Jump to content
Levente Udud

Zoom F4

Recommended Posts

For me, a bag user, the F4 looks like it would make a better back up mixer~recorder (to a 633 for example) than the F8 because the pots, XLR o/p and mini jack return make it quicker to swap and more useable in a bag (without a separate mixer up front - ugh). If you're on a small cart or drop-bag then the F8 would be better for recording redundancy - but a bit limited with analogue only i/ps and the increase use of proprietary fader controls eg. 6 series/cl12. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Combo jack is great, but give us the option to switch between mic and line through the menu.
We don't want to carry extra cables.

If you take it as a backup, you want to change only the mixer/recorder. You don't want to replace cables too.


I can see it helping unprofessionals people, but for us it's can be very annoying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, elior said:

Combo jack is great, but give us the option to switch between mic and line through the menu.
We don't want to carry extra cables.

If you take it as a backup, you want to change only the mixer/recorder. You don't want to replace cables too.


I can see it helping unprofessionals people, but for us it's can be very annoying.

I would second the criticism of the combo jack (if indeed they function the same as the F8 - xlr for mic and TVs for line ... at -10 level too?)

Although I haven't looked closely at the F4 nor looked at a manual, so forgive me if I'm wrong and jumping in too soon, the inability to go line in from XLR and the lack of pro line level choice were early and major criticisms of the F8 - so did anyone listen?

Jez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2016 at 5:59 PM, Mike Mulcahy said:

To Samuel (zoom official);

Has there been a listing of serial numbers beyond which the hardware issue was resolved?

Mine is B70007263

Thx,

Mike

 

Mike,

 

We have no official list of serial numbers but yours is outside the possible range.


Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoom is killing it. How can someone justify buying an SD 744T now.. 


I wouldn't say killing it. There are many reasons to purchase a 744. No one is purchasing zoom decks for their pres or automixing, ease of use etc... Zoom is making entry products with good enough feature sets at cheap prices. It fits a lot of people's needs but not all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On September 23, 2016 at 3:37 PM, myke2241 said:

I wouldn't say killing it. There are many reasons to purchase a 744. No one is purchasing zoom decks for their pres or automixing, ease of use etc... Zoom is making entry products with good enough feature sets at cheap prices. It fits a lot of people's needs but not all.

 

I agree with you, perhaps my statement is a bit extreme. I do not doubt that the 744 is the better machine here, and I would pick SD over zoom any day of the year. But the price gap between the two is just jaw dropping.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you, perhaps my statement is a bit extreme. I do not doubt that the 744 is the better machine here, and I would pick SD over zoom any day of the year. But the price gap between the two is just jaw dropping.. 


Well the price gap between canon L glass and zeiss SLR is jaw dropping too. I never hear people complaining in that neck of Woods. It's the same thing here. The price is justified on budget and application. Use the job calls for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, myke2241 said:

Well the price gap between canon L glass and zeiss SLR is jaw dropping too. I never hear people complaining in that neck of Woods. It's the same thing here. The price is justified on budget and application. 

 

not sure if that's a good comparison, most lenses for Canon L are not really that much cheaper then Zeiss SLR (factor 2-3), while here in europe the 744T still goes for over 5000EUR and the F4 will come in around 700EUR, so that's a factor of 6. so it's probably more like Samyang vs Zeiss.

but yes, there are still people buying zeiss glass despite the cheaper options, most likely because of the different properties and intended use.

like people who need autofocus will buy canon and those who need manual focus buy zeiss. kinda like if I need really nice preamps, limiters and reliability I would want a 744 while if I need 4 preamps and a mix track I would probably get an F4.

And there's a big difference in what I would buy if i needed a work machine that I use 100days a year on paid jobs and can charge rental for, or if I just do an unpaid film with friends once every two years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, myke2241 said:

 


Well the price gap between canon L glass and zeiss SLR is jaw dropping too. I never hear people complaining in that neck of Woods. It's the same thing here. The price is justified on budget and application. Use the job calls for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The gap in marketing is jaw dropping.

We do not see this type of demographic targeted marketing from the high end manufacturers.

Regarding the inserted screengrab, Zoom has clearly linked indie with pro and trumpeted the price gap between their product and the high end pro gear, although I think the slant is misleading about putting 'high quality sound front and center.'

In years previous, this has not been the case where sound was recorded using a handheld Zoom H4N and they got whatever they got out of it and some of it not very good.

The aging hipster soundman model with receding hairline and too many artisan pulled pork sliders/craft beer chasers belly says a lot.

Their market has grown up a bit and got wise that they now offer a better way to better sound. And they groomed their previous purchasers to 'buy twice.'

 

 

Zoom_F4_MultiTrack_Field_Recorder_Zoom_-_2016-09-25_07.30.52.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gerard-NYNY said:

The gap in marketing is jaw dropping.

We do not see this type of demographic targeted marketing from the high end manufacturers.

Regarding the inserted screengrab, Zoom has clearly linked indie with pro and trumpeted the price gap between their product and the high end pro gear, although I think the slant is misleading about putting 'high quality sound front and center'.

In years previous, this has not been the case where sound was recorded using a handheld Zoom H4N and got whatever they got out of it.

The aging hipster soundman model with receding hairline and too many artisan pulled pork sliders/craft beer chasers belly says a lot.

Their market has grown up a bit and got wise that they now offer a better way to better sound. And they groomed their purchasers to 'buy twice.'

 

 

Zoom_F4_MultiTrack_Field_Recorder_Zoom_-_2016-09-25_07.30.52.png

lol. "you've changed how audiences experience film." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The gap in marketing is jaw dropping.
We do not see this type of demographic targeted marketing from the high end manufacturers.
Regarding the inserted screengrab, Zoom has clearly linked indie with pro and trumpeted the price gap between their product and the high end pro gear, although I think the slant is misleading about putting 'high quality sound front and center.'
In years previous, this has not been the case where sound was recorded using a handheld Zoom H4N and they got whatever they got out of it and some of it not very good.
The aging hipster soundman model with receding hairline and too many artisan pulled pork sliders/craft beer chasers belly says a lot.
Their market has grown up a bit and got wise that they now offer a better way to better sound. And they groomed their previous purchasers to 'buy twice.'
 
 
Zoom_F4_MultiTrack_Field_Recorder_Zoom_-_2016-09-25_07.30.52.png


Wow I didn't see that! Pretty bad marketing. Not buying that coolaid lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
not sure if that's a good comparison, most lenses for Canon L are not really that much cheaper then Zeiss SLR (factor 2-3), while here in europe the 744T still goes for over 5000EUR and the F4 will come in around 700EUR, so that's a factor of 6. so it's probably more like Samyang vs Zeiss.
but yes, there are still people buying zeiss glass despite the cheaper options, most likely because of the different properties and intended use.
like people who need autofocus will buy canon and those who need manual focus buy zeiss. kinda like if I need really nice preamps, limiters and reliability I would want a 744 while if I need 4 preamps and a mix track I would probably get an F4.
And there's a big difference in what I would buy if i needed a work machine that I use 100days a year on paid jobs and can charge rental for, or if I just do an unpaid film with friends once every two years. 



Huh? Canon 85mm L 1.2 is $1900 while a zeiss 85mm 1.4 Otus $4500! Although I agree Sanyang - Canon is probably more financially accurate comparison. Everything else you said was spot on



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that add is hilarious..

However, about the lens metaphor; you can see the difference between lenses.. Actually the lens is the most important part of the camera in my opinon. Im not so sure you can hear the difference so clearly between the f4 and 744.. I feel the microphone you use has much more impact than whether you are using an f4 or 744. 

I am not really suggesting that all pros throw away their 744s.. I mean if you want a workhorse that you can depend on then the choice is simple. But as fas as tools go the F4/F8 are very impressive machines. And they might change everything in a near future. This is a big deal I feel.

I mean if zoom can make these recorders reliable enough (which they might be able too) they could really begin to pose a threat to other manufactures that do not have the power of mass production. Then that puts the pressure on for innovation. Zaxcom is a great example; they are on their own, innovating and changing how we work. Pushing the industry forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, AnuarYahya said:

However, about the lens metaphor; you can see the difference between lenses. Specially under low light. Actually the lens is the most important part of the camera in my opinon. Im not so sure you can hear the difference so clearly between the f4 and 744.. I feel the microphone you use has much more impact than whether you are using an f4 or 744. 

I hear this a lot - that the lens is more important then the camera, that it defines the look - and I don't know where it comes from.

If I have the choice to shoot a film on an Arri Amira (35K) with Samyang lenses (under 0.5K per lens), or with a Canon 750D DSLR (under 0.5K) with Arri Master Primes (over 20K per lens) I know what I would choose. This is an extreme example, but it would still hold true I I was offered a Sony FS7 (8K) instead of a 750D. Not that the lens don't make any difference, but cameras have a very strong look, and you can get cheap lenses which look great.

I agree this might be less the case with audio recorders, I for one would have a hard time hearing the difference between a MKH50 recorded to a 744 or to an F4 even in an AB test (while I can immediately spot the difference between an Amira and an FS7 with the same lens).

All that said, good lighting, set design and blocking are 10times more important then any camera or lens specs. Kinda like good mic placement and room acoustics will be 10times more important then expensive mics and recorders.

chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Rick Reineke said:

Senator's archer/arrows analogy comes to mind. An unskilled idiot with a truck full of great gear vs. a pro with a POS H4n and a half-decent mic.

I miss senator. 

3 hours ago, chrismedr said:

I hear this a lot - that the lens is more important then the camera, that it defines the look - and I don't know where it comes from.

The lens defines the look.. whether its a chepo lens or an expensive lens they all have their look. The camera tries to capture that look faithfully. Im not saying that the camera dose not matter.. Depending on the sensor or film stock or so many other things but the lens is what gives you the image. I guess they are both important, a camera with no lens is worthless and a lens without a camera also. Maybe this is getting off topic a bit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2016 at 5:21 AM, ZoomOfficial said:

We have no official list of serial numbers but yours is outside the possible range.

So what is the "unofficial possible range"....

On 9/26/2016 at 3:01 AM, myke2241 said:

Huh? Canon 85mm L 1.2 is $1900 while a zeiss 85mm 1.4 Otus $4500! Although I agree Sanyang - Canon is probably more financially accurate comparison. Everything else you said was spot on

Do the math, that is a factor in the range of 2 to 3, exactly as chrismedr was stating. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've been able to gather from the kind people at B&H who have worked with it, discussion groups and Zoom itself, the F4 still suffers from much of the same ills as the F8...

1. Digital limiters

2. Mic level only XLR inputs

3. Difficult, menu-laden "mixing"

4. A "not-as-good-as-it-should-be" headphone output (some coloring)

5. No headphone monitor knob

6. Hard to reach rear connectors / media

7. Plus, what's with that LCD screen? Going B&W I can see the cost point, but better resolution can't be THAT pricey anymore.
 

As far as positives...

1. Supposedly, the losing time code after a power down bug has been fixed. We'll see.

2. More option buttons on the front panel to access menu items faster.

3. Somewhat larger gain knobs.


One thing I was hoping for... I asked if the 5/6 channel 1/8" input was used for camera return only (simply monitoring), could the proprietary Zoom capsule input be used for recording on channels 5 & 6 at the same time.  Nope.  Worth a shot.  I find a lot of workarounds on things but this wasn't one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×