Zoom Q2N

[sbrag]

16 hours ago, skidder652003 said:

This was shot both with DSLR and zoom Q2N, in contrast to the comments above, IMO the sound quality of the zoom is excellent whereas the video it awful. Note the contrast between the video of our singer (using a canon 5D mk 2) and the guitarist (using the zoom). In the end it was a compromise in using the excellent zoom audio capabilities and syncing with the superior video handling of a DSLR camera and a decent phone camera (drum cam). So to surmise, zoom 2QN for excellent audio recording used alongside better cameras for the actual video. Even a cheap (and I'm talking £20 quid 1080 ebay action cam) will produce better video quality, but its worth investing in the zoom for its audio recording alone.

Thanks Steve that is a good comparison. Where was the bass cam though?

 

[skidder652003]

41 minutes ago, sbrag said:

 

I was hiding!

[sbrag]

Got to say I think the sound is pretty good from the clips using the zoom as sound. Definately something to think about. Probably leaning towards a 2nd hand dslr at the moment. Cheers for all the comments.

[wateroftyne]

44 minutes ago, sbrag said:

Got to say I think the sound is pretty good from the clips using the zoom as sound. Definately something to think about. Probably leaning towards a 2nd hand dslr at the moment. Cheers for all the comments.

Remember, with a DSLR (or Mirrorless), it’s all about the lenses...

[Woodinblack]

Certainly you would expect much better image quality from a proper camera, but also where I am filming, you would expect it nicked.

[Manwithvan]

I don't know anything about the Zoom, but here's my view anyway.

For a semi pro band where paying for a professional video isn't justified, quality sound is of primary importance. A DIY video will be recognised for what it is by most watchers, and they'll forgive low quality video, but not poorly recorded sound. You're selling yourselves as competent musicians, not videomakers. I'd even say higher quality video is a bad thing - a bit of fuzziness can add a romantic glow.

From what people are saying it seems the Zoom is a decent solution. (edit: I see there's differing opinions on the sound quality)

I use dslrs to make music vids, for money sometimes! There's a multitude of issues. Overheating sensors, expensive superfast HD cards, huge video file sizes in 4K. Sound quality is still poor, even if you can set levels manually. I record it separately and bring it all together in editing. It's a much longer job.

Also, the latest phones do pretty decent video, and anyone can get them to work.

Edited August 29, 2020 by Manwithvan

[skidder652003]

great thread this guys btw.

so i would say that proper DSLR cameras for video (with good lenses, I use fixed primes) and if you can, use properly mixed audio done in the studio to mime along to for superior audio - if you want a real pro-quality outcome

.For quick, on the fly live and rehearsal uploads on social media, the zoom is an acceptable piece of kit, but probably worth looking at the upgrade to the 4K version.

[ribbetingfrog]

I use a zoom q2n for our gigs.

its just really convenient and easy.

i power it with a usb battery pack as it eats AA batteries.

 

video quality is fine and the audio is a huge step up from phone cameras.

you need to make sure you have the mic sensitivity set right to avoid clipping.

 

heres a link to our YouTube channel recorded with the q2n.

 

 

[Manwithvan]

13 hours ago, skidder652003 said:

great thread this guys btw.

so i would say that proper DSLR cameras for video (with good lenses, I use fixed primes) and if you can, use properly mixed audio done in the studio to mime along to for superior audio - if you want a real pro-quality outcome

.For quick, on the fly live and rehearsal uploads on social media, the zoom is an acceptable piece of kit, but probably worth looking at the upgrade to the 4K version.

That's a very good summary.

If anyone wonders why fixed lenses are better, it's because they have a wider maximum aperture, giving less depth of field. The most obvious difference between amateur and pro video is that in former everything's more or less in focus all the time. It seems to be a feature of the Zoom too.

[skidder652003]

2 hours ago, Manwithvan said:

That's a very good summary.

If anyone wonders why fixed lenses are better, it's because they have a wider maximum aperture, giving less depth of field. The most obvious difference between amateur and pro video is that in former everything's more or less in focus all the time. It seems to be a feature of the Zoom too.

and they generally work great in low light (which is handy being in a band!)

[wateroftyne]

3 minutes ago, skidder652003 said:

and they generally work great in low light (which is handy being in a band!)

Yep, the Zooms have crappy dynamic range... always something to bear in mind / tolerate.

[sbrag]

Got to say I think the sound is pretty good from the clips using the zoom as sound. Thanks for all the comments. 

 

I've just bought a 2nd hand Zoom from fee bay and waiting for it to come. Thought being if I like it I may upgrade to the 4k if not nothing much lost. Basically I want to to be able to do some quick stuff to put out to keep our profile up. Our guitarist does some great sound work but it takes a while so a few quick and dirty videos should work well.

I'll try and post something when I had a chance to record something.

Cheers

[Low End Bee]

On 29/08/2020 at 09:22, skidder652003 said:

That's really good but I'm guessing the audio was taken off a CD/mp3/fLAC file?

From the Studio wav file I’m afraid

youtube sound conversion wasn’t as good as now in 2013.