The only thing I can say about microphones is that when I was recording bands in
the 1970s, we mostly used Shure SM57s and SM58s. They were expensive but
unbelievably rugged. You could use a cheap condenser microphone to mike up a
flute or for "filling in", but the SM57s always sounded better when miking up
acoustic guitars, drums, etc. I never found anything as good as the SM58s for
vocals.
I guess there must be newer, cheaper mikes around now, but I'm out of touch with
modern studio equipment.
--
Rexx
On 27 July 2016 at 16:01 geni
<geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 22 July 2016 at 22:40, Michael Peel <email(a)mikepeel.net> wrote:
If you want something that can cover the whole range, then Sigma do some
quite nice superzoom lenses - I've been using an 18-200mm stabilised lens as
my every-day lens on my 60D since 2010. There's a newer (2012-era) 18-250mm
lens that looks better:
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-18-250mm-f-3-5-6-3-dc-macro-os-hsm…
costing around £200-£280 - but I'm a bit out of date on the newest lenses...
Thanks,
Mike
Well that would certainly solve the problem of providing a decent
reach without lens duplication although I'd be surprised if it didn't
distort a fair bit at the wider end.
And while I'll accept the blame this conversation has been largely
about lenses. Anyone got anything to say about microphones?
--
geni
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk