IronFilm

Not exactly a gimbal, but damn this is potentially cool: If however it is capable of being used very very fast for high speed shooting? And if its price is reasonable. High speed shooting such as like this (but cheaper!):

https://www.sounddevices.com/products/recorders/mixpre-10m https://www.sounddevices.com/products/recorders/mixpre-10m/feature-comparison Written up my thoughts at the end of my new blog post: http://ironfilm.co.nz/sound-devices-mixpre10m-announced-a-mixpre10t-without-the-t-for-musicians/ In short, this is not the recorder I'm seeking. And I doubt it will seriously interest anyone else in this forum. However it is still good news for SD users in general.

Yup, don't follow trust kiddies "business plans" path to success if you want to achieve financial stability yourself!

And be able to move around the punch in as well!

It is math. Half are below the median.

If you have the budget then go for a SmallHD 702 Bright https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1186278-REG/smallhd_mon_702_702_bright_7_daylight.html But for an on camera monitor (for the op, not the AC), then I'd prefer a 5" one like the SmallHD 502 instead.

An a6500 would be an even better match ;-)

I do like that photos are easier to get from start to shared, while I feel with videos I've got a higher threshold to reach before I feel ok about sharing them. (although approaching my YT channel as just a casual vlog talking to camera helps ease that)

A bonus of a low megapixel count! As someone who started with a Nikon D50, then 10 megapixels is tonnes of resolution for any non-pro usage.

Many opportunities await to make dozens of ¢!

I'd be more worried about the transmitter lifespan on batteries? At least the receive you can top up with USB in your bag, when needed without interfering with the talent. Still is a flaw in the system. But yes, at US$250 it finally falls down into that "too good to say no to?" pricing.

135mm lens is always a 135mm lens, no matter what it is on! But if you're saying it is a 67.5mm lens on a MFT... :-P Then sure, that could be interesting!

Nine sets of Sonys? Thanks, you're making me feel a lot better! :-D Although I have some sixteen wireless in total..... Anyway, the G4 looks almost pointless for most lowbudget filmmakers, as there are basically close enough to zero improvements from the EW100 G3 to the newer models for the bodypack transmitters and receivers. Wonder if anyone has used shark fin antennas with Sony UWP-D11 kits? (you'd need to do the SMA mod first of course) Would improve range, and I've even seen people use shark fin antennas with a bag set up! But realistically speaking you should never have serious range issues with Sonys and a bag set up. As you'll always be close enough to talent with ease. (and if they're so far away you can't reach them, then the camera certainly can't see their lips moving!! ha) The issues arise with say a cart set up, where you might be located just off set slightly in another room downstairs or such, or on a reality tv show where you might get separated from some cast if shooting with multiple cameras and one camera slips away from you to go elsewhere (but then they really should have hired multiple soundies). "Older"?! UHF is still the ubiquitous standard everywhere all the way up to the highest end productions. Do you care about hiding bodypacks? (some people don't, such as on a few docos, or very very low budget productions) If so then avoid the hell out of RodeLinks! They just cross the line for being "too big" Audio Technica System 10 has their own dealbreakers (such as no user replaceable battery during a shoot?! WTF???). Plus in general 2.4GHz is a very congested space with tonnes of other users, I don't think there is any 2.4GHz set I'd recommend. In the low budget arena, then Sony UWP-D11 is the clear choice. With the only competitor to taking its throne being maybe maaaaaaaaybe Senal AWS200, but need to hear more about them. Don't hold your breath. I'll give an honorable mention to Sennheiser G3 if you find a crazy good deal on them secondhand. Older Lectrosonics 200 series are also worthwhile investigating if going secondhand, but you'll need to either be patient looking for deals or spend quite a bit more (still very affordable though). What is your other options? Either stepping waaaaaay down and not going wireless at all, with a Tascam DR10L on the dirt cheap, or going up market but needing to spend perhaps three or four times more before it really becomes worth it over just getting a Sony UWP-D11.

135mm on a gimbal?? Ummmmm.... ok then :-o

Maybe it is so long since I last used G3 regularly, and because don't want to dare risk annoying the old guard who always recommend G3 as the starting option rather than newer UWP-D11, I have thus become too reserved in my recommendation of UWP-D11?? But when you think about all the technological benefits (not just the design/ergonomics of the Sonys, such as the battery trays, external buttons, top lights, smart shoe, etc) of Sony: actual dual antennas (not faking it like the G3 does in using the output cable as the 2nd one, which is of course not tuned to the right length for the frequency), having dedicated RF tuner circuity for both antennas (so the Sony is constantly switching between the two for the best possible signal, vs the G3 which only jumps to change antennas if the current one completely fails), having a compander in the digital domain (vs the analogue one of the G3, which doesn't perform as well), and more. Well, maybe the Sony is more advanced than I give it credit for? (when I write it all out like that! Is quite a bit, maybe I need to further expand on why Sonys are better in a full on blog post. But I don't want to promote this too much.... I like being able to pick up my Sony wireless on the cheap from eBay And I fear I might end up putting a spike in their prices! Then again I do already have FIVE Sony wireless, at what point do I say "enough is enough"? Ha!) Anyway, sounds like a tough head to head shoot out is needed! I've never seen a really well down head to head comparison in the field done between Sony vs Sennheiser

hahaha! It is funny, because it has a small gain of truth to it :-P I assumed you wrote AC for "Air Conditioning"

Made a thread about it! Heh, I should have clarified that as usual for me now: I was just doing sound.

The answer is yes and no. Yes: do it is post! (as I've said a few times beforehand.....) iZotope RX6 Advanced is affordable. No: no, because nothing else exists like the DNS2 as a portable piece of hardware you can use in your bag. Top tip: turn off AC

Have you tried out say double blind test of F4/F8 vs say a 633? I'd be surprised indeed if you can tell the difference between two well recorded pieces on each under those circumstances. There is a lot of fuss because Zoom F8 (& F4) brought out very very low cost recorders with a level of quality and functionality that had never been seen before anywhere near that price point! In camera terms, this is like the HDSLR Revolution all over again with the Canon 5Dmk2/60D/550D, Sony NEX-5, Panasonic GH1/GH2 etc! (experiencing something similar with timecode boxes as well, with both their prices and sizes having massively fallen!) And you can bet without the F8 (& F4) leading the charge, then Sound Devices would never have been pushed as hard with their new MixPre series (bit like without the Nikon D90, then Canon would likely have never been pushed hard to have done much in that area and might have just languished with another repeat of the Canon 50D again). Am starting to think your purposes the best approach might be to buy a MixPre3 for when you need an ultra small on camera recorder (as it is truly shockingly small!) and additionally buy the Zoom F8 for when you need to manage a greater number of channels (which you wouldn't/shouldn't be doing well mounted to a camera anyway). Somewhat incredibly, there is only a hundred bucks difference between the MixPre3 & F8!! :-o (& the F4 is even cheaper than the MixPre3, a hundred dollars cheaper)

A low cut filter will have but a very limited impact and just in a few circumstances, basically it is not going to matter in your decision making (especially as this is widely implemented anyway)/ Post is the right time to judge and apply noise reduction, not while shooting. (this is why many post people are very against using a Cedar DNS2 on set, although I suspect this is what you're looking for rather than any new recorder :-/ Or swap out your MiniCMIT for a SuperCMIT and just use usually channel one in position one, or even position two. But that will mean over double the cost of your MiniCMIT!!!) Well MixPre6 only gives you on more input than the MixPre3 if using TC (while F4/F8 are 6/8 inputs respectively in total). If you want automix then you'll need to buy a 633/688/788T (or go with another brand, like Zaxcom). Again, perhaps something better left for post?! Indeed, as you see analogue limiters are not 100% essential as you might think. Zoom takes a hybrid approach when you engage their limiters to increase the headroom available, because of its very quiet pre amps. And also, like I've said before, you can run a safety track as well for all channels, further making it near impossible to clip a Zoom recorder! A boom pole.... which is manned? Or living on a C stand? (and if so, do make sure that talent doesn't move or even sway around?!) Do you take all efforts to minimize headroom and to place the boom just a fraction of an inch above the final frame line?

Errrr... then your thinking is a bit screwed up if you're focusing your attentions on what recorder to buy :-/ Instead you should be focused on these, in this order (although someone more post focused than myself would flip #2 & #3 around!): 1) technique on set 2) mic selection 3) post What recorder to use doesn't even come anywhere on that list. No recorders at all on the market will reduce ambient noise. You do that either with better technique on set, your microphone choice, or with strategic NR in post. Solid (but expensive!) choice. But how are you using it, are you always getting it into an optimal position? (and are you really doing everything you can to minimize background audio distractions, sometimes all it takes is asking to turn off air conditioning, or simply shifting the orientation of the interviewee to get a noise source more off axis) Many people erroneously assume that "digital = bad" (maybe because so many cheap cheapie recorders have "digital limiters" which are of only limited usefulness), when in reality it is *how* they're implemented. For instance Zaxcom is not using analogue limiters in their recorders. Would you rule out ever buying a Zaxcom because of them being digital? Oh of course not, that would be silly! Because they're very fine machines. Somewhat amusingly the Sonosax SX-R4+ which is at the top of your list, also doesn't use analogue limiters.... :-P I think you should see now you clearly shouldn't be so quick and hasty to rule out the Zoom F4/F8. Plus limiters are like insurance, you should only very rarely be needing to rely heavily upon them and instead you shouldn't generally be engaging them. You'd have to be pretty ignorant to foul up F4/F8 recordings in that manner (especially with their safety tracks option). How are you going to use these recorders exactly, dual system with a person dedicated to using just the recorder and doing nothing else but sound? Or strapped to your camera rig? As if it is the latter, I'd say just get yourself a Sound Devices MixPre3 for its super tiny size. (one exception when I will recommend a MixPre, as that MixPre3 is teeny tiny! Am kinda hoping Zoom will release say a "Zoom F2" which is just as super tiny but with 2x XLR inputs and a stereo 3.5mm input) Only consider the other recorders if you're going to have someone dedicated to the task, or if it is a very simple simple set up such as just sit down interviews. And for that a Zoom F4/F8 would be absolutely perfect. MixPre10T is the only MixPre recorder I'd seriously consider as my main recorder. But at over three times the cost of the Zoom, then financially it doesn't make any sense at all! (not unless a specific project pops up that needs the MixPre10T, and will pay for it. Which seems like a rare scenario indeed, as it would be something which needs the 9 or 10 tracks often enough which the F8 can't do yet pays enough to justify a MixPre10T, but doesn't pay enough to justify a 664/688 purchase instead) However that is only my preferences/needs, you might find the MixPre6/MixPre3 not as limiting as I would.

Broadly speaking there won't be a massive night and day difference in sound quality between G3 or UWP-D11, but in terms of little refinements that just make them nicer to work with and your life easier on set, I easily prefer the Sonys. You basically need to triple (or even more! Especially at that sale price) your budget to find anything else new worth upgrading to over a Sony UWP-D11.

Am rather annoyed with Zaxcom, they have the most busily active lawyers harassing others in the entire industry!! I happen to know the only guy in my entire country who owns a Sonosax SX-R4+, he just got it handful of months ago. Unfortunately they're not that popular. My most briefest of thoughts on this is (because well past my bed time!): SX-R4+ kinda feels a teeny bit like a 688 but squeezed into the size of a 633! However the Sonosax is not priced like a 633, is much more expensive. If you're looking at 633 ish pricing, then consider also Zaxcom Maxx (or even Nomad), or a Sound Devices 664 (which sells secondhand for the same price as a 633). Or even the new MixPre10T. Anyway, what specifically are you wanting to use this for and in what manner? As if you're not a specialist sound recordist then either of those are serious overkill for 97% of forum members here, and they should look at instead a F8/F4/MixPre6

https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/5312-buying-your-own-alexa-is-much-easier-than-you-think

Happy Birthday! It certainly is a very very common camera. Had a couple of days shooting with it last week in my office building.