Tascam is developing a hotshoe XLR adapter to Canon, Fujifilm and Nikon

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

https://www.fujirumors.com/teac-announces-development-of-tascam-xlr-audio-adapter-for-fujifilm-mirrorless-cameras/

Anyone was aware that some Fujifilm models had a hotshoe with a digital interface?

[KnightsFan]

That's amazing! We'll have to see if Fuji and/or Canon are willing to open their digital interface to other audio manufacturers in addition to Tascam. The prospect of using something like the Deity BP-TRX set with direct digital input from the receiver into the camera could eliminate the need for an external recorder for me--particularly now that Deity has licensed backup recording on the transmitter.

[herein2020]

6 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

https://www.fujirumors.com/teac-announces-development-of-tascam-xlr-audio-adapter-for-fujifilm-mirrorless-cameras/

Anyone was aware that some Fujifilm models had a hotshoe with a digital interface?

 

I read TEAC's announcement as well. So far it looks like only two Canon models will support this interface. This has been one of my long running Canon pet peeves; they provided no way to get XLR audio into their non cinema bodies and is one of my favorite features of the S5.

https://www.teac.co.jp/int/support/news/6615

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

That's amazing! We'll have to see if Fuji and/or Canon are willing to open their digital interface to other audio manufacturers in addition to Tascam. The prospect of using something like the Deity BP-TRX set with direct digital input from the receiver into the camera could eliminate the need for an external recorder for me--particularly now that Deity has licensed backup recording on the transmitter.

What would be great is if 32bit float audio was included in the TEAC accessory but I guess I can't have everything. This accessory though is an important first step to me ever considering getting a Canon mirrorless for video and was one of the main reasons I chose the S5 over the R5.  The fact that only the as yet released R3 will even support this accessory further proves to me that I made the right decision in not getting or considering the R5. If the R3 offers dual slot video recording I may actually be truly interested in it.

[independent]

Not excited. Once you start adding more channels it become unwieldy, requiring a cage, then a handle, etc., then what are we doing here? Might as well go for a Sound Devices mixpre which offers more flexibility. 

I'd rather see Rode integrate the NTG w/ Wireless Go's

[KnightsFan]

21 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

What would be great is if 32bit float audio was included in the TEAC accessory but I guess I can't have everything.

That would be nice, but I assume if they had 32 bit float it would have been prominently mentioned in the announcement.

[KnightsFan]

5 minutes ago, independent said:

Not excited. Once you start adding more channels it become unwieldy, requiring a cage, then a handle, etc., then what are we doing here? Might as well go for a Sound Devices mixpre which offers more flexibility. 

My ideal solution would be if cameras could accept USB audio interfaces, then using a MixPre or Zoom F4 and pipe the audio in digitally from there. I think this Tascam unit is an important first step, as to my knowledge it's the first third-party digital audio connection to a consumer camera.

 

Edit: I'm fairly sure the Octopus Cinema Camera supports a USB audio interface, but I'm not confident that camera will ever materialize into an actual product unfortunately

[herein2020]

11 minutes ago, independent said:

Not excited. Once you start adding more channels it become unwieldy, requiring a cage, then a handle, etc., then what are we doing here? Might as well go for a Sound Devices mixpre which offers more flexibility. 

I'd rather see Rode integrate the NTG w/ Wireless Go's

I think its great, I use the XLR module with the S5 all the time for quick sound bites such as a real estate agent doing the intro voice over, modelling interviews, product reviews from YouTube content creators, etc. I almost never need more than one channel, two at the most and all of my higher quality mics are XLR.  I can also shoot long form such as speeches, conferences, etc and the whole setup is still more compact than my C200.

 

I have the MixPre6 and its a PITA, it needs another power source, just remembering how to set it up properly is a PITA since I rarely use it, and now you've got cables everywhere, etc.  I only use the MixPre when I need 32bit float, more than 2 channels, or multiple backup copies of the audio.

 

 

 

[kye]

Awesome step in the right direction.

To me, camera companies are both archaic and stupid the way they treat audio.  Syncing audio in post is a critical function (audio sync issues are completely intolerable) and yet the camera companies have done nothing, literally zero, to try and take market share from the external audio market, despite the fact they have the advantage of being able to sync to the image.

To give an idea about the ridiculous state of in-camera audio, here's what I would like:

1. the TRS (stereo) for the mic should be a TRRS and record three channels of audio
2. a combination hot-shoe / top handle or "battery grip" style add-on with XLRs and high-end low-noise pre-amps
3. every channel should be low-noise pre-amps
4. at least one channel should offer a virtual safety channel, where the single audio input is split to two channels - one gets digitised at that level and the other gets a 20dB attenuation and then is digitised

The way it stands, you can't record two mics with one of them having a safety channel, you can't record a stereo signal as well as a mono signal, and on most hybrid cameras the audio is so poor you can't even use a non-powered mic.

Almost every hybrid camera has stereo internal mics and a stereo mic input, and yet they can't record all 4 channels at once, the internal mics are often useless (recording digital interference or recording the lens focusing mechanism etc).

Audio is significantly more important than image, and yet camera companies basically go "we're not going to use audio pre-amps that cost $80c more - instead we'll make the customer spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars to buy external audio interfaces / recorders and spend time in post syncing the audio on every project".

It's like they don't even know what "integration" means.

[independent]

5 hours ago, herein2020 said:

I think its great, I use the XLR module with the S5 all the time for quick sound bites such as a real estate agent doing the intro voice over, modelling interviews, product reviews from YouTube content creators, etc. I almost never need more than one channel, two at the most and all of my higher quality mics are XLR.  I can also shoot long form such as speeches, conferences, etc and the whole setup is still more compact than my C200.

 

I have the MixPre6 and its a PITA, it needs another power source, just remembering how to set it up properly is a PITA since I rarely use it, and now you've got cables everywhere, etc.  I only use the MixPre when I need 32bit float, more than 2 channels, or multiple backup copies of the audio.

 

Try a mixpre 3 if you only need 2-3 channels; it would sit real nice on your cage. The 6 belongs in a bag. I do agree with the problem of "cables everywhere," which is why I think regardless of what mixer/recorder you have attached to your camera, more than a couple inputs ends up inescapably a mess. 

If it gets more complicated, it's more practical to focus on getting quality audio that can be effectively monitored and instead feed timecode or a sync track to the camera. 

Unless you're a one-man band live-streaming run-and-gun reality. Then ok, maybe

 

 

[Eric Calabros]

7 hours ago, kye said:

Audio is significantly more important than image, and yet camera companies basically go "we're not going to use audio pre-amps that cost $80c more - instead we'll make the customer spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars to buy external audio interfaces / recorders and spend time in post syncing the audio on every project".

They even could create an open standard for USB mic input, but didn't. XLR is really ancient for this "mobility and convenient" world. 

[KnightsFan]

7 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

They even could create an open standard for USB mic input, but didn't.

An open standard already exists for USB audio interfaces.

[newfoundmass]

7 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

They even could create an open standard for USB mic input, but didn't. XLR is really ancient for this "mobility and convenient" world. 

Most of the best mics are XLR. I'd never use a USB mic over an XLR one. Give me a locking XLR with a beefy cord any day of the week. It doesn't bother me at all when using the Panasonic XLR unit. 

[herein2020]

18 hours ago, independent said:

 

Try a mixpre 3 if you only need 2-3 channels; it would sit real nice on your cage. The 6 belongs in a bag. I do agree with the problem of "cables everywhere," which is why I think regardless of what mixer/recorder you have attached to your camera, more than a couple inputs ends up inescapably a mess. 

If it gets more complicated, it's more practical to focus on getting quality audio that can be effectively monitored and instead feed timecode or a sync track to the camera. 

Unless you're a one-man band live-streaming run-and-gun reality. Then ok, maybe

 

 

But I already have the MixPre6 and for 2 channels I have the XLR S5 adapter which feeds the audio straight to the video track, so the MixPre3 wouldn't do anything for me.  The only thing I am missing is 32bit float audio which I don't really need but its a nice to have.

 

21 hours ago, kye said:

Audio is significantly more important than image, and yet camera companies basically go "we're not going to use audio pre-amps that cost $80c more - instead we'll make the customer spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars to buy external audio interfaces / recorders and spend time in post syncing the audio on every project".

It's like they don't even know what "integration" means.

 

I think the answer is very simple; camera makers know full well how important audio is for video and their take on it is if you want integrated high quality audio then you need to pay a premium by buying one of their cinema cameras. For the makers that do not have a cinema line to protect such as Nikon and Fuji, they probably think they simply would not get their ROI back from the R&D necessary to bring something like that to market.

Also, keep in mind, the legions of photographers out there who will never flip that switch over to the video section; not one of them would ever buy or want to pay for improved audio. I also think there's more to it than simply improving the camera pre-amps; for the higher quality mics there's also the problem with providing phantom power, adjustable gain, a mini XLR input jack, reducing heat, etc. All of this adds size, weight, and cost to a camera that would put it in a price range fewer customers would buy.  

IMO the XLR adapter via the hotshoe is pretty much the most elegant way something like this could be done; photographers aren't paying for the cost of higher quality audio, the camera body itself remains small, phantom power comes though the hotshoe, and the higher quality audio gets recorded straight to the video track so no synching needed in post.  For the integrated solutions there's plenty of larger cameras for that.

[kye]

8 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

An open standard already exists for USB audio interfaces.

Yes, and they didn't use it.

8 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Most of the best mics are XLR. I'd never use a USB mic over an XLR one. Give me a locking XLR with a beefy cord any day of the week. It doesn't bother me at all when using the Panasonic XLR unit. 

XLR is the connector type for a type of balanced audio connection.  Balanced audio is great for long cable runs and for its ability to eliminate interference.

It would be impractical to run USB signals over large distances (USB standard and cabling isn't designed for this).

However, if a camera manufacturer provided a USB interface on their cameras then it would mean that any audio interface by any company would work with any camera.  The cable runs from the audio interface box would still need to be XLR.

1 hour ago, herein2020 said:

I think the answer is very simple; camera makers know full well how important audio is for video and their take on it is if you want integrated high quality audio then you need to pay a premium by buying one of their cinema cameras. For the makers that do not have a cinema line to protect such as Nikon and Fuji, they probably think they simply would not get their ROI back from the R&D necessary to bring something like that to market.

Also, keep in mind, the legions of photographers out there who will never flip that switch over to the video section; not one of them would ever buy or want to pay for improved audio. I also think there's more to it than simply improving the camera pre-amps; for the higher quality mics there's also the problem with providing phantom power, adjustable gain, a mini XLR input jack, reducing heat, etc. All of this adds size, weight, and cost to a camera that would put it in a price range fewer customers would buy.  

IMO the XLR adapter via the hotshoe is pretty much the most elegant way something like this could be done; photographers aren't paying for the cost of higher quality audio, the camera body itself remains small, phantom power comes though the hotshoe, and the higher quality audio gets recorded straight to the video track so no synching needed in post.  For the integrated solutions there's plenty of larger cameras for that.

I get that they're trying to protect their cinema lines, but this is also stupid as those don't even have half the features I mentioned.

Customer: "Hi, I really like this tiny camera you're selling, its very light and fits in my pocket, but can I get more audio inputs please?"
Manufacturers: "If you want more audio inputs then oh boy we have the right camera for you - here is a 10kg cinema camera that doesn't even fit in a backpack"
Customer:"WTF?!?!"

The video industry is run by a bunch of dinosaurs and is ripe for disruption.  It's no coincidence that the media consumption of the average person is up through the roof and the bottom line of almost all camera companies are through the floor.
They should be asking themselves "how can we give the customer as much of what they want as possible" but instead they're asking "how can we give the customer the least while not losing them as a customer".

The equation is really simple - if someone can make money doing it then you could have done it instead and you could have been making that money instead of them.  This is why I mentioned that the camera companies have the advantage of synced audio.  
If a camera company make a recorder and a third party make a recorder, then as a customer the two products have very different costs:

• buy the camera company audio interface (up-front financial cost)
• buy the audio company audio interface (up-front financial cost, cost of separate batteries, logistics of charging them separately, risk of lost shots due to audio issues, cost of syncing audio - hardware or in-post)

So what is the business case?  It's that there is an entire industry making a profit from selling the second, and no-one except you can offer the first, which has large and ongoing advantages for the customer, potentially worth thousands of dollars.

Any company that can't understand that deserves to go bankrupt.

[herein2020]

2 hours ago, kye said:

Yes, and they didn't use it.

XLR is the connector type for a type of balanced audio connection.  Balanced audio is great for long cable runs and for its ability to eliminate interference.

It would be impractical to run USB signals over large distances (USB standard and cabling isn't designed for this).

However, if a camera manufacturer provided a USB interface on their cameras then it would mean that any audio interface by any company would work with any camera.  The cable runs from the audio interface box would still need to be XLR.

I get that they're trying to protect their cinema lines, but this is also stupid as those don't even have half the features I mentioned.

Customer: "Hi, I really like this tiny camera you're selling, its very light and fits in my pocket, but can I get more audio inputs please?"
Manufacturers: "If you want more audio inputs then oh boy we have the right camera for you - here is a 10kg cinema camera that doesn't even fit in a backpack"
Customer:"WTF?!?!"

The video industry is run by a bunch of dinosaurs and is ripe for disruption.  It's no coincidence that the media consumption of the average person is up through the roof and the bottom line of almost all camera companies are through the floor.
They should be asking themselves "how can we give the customer as much of what they want as possible" but instead they're asking "how can we give the customer the least while not losing them as a customer".

The equation is really simple - if someone can make money doing it then you could have done it instead and you could have been making that money instead of them.  This is why I mentioned that the camera companies have the advantage of synced audio.  
If a camera company make a recorder and a third party make a recorder, then as a customer the two products have very different costs:

• buy the camera company audio interface (up-front financial cost)
• buy the audio company audio interface (up-front financial cost, cost of separate batteries, logistics of charging them separately, risk of lost shots due to audio issues, cost of syncing audio - hardware or in-post)

So what is the business case?  It's that there is an entire industry making a profit from selling the second, and no-one except you can offer the first, which has large and ongoing advantages for the customer, potentially worth thousands of dollars.

Any company that can't understand that deserves to go bankrupt.

I definitely agree with you on the one hand....for example, the Panasonic XLR module has always been a huge selling point for me. Even now I am willing to sacrifice continuous AF because that XLR module is so important to me.  But I disagree that adding better audio to the existing hybrid cameras would be worth it at this point in time for the manufacturers. 

A hybrid camera is just that...its a camera that does photos as well as video and in most cases especially historically most hybrid cameras are better suited for photos than for video especially in the audio department.  I think for the typical hybrid camera user, audio simply is not that important; almost every if not every hybrid shooter that I have met has been perfectly happy with slapping an external amplified mic to the hotshoe or camera cage and using the mic port on the camera to record the audio.  Almost every run and gun shooter I know does this and for most run and gun shooters, they don't keep the audio anyway and they replace it with a commercial audio track. Even I do this for most events and get perfectly acceptable audio for that type of situation.

I only use the XLR module for more controlled environments where I have time to properly place the client, camera, mics, etc. or for weddings where I need to record the wedding vows. But when the ambient noise floor is a bigger concern than the circuit noise in uncontrolled environments, that mic port and amplified mic work perfectly for what I need.

So IMO, and this is just my opinion; the target audience for hybrid cameras is shooters that mainly run and gun, shoot more photos than video, and are perfectly happy with a slightly better audio solution than the built in mic.  I've probably shot literally hundreds of large events by now and met hundreds more hybrid shooters. Not a single one of them had an XLR setup and I highly doubt any of them would be willing to pay for one or the mics needed to take advantage of XLR. 

The true video shooters that I met at those same events typically all had some camcorder or cinema camera setup (Sony FSx, Canon C300x, Panasonic EVA1, etc.)  and a real audio solution (wireless mics, XLR inputs, etc.) but they were not hybrid shooters...you wouldn't find a single photography camera in their gear.

[kye]

28 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

I definitely agree with you on the one hand....for example, the Panasonic XLR module has always been a huge selling point for me. Even now I am willing to sacrifice continuous AF because that XLR module is so important to me.  But I disagree that adding better audio to the existing hybrid cameras would be worth it at this point in time for the manufacturers. 

A hybrid camera is just that...its a camera that does photos as well as video and in most cases especially historically most hybrid cameras are better suited for photos than for video especially in the audio department.  I think for the typical hybrid camera user, audio simply is not that important; almost every if not every hybrid shooter that I have met has been perfectly happy with slapping an external amplified mic to the hotshoe or camera cage and using the mic port on the camera to record the audio.  Almost every run and gun shooter I know does this and for most run and gun shooters, they don't keep the audio anyway and they replace it with a commercial audio track. Even I do this for most events and get perfectly acceptable audio for that type of situation.

I only use the XLR module for more controlled environments where I have time to properly place the client, camera, mics, etc. or for weddings where I need to record the wedding vows. But when the ambient noise floor is a bigger concern than the circuit noise in uncontrolled environments, that mic port and amplified mic work perfectly for what I need.

So IMO, and this is just my opinion; the target audience for hybrid cameras is shooters that mainly run and gun, shoot more photos than video, and are perfectly happy with a slightly better audio solution than the built in mic.  I've probably shot literally hundreds of large events by now and met hundreds more hybrid shooters. Not a single one of them had an XLR setup and I highly doubt any of them would be willing to pay for one or the mics needed to take advantage of XLR. 

The true video shooters that I met at those same events typically all had some camcorder or cinema camera setup (Sony FSx, Canon C300x, Panasonic EVA1, etc.)  and a real audio solution (wireless mics, XLR inputs, etc.) but they were not hybrid shooters...you wouldn't find a single photography camera in their gear.

I understand your points and agree that most users are "perfectly happy" with the paltry choices they have been provided, however:

• How many of those "perfectly happy" users would like these features if they were available?  I'd say almost all of them, but they're happy because the manufacturers have managed their expectations 
• Even if they wouldn't complain, people often don't ask for things until they get PR...  think of how many people are talking about 6K and 8K but weren't talking about that 5 years ago, but our eyes, the size of TVs, and the type of content hasn't really changed - should we have suggested that 6K and 8K aren't good because people weren't picketing the streets demanding them?
• No-one knew they wanted an iPad...   "hi, would you like a laptop computer that can only run one program at once and doesn't have a keyboard?"  "um..... no?"  ... 425 Million iPads have been sold since 2010.

Things like 32-bit recorders are getting lots of great press because they solve a problem - they don't need a safety track and don't need careful gain selection.  This is a great example of something that people weren't demanding but now it's available it is getting lots of interest.  This is the kind of innovation that camera manufacturers aren't doing.

I think your understanding of the camera market is a bit flawed.  You've indicated that hybrid cameras are used more for taking photos than video, and that the video-first people use larger cine cameras.  As someone who finds camera size to be a significant factor, and therefore uses hybrid cameras only for video, I think you're missing a trick.

Think about ARRI and the Alexa Mini cameras.  ARRI thought that they'd only be used for drones and odd mounts, but people realised that the smaller size had all kinds of advantages and so even ARRI, who are very in-touch with their user-base, were surprised that size mattered so much to people.  I think this is a common reaction, misunderstanding size.  If you asked your "true video" people who would like a smaller camera with the same features, I think they'd almost all universally want that.  So that really rules out the "just use a camera 10x the size" argument.

[herein2020]

15 minutes ago, kye said:

I understand your points and agree that most users are "perfectly happy" with the paltry choices they have been provided, however:

• How many of those "perfectly happy" users would like these features if they were available?  I'd say almost all of them, but they're happy because the manufacturers have managed their expectations 
• Even if they wouldn't complain, people often don't ask for things until they get PR...  think of how many people are talking about 6K and 8K but weren't talking about that 5 years ago, but our eyes, the size of TVs, and the type of content hasn't really changed - should we have suggested that 6K and 8K aren't good because people weren't picketing the streets demanding them?
• No-one knew they wanted an iPad...   "hi, would you like a laptop computer that can only run one program at once and doesn't have a keyboard?"  "um..... no?"  ... 425 Million iPads have been sold since 2010.

Things like 32-bit recorders are getting lots of great press because they solve a problem - they don't need a safety track and don't need careful gain selection.  This is a great example of something that people weren't demanding but now it's available it is getting lots of interest.  This is the kind of innovation that camera manufacturers aren't doing.

I think your understanding of the camera market is a bit flawed.  You've indicated that hybrid cameras are used more for taking photos than video, and that the video-first people use larger cine cameras.  As someone who finds camera size to be a significant factor, and therefore uses hybrid cameras only for video, I think you're missing a trick.

Think about ARRI and the Alexa Mini cameras.  ARRI thought that they'd only be used for drones and odd mounts, but people realised that the smaller size had all kinds of advantages and so even ARRI, who are very in-touch with their user-base, were surprised that size mattered so much to people.  I think this is a common reaction, misunderstanding size.  If you asked your "true video" people who would like a smaller camera with the same features, I think they'd almost all universally want that.  So that really rules out the "just use a camera 10x the size" argument.

The "true video" people do have smaller options with good audio, the C70 is a testament to that as is Blackmagic's offerings, but I think at least for now, the hotshoe/coldshoe mics have gotten good enough that the gains achieved by going to XLR isn't significant enough for the typical hybrid shooter to notice or care. Video resolution is easy, its very visible, you can immediately do a lot with it (zoom, crop, etc.) so its obviously something many people can relate to; audio while very important is a lot more nuanced and to even take advantage of something like XLR can get very expensive very fast with only a marginal increase in quality to the typical viewer/listener.  The hardest thing for me to get used to when I decided to improve my audio was the sheer expense of quality mics, transmitters, windscreens, etc.

Yes 32bit float is fantastic, but with things like ALC and ALG that have gotten so good as to almost sound natural even on most hybrid cameras its not a necessity for most scenarios a hybrid shooter will encounter and is another area where your typical hybrid shooter probably wouldn't really take advantage of it but would definitely notice the cost of it being added to their camera invoice. 

Honestly at the end of the day neither of our opinions matter, camera makers will do whatever they need to do to stay in business even if that means trickling out features like better audio one feature at a time. I know for me personally, it is great to see more XLR hotshoe options coming to the market but I do still think most run and gun hybrid shooters are a long way from being willing to invest in the mics and supporting equipment necessary to truly take advantage of better audio options and I believe the main missing link was the XLR hotshoe adapters which are just starting to make an appearance. The adapters are the perfect solution for those rare times when as a hybrid shooter you can rig proper audio.

Here is another area where Panasonic was yet again ahead of the game but somehow still managed to fail to own the market.

[kye]

53 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

The "true video" people do have smaller options with good audio, the C70 is a testament to that as is Blackmagic's offerings, but I think at least for now, the hotshoe/coldshoe mics have gotten good enough that the gains achieved by going to XLR isn't significant enough for the typical hybrid shooter to notice or care. Video resolution is easy, its very visible, you can immediately do a lot with it (zoom, crop, etc.) so its obviously something many people can relate to; audio while very important is a lot more nuanced and to even take advantage of something like XLR can get very expensive very fast with only a marginal increase in quality to the typical viewer/listener.  The hardest thing for me to get used to when I decided to improve my audio was the sheer expense of quality mics, transmitters, windscreens, etc.

Yes 32bit float is fantastic, but with things like ALC and ALG that have gotten so good as to almost sound natural even on most hybrid cameras its not a necessity for most scenarios a hybrid shooter will encounter and is another area where your typical hybrid shooter probably wouldn't really take advantage of it but would definitely notice the cost of it being added to their camera invoice. 

Honestly at the end of the day neither of our opinions matter, camera makers will do whatever they need to do to stay in business even if that means trickling out features like better audio one feature at a time. I know for me personally, it is great to see more XLR hotshoe options coming to the market but I do still think most run and gun hybrid shooters are a long way from being willing to invest in the mics and supporting equipment necessary to truly take advantage of better audio options and I believe the main missing link was the XLR hotshoe adapters which are just starting to make an appearance. The adapters are the perfect solution for those rare times when as a hybrid shooter you can rig proper audio.

Here is another area where Panasonic was yet again ahead of the game but somehow still managed to fail to own the market.

Once again, I'm talking about innovation and you're talking about small incremental improvements already on offer.

Currently, hybrid cameras offer:

• good enough two channel recording
• no safety channel
• no XLR support

You're talking about:

• better two channel recording
• no safety channel
• XLR support

I'm suggesting:

• 6+ channels of recording
• internal support for safety channels

You're right that most hybrid shooters wouldn't pay more for what you're talking about, but if you put my suggestions in front of most hybrid shooters I'd suggest they'd be interested in them.  Being able to have more than two channels (or more than one channel with a safety track) would be something most people would appreciate.
I understand that good practice recording interviews is to have a lav on each person, but use an overhead shotgun and on-camera shotgun as backups in case of issues.  These can be useful even if someone says something but rustles their clothes against the mic at the same time.  

One of the killer tricks for cinematic footage is to put ambient sounds underneath the music - you can barely notice them consciously but you sure notice if you turn those tracks off.  I understand this is big for weddings and events, especially when they're paying thousands of dollars per minute for the final 'cinematic edit'.  

Even me, who just makes home videos, would love to be able to record a stereo ambience track along with a shotgun track (with safety).  Currently I download free ambience tracks to put under the music / shotgun tracks in the edit, but I'd much prefer to capture my own in realtime.

In terms of "camera makers will do whatever they need to do to stay in business even if that means trickling out features like better audio one feature at a time" - do you really think that's what Olympus did?  Do you think that Nikon is doing that?  This site and many others is virtually a live-stream of the death of the consumer camera market, which is in sharp contrast to the explosion of demand.  I'd suggest that most camera companies are staying in business despite their protective strategies, rather than because of them.

[herein2020]

7 hours ago, kye said:

Once again, I'm talking about innovation and you're talking about small incremental improvements already on offer.

Currently, hybrid cameras offer:

• good enough two channel recording
• no safety channel
• no XLR support

You're talking about:

• better two channel recording
• no safety channel
• XLR support

I'm suggesting:

• 6+ channels of recording
• internal support for safety channels

You're right that most hybrid shooters wouldn't pay more for what you're talking about, but if you put my suggestions in front of most hybrid shooters I'd suggest they'd be interested in them.  Being able to have more than two channels (or more than one channel with a safety track) would be something most people would appreciate.
I understand that good practice recording interviews is to have a lav on each person, but use an overhead shotgun and on-camera shotgun as backups in case of issues.  These can be useful even if someone says something but rustles their clothes against the mic at the same time.  

One of the killer tricks for cinematic footage is to put ambient sounds underneath the music - you can barely notice them consciously but you sure notice if you turn those tracks off.  I understand this is big for weddings and events, especially when they're paying thousands of dollars per minute for the final 'cinematic edit'.  

Even me, who just makes home videos, would love to be able to record a stereo ambience track along with a shotgun track (with safety).  Currently I download free ambience tracks to put under the music / shotgun tracks in the edit, but I'd much prefer to capture my own in realtime.

In terms of "camera makers will do whatever they need to do to stay in business even if that means trickling out features like better audio one feature at a time" - do you really think that's what Olympus did?  Do you think that Nikon is doing that?  This site and many others is virtually a live-stream of the death of the consumer camera market, which is in sharp contrast to the explosion of demand.  I'd suggest that most camera companies are staying in business despite their protective strategies, rather than because of them.

 

Well like I said, we are never going to agree on this one. Camera prices are already going through the roof with no end in sight, IMO there's no way camera makers would be able to recover the R&D costs of implementing what you are suggesting from all 5 hybrid users who would actually use those features. Would they be nice to have...of course, would enough hybrid users be willing to pay the premium to get them; highly unlikely. The ones that are willing to pay that premium and actually need that level of audio are already doing so with things like the MixPre or cinema cameras. Being interested in features or deciding to use them because they happen to come with the camera doesn't mean being willing to pay for something they will likely never need like 6 channels of audio. 

Keep in mind this discussion is scoped towards hybrid cameras not video centric shooters.....by the time you start talking about multiple lavs + multiple shotgun mics you have left the typical run and gun hybrid scenario and ended up in a video centric one; which once again is not what hybrid cameras are designed to do. If this is a common scenario for whatever work you do then you wouldn't use a hybrid camera to do it.

In over 15yrs of run and gun and commercial work for everything from music videos to weddings to promo videos to large events; only once have I ever needed more than two mics which is when I was shooting a talk show; and for that setup I used the MixPre6 and the C200.

Its great to wish everything under the sun were thrown into every camera, but when users are only willing to pay for the sky, that's all camera makers are going to put into that particular product.

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

On 8/19/2021 at 3:16 AM, Eric Calabros said:

They even could create an open standard for USB mic input, but didn't. XLR is really ancient for this "mobility and convenient" world. 

Camera companies are some of the most proeminent haters of open standards that I know.