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 <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 22 July 2016 at 22:40, Michael Peel <em...@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-lens-review-19470 > > costing around £200-£280 - but I'm a bit out of date on the newest lenses...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 > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
