John Andreaci

Hi everyone I'm John I'm new to this site I just bought a Canon t7i. I'm wondering if anyone has suggestion what's the best external microphone I can attach to the camera. I'm planning on videoing individuals and concerts

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

The usual and common standard for stereo is the Rode Stereo VideoMic Pro Rycote.

There is a about a dozen listed here: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_POPULARITY%7c1&ci=18781&fct=fct_brand_name%7caudio-technica%2bfct_brand_name%7cazden%2bfct_brand_name%7crode%2bfct_brand_name%7csenal%2bfct_microphone-type_1358%7csingle-point-stereo%2bfct_brand_name%7ctascam&srtclk=sort&N=3673094733&

I would probably pick the $99.99 Tascam or Audio-Technica.

easy8

zoom h6

aellman Loc: Boston MA

My career was in video production. Any on-camera mic is inappropriate for shooting individuals, if you mean situations like interviews. You need a lavaliere mic like news anchors wear. Both wired and wireless models are available for around $25 unless you have GAS, in which case you can spend a lot more. I have used these inexpensive mics, and they work great. Always good to have a wired backup for a wireless, because the wireless can fall victim to RF interference. If you want any more info, you can private message me. >Alan

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Alan,

I agree. But, the OP wrote that he wanted to attach the mic to his camera. John (the OP) didn't ask for best practices!

I have a $20 Audio Technica lav mic that works well for me.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1037063-REG/audio_technica_atr3350is_lavalier_mic_with_smartphone.html

More fun for travel is a tiny Sony Bluetooth Wireless Microphone that I bought on a deep discount a few years ago.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1029165-REG/sony_ecmaw4_wireless_micro_for_mic.html

For "on camera" I have this one. When I bought it (on a discount sale), I thought it was stereo. It is not.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1183909-REG/rode_videomicro_compact_on_camera.html?sts=pi-ps

SSam Loc: Sierra Vista, AZ

John, I've been 'studying' mic usage for a couple of years now. I'm still shocked when I learn another 'proof' that the audio is more important than the video. Having been in photo clubs for more than 45 years that didn't make sense until I finally read enough to convince my self that the audio is definitely the most important of any video.

With that back ground I can tell you that I use a Rode Mic on my camera. HOWEVER, when taking videos of large groups (like your concert projects) I always give the sound board operator a voice recorder that he plugs into an output jack. So then, in post processing I use the audio from the on camera mic for syncing the better sound directly from the sound board. A 'hint' that I can give you when recording individuals is that no mic should ever be more than 3 feet from their mouth. If you can get a few inches closer you will even notice further improvement. So, if you plan on your video camera being more than 3 feet from the mouths of the person you are recording, you might consider mounting the mic on a pole and having a second person hold it above and in front of the person you are recording and out of the camera's video recording. You will need a mic extension cord though.

Lastly, if you have or can borrow a small voice recorder with a lav mic, place the recorder out of view of the camera (front or rear pocket of the subject works well) and then compare the quality of recording by your camera mic (either of the above two suggestions) and the off camera recorder.

Best wishes to you in learning 'new stuff'.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I know the OP did not ask for best practices, but he did mentioned, that he is just getting his feet wet, so I find it nice that Allan ( who has obviously some experience under his belt), does gives him just that and tried to point him in the right direction (probably saving the OP a few bucks on the way!

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Speters: As they once said... >Alan

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Contending that either audio or video is more important is pointless. They are equally important, because if either one is lacking, you have a crappy result. If you'd like to see perfect examples of what I refer to, just check out the average homemade videos on YouTube. If both video and audio aren't bad, it's usually the audio that suffers because it gets less attention. It's also a great place to hear the results of on-camera (or in-camera) mics for voice. If you like the feeling that you were shooting in a different room from the person speaking, you'll love them. It's easy for an amateur to point a camera, but good quality audio actually involves some skill. IMHO >Alan

aellman Loc: Boston MA

All you have to do is look at how they mic TV anchors in the studio. That will take care of
everything you need to know about recording a single voice, such as an individual interview or speaker. >Alan

SSam Loc: Sierra Vista, AZ

Alan, I searched and searched for two on-line training videos so that those that were interested would be able to see it for them selves. But alas, I couldn't find it. Here is a summary. The training session consisted of three short (approx 20 seconds each) videos taken of a couple sitting on a sofa. The background audio was so loud that it wasn't possible to actually hear what the couple was talking about. BUT, we (that were watching the video) were asked "What were they talking about?" Needless to say we couldn't hear what they were talking about. But the teacher them asked us "What do you THINK they were talking about?" For the first one I answered something like "They are in love they must be planning their honey moon." Then the teacher showed another one (in that same 15 second to 20 second range). His question was the same "What were they talking about?" Again, we couldn't hear what they were actually talking about. But, the professor asked again, "What do you think they were talking about." My answer was, "They are having a lot of fun planning something. It must be a cruise." Then, again in that same time period, he showed another video. Again, the background sound was so loud that none of us could hear what they were talking about. But, we had to answer what we thought they were talking about. This time I imagined that they weren't getting along at all. So I wrote, "They must be getting ready to file for divorce."

Then the professor proved to us that he had used the very same 17 second video. But, he showed it three times with different background music. Our minds went in 3 largely different directions. Simply put, it was the audio that 'pushed us' in those diagrammatically different directions.

If you want to hear about another 2 videos that a graduating class in a 2 or 4 year videography school made, just ask. Again, it was just the background music that made the measurable difference.

Good wishes in enlarging your video making skills.

Sam

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

You have many good comments here already. I’ll just add the inverse-square law (light, sound, and most other radiation intensity is reduced (dissipated) by the square of the distance from the source). That means a voice at ten feet has only 1% of the loudness it does at one foot! 1/D^2.

That’s why on-camera mics are generally poor solutions. Stay within three feet of an on-camera mic if you want a reasonably high signal-to-noise ratio. OR, as many have said, use a lapel mic!

Close counts in horseshoes and audio.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Great example.