Decent mic for the HM100

[Matt San]

I have just bought and tested the shotgun mic - Audio-Technica AT875 on the HM100
and it has doubled the volume of audio picked up and got rid of that hiss!

I have had to move to -20db on the audio reference level to ensure i have enough headroom for loud sounds!

I can give this mic 10/10 on the HM100 worth upgrading for sure.

~(PS its about 1/2" longer than the JVC mic but sits in the holder just as comfortable) and looks pretty much the same as the original.

[Jack Walker]

I bought an AT875 a while back, and I agree that it is excellent. It is small with excellent quality sound and low handling noise.

I works on the camera and it also works very well on a boom.

[Colin Rowe]

Hey Matt. Hope you got my email on Friday, I sent it from my mobile. I was in Bucks for a Wedding in Milton Keynes. I decided to use the HM100 as A cam, and used my trusty little Canon HV30 as B cam. It went far better than I could have hoped for. I used my Sennheiser ME66 shotgun and Evolution G2 radio mic for sound. Both these mic are very hot, I spent the best part of a day setting them up to get the sound just right. I have just started editing the 2 cam service shoot in MultiCam. They mix pretty well, I used the HM100 on the Bride and Groom and varied shots of the congregation using the HV30. With a little tweaking in Magic Bullet Looks, everything is looking pretty good. I took your advise and knocked back the detail on the HM100, by quite a bit, it does, as you say, take away those hard edges, thanks for the advice. I am going to check out the AT mic, at the price you cant go wrong. I will keep my ME66, its very handy to move it around with the plug in transmittor fitted.

[John McDonald]

Thanks for flagging this microphone up to me guys, it looks interesting.

I've bought a HM100 for travel films so am keen on the smallest, but good/high quality, microphone possible (that will also take a Rycote or similiar).

How does it compare in size to the JVC in box mic for example?

Can anybody recommend anything else?

Thanks in advance....

[Jack Walker]

Here is Dan Brockett's microphone review/shootout that includes the Audio Technica AT875R. If you haven't read this, it is worth it:
As I Hear It - Choosing the Right Microphone

I don't think there is another mic that compares for the intended uses of this mic when considering size, quality of sound, handling noise and use on camera and on a boom. That's before considering the price.

Of course there are more expensive mics used off camera that may be better in specific situations. However, each of these mics have drawbacks when used as a small, all around travel shotgun.

I have a nice furry cover (goes over the foam) for this mic. It is the Koala "MiniMax" Windsock, size 120. Here is the website of this Australian company:
Koala Windsocks, Professional Microphone Wind Protection

Even if you have other mics for some situations, the AT875R is so inexpensive, small and light, that I think it is worth getting in any case.

[Keith Moreau]

I just purchased the Audio Technica AT875R for this reason. It's really one of the only acceptable mics that's small enough for the HM100's smallish form factor.

[Robert Rogoz]

No wide angle and crap microphone are the two biggest "beef" points with this camera. I can live with a funky- amateur exposure adjustment and focus/zoom control. However charging customers any dollars for the microphone of that quality is simply slap in the face. The mic is simply utterly garbage, and it is not possible to record any decent sound with it whatsoever. The only reason they were able to get away with it on HDXXX series was that the cameras were compressing the sound, so it was lame from the get-go. I don't see a point in paying for a mic you can't use anyway, subsequently forcing you to spend additional 200-300 bucks on a mic that actually works.

[Matthias Krause]

I think they just put it on there because it looks better. Kinda professional. And to skip it would probably save them 50 bucks or so. Anyway, it´s no doubt nothing you really want to use. I can´t wait to try my AKG 300 with the hyper cap on it. It´s a great mic and very small also, I am sure it will do very well.

[Jack Walker]

Originally Posted by Matthias Krause

I think they just put it on there because it looks better. Kinda professional. And to skip it would probably save them 50 bucks or so. Anyway, it´s no doubt nothing you really want to use. I can´t wait to try my AKG 300 with the hyper cap on it. It´s a great mic and very small also, I am sure it will do very well.

I'm quite sure the mic adds $7 or much, much less to the cost of the camera. My guess is much, much, much less.

I just bought an original equipment Siemens AC adapter for a cell phone. I paid $18, and that included $5 priority mail shipping.

It turns out I actually bought a lot of 50 of these adapters, all in with their big wide black rubber bands holding the cable together and all in their fancy little OEM plastic bags. That means each unit cost 26 cents, and that includes ebay fees, Paypal fees and profit for the seller.

The mic probably cost JVC about 37 cents.

Add together the number of cameras sold, divide by the worldwide expenses and staff, and don't forget taxes, and see how much a little plastic add on costs.

[Jack Walker]

And don't forget that about half the people who buy the HM100 get it as a toy as they have money to burn. Those people will use the mic forever and be perfectly happy.

[Matthias Krause]

Well, you can always cut the Neutrik plug off of the mic and use it for making your own XLR cables. Will save you 5 bucks or so...

[Robert Rogoz]

Originally Posted by Jack Walker

And don't forget that about half the people who buy the HM100 get it as a toy as they have money to burn. Those people will use the mic forever and be perfectly happy.

I used camera shooting for 2 days. I think it a consumer camera capable of producing good images. It fits a bill for my next 2 projects, but this is NOT a professional camera at all. It has an easy workflow for FCS2. But to call it a pro camera is out of the question . EX1 is an entry level cam, this one fall way short on the features. But there are people out there who will produce killer content with HM100. Simply the technology evolved in the past several years and these camera can produce nice images, way better then 20-30K cameras 10 years ago.
Like I said, the quality of the microphone is about as good as one from a cell phone, so I would expect better in a $3500 unit.
With good microphone there is zero hiss in the recordings I did.

[Matthias Krause]

Depends on how you define "pro". This camera will make me tons of money and the workflow will allow me to take jobs I could not take before simply by cutting down the post-production time dramatically. And for most of its quirks there will be a work-around. So that´s "pro" enough for me. But your mileage will vary, of course. As for the price: My feeling is that the people who are speculating that the codec JVC had to buy from Sony did cost a pretty penny and makes up for most of what it sells for may be right. The other thing many people seem to forget is that in its nich the HM100 has no competitors right now. There is no other camera that has the small form factor, the high quality codec with 35 Mbit recording and the easy workflow using cheap SD media...

[Justin Ferar]

I used to be a "pro" snob. I thought only shoulder mounted cameras with interchangeable lenses were pro.

Then I saw my colleagues using cameras that cost less than half of what mine cost and they were charging the same. Then I saw the images from the smaller cameras were equal- sometimes better because of their Chromatic Aberration Correction.

Then I bought a Canon A1 as a third C Cam. Ergonomics aside that camera's image is higher quality than our two HD200's. Alas they are for tripod/steadicam/jib use only in my shop.

If it makes money for you- it's pro.

[Robert Rogoz]

Has anyone ever used Audio-Technica Pro 37 on a camcorder? It is an instrument microphone, the specs look really good, small and XLR connection?