Interesting also that the DM-50 also has a grill on the end of the rear tube portion, whereas that on the DM-100 is closed off.

From a practical standpoint though, what I might consider is making a fur cover myself and incorporating a layer of suitable (soft, low-density open cell) foam in, or as the lining. The ultra-soft reticulated foam that Rycote use as a liner in some of their Mini-Windjammers (those designed for portable field recorders for example), is rather special - but I've seen some types of soft, low density sewing/pleating foam sheet that could work. Suddenly I'm interested in needlework !!

I'm not sure if the Mini-Windjammer Rycote produced for the DM-50 also includes a foam layer or not. But if it does and it was was simply a matter of moving the position of the underside opening further back, that could be another alternative.

Cheers.

[Don Palomaki]

Pure speculation on my part but I would not be surprised if the Canon mic is a rebranded (and perhaps repackaged) third party microphone. Back in the 8mm/Hi8 days of the L1/L1/A1Digitals (1990s) Canon had a "zoom" stereo mic on the market (ZM-100) as well as the standrd stereo mic that came with the L1/L2 and later the XL1. The old ZM-100 may have evolved into the current DM-100. There also was a mixer mic offered in the 1990s.

It costs to make holes/slots and add grills,so any opening in the tube is likely part of the interference design needed for the shotgun effect. (Note that Audio Technica offered some stereo shotgun mics in the tube format; e.g., BP4027 and the low cost current AT Pro 24.) Some cardoid mics have openings in the rear - the classic EV664 comes to mind as an example. Holes in the back probably allowed a shorter tube, a concern for small camcorders. The attachment point mid tube can improve balance.

[Bryan Worsley]

Thanks Don for your enlightening and very plausible explanation. So it would appear that there was some logic in Canon dropping the foam gags in favour of a fur cover for the DM-100, to ensure that all sections of the tube were covered. I rest happier with that knowledge.

Cheers.

Edit: Oh, yes, I remember the ZM-100 now, when I was looking at mics for my HV30, to complement the Sony EMC-MS908c stereo mic. That's the one that needs an on-board 5V DC terminal. You still see them on EBay going quite cheap.

[Dave Baker]

Originally Posted by Bryan Worsley

A bit discouraging that you found the Stormchaser fur-over-foam combination insufficient on your recent excursion, as I was under the impression from your earlier post that it was very effective.

It is pretty effective, but no fur and foam combination will stop very high winds unless it is a blimp and even they have their limitations.

I tested the DM-100/Stormchaser on my HF S100 out of the window of a Land Rover at 70kph and it was fine, but that was before the second modification which entailed trimming some of the fur.

The Dodecanese islands get regular high winds, I believe it's the Sirocco. One day on land and one day on a boat trip I picked up wind noise. I am unsure how bad it is as I have not had a chance to check it out on the timeline so far, but it is much less than it would have been with just the Canon fur although more than if I could have switched the high pass filter on.

I don't think the SVM deadkitten is any more effective, I've never done a side-by-side test, but the filter (either one) would have made a big difference to the recording.

Dave

[Bryan Worsley]

Thanks Dave,

I only have experience with the on-board Low Cut filter applied to the HF-G10 in-built mics. Not much use in combating wind noise on its own. Where I have found it useful though is in combination with a fur pad applied (with removable poster hanging strip) over the dual mic grills. Same principle, but in that case longer fur doesn't necessarily give the best results. I've experimented with this quite a bit. More important is to cover as much of the area around the grills as possible. What tends to happen with these commercial 'stick-on' fur pads that just about cover the grills is that the wind force blows the fibers back, gets in through the edges of the pile and exposed backing mesh and whips across the mic capsules. In fact, the best results I've achieved so far have been with fur from a cuddly toy that has quite short, fine and relatively dense 'hairs' with a not-too-dense backing weave. Some attenuation, but quite impressive in eliminating wind noise in natural gusts, so far up to around 25mph. And when it does creep in, that's where the on-board Low Cut filter is life saver, albeit at the expense of a thinner sound. Still quite usable audio though. And that's with the (default) automatic 'wind screen' feature left on; switched off, a little more 'rumble' creeps in, so it does actually have some use. I believe on HF-G20 and HF-G30 there is the option of two wind-screen 'strengths' - the HF-G10 has just the one.

It will be interesting to see how the DM-100 with it's fur cover compares.

Re;

Originally Posted by Dave Baker

I tested the DM-100/Stormchaser on my HF S100 out of the window of a Land Rover at 70kph and it was fine, but that was before the second modification which entailed trimming some of the fur.

Yeah, if I did go for the Stormchaser/foam combo I wouldn't want the fur trimmed at all, as there's no possibility of the long fibers getting into the frame with the DM-100 sitting so far back on the HF-G10. I might check with Rebekah at Windcutter about that, just to make sure that modification has not been incorporated as standard. Do you find there is enough clearance on the underside though, as the foam alone must add some girth? Lightly bristling the tips of the fibers probably wouldn't matter much, but I wouldn't want to be rubbing the 'body' of it with the back of my hand when holding by the hand grip. Unfortunately, Rebekah couldn't provide a stock photo of the fur/foam combo fitted on a DM-100 when I last inquired. They rely on satisfied customers sending photos in to add to their gallery.

Crikey, this thread has deviated off the original topic somewhat, hasn't it.

Edit: Just tried out the DM-100 with fur outside in some moderately gusty (post rain storm) winds (maybe 15mph). Rather disappointing. No howl, close range speech comes through clearly, but loads of rumble. Yep, definitely needs more protection than that.

[Dave Baker]

Hi Bryan,

I just spotted your edit a few posts back. The battery can move a bit on the HF G30, but the movement is quite well damped and I have yet to pick up any noise from it.

Clearance below the DM-100 with Stormchaser is not an issue with the HF G30, the zoom rocker is situated to the side on top of the hand grip and is of the professional style forwards and backwards configuration.

I am considering my options because I've pretty much run out of patience with the DM-100. I was prepared to accept the restricted frequency response in return for the convenience, but as my forehead touches it when using the EVF, it makes it impossible to tilt it up fully and with this stupid not being able to use the high pass filter with it, it is of limited use to me. The filter thing was the last straw.

My options are 1. Buy or make a new fur for the DM-100 (unlikely!) 2. Find a suitable bracket and use my SVM, the SVM in the camera shoe unbalances the camera and makes it uncomfortable to hold, especially as I have it on a shoe extender to keep the fur from appearing in the top of the frame at full wide angle. 3. Use my ATR 25, which is not much heavier than the DM-100 and maybe replace my home made shock mount with a commercial one. 4. Buy another mike. Preferably not, but possible.

See, I've managed to mention brackets and adaptors again! :-)

Edit: I just checked a couple of the worst wind noise clips on the timeline. It's not explosive, blots-out-all-other-sound wind noise, it's just normal low frequency rumble, easily dealt with. It would not have been recorded with the high pass filter in, but high marks to the Stormchaser. So option 1 no longer is.

Dave