"Highly Needed"

A somewhat exaggerated term for that request don't you think.

Isn’t enough for what? What specific use case? What are capturing at 60 frames per second and 8000 pixels wide resolution that simply can’t be done with 4K or even 1080p?

Come on give us some use cases or GTF.

There's a lot of room for improvements in the mark II version. They could have added those type of features to make it a true cinema camera.

But for now it's simply a repurposed a7s3.

How should shutter angle be an issue when you do not have a rotary shutter? Is it because that is what one is used to?
I ask because as one coming from stills world it seems that shutter speed is the actual determining factor and angle is an artifact of previous tech used to describe the same thing.

There are other benefits especially for those in Europe.
24fps and 1/48 does not interfere with the AC power, which would make for these nasty stripes when filming (under) artificial light.

Next to that the 180 rule is really good for keeping things more natural looking when movement is involved. One can write whole books around this topic. If you are just switching over from photography to film making I would suggest watching some dedicated YouTube channels for a quick 101 and getting up to speed quickly.

I can understand chopping off hardware staff like ND or EVF. But I don't understand why they cannot offer Cinecam formats and software tools like waveform and others. This is ridiculous.

And that bloody old LCD - grainy dark and smudgy when things move - is just oh MY!

There are plenty of non-Sony video primes with an E mount. They are distinguished by 105 mm objectives, geared rings, low distortion, and widely spaced, accurate markings. More important, focus breathing is tightly controlled using moving elements, much like in a zoom lens. The Zeiss "economy" lenses start at about $5K each.

AF is largely confined to lower-end video lenses, and those used for sports and news gathering. Focus breathing is only important when you use selective focus shifting within a clip for cinematic reasons. For my purposes, Zeiss Batis (AF) and Loxia (MF) lenses have tolerably low focus breathing, and I have gear rings to remotely focus Loxia lenses, and AF lenses with coupled focusing rings.

"Extensive" usually equals "Expensive."

If you are paying for production, the last thing you want is to be at the mercy of weather conditions.

I don't think one should use camera preamps for sound, unless really budget limited, in which case FX3 itself is not a best solution *but GH may be. I'd prefer a separate sound recorder and boom or wireless lav or anything else to camera+mic solution, which is guaranteed to be bad

Legitimate questions, but come on: Nobody serious records the audio on the camera. The preamps are probably noisy as hell, and who wants a bunch of cables running to a camera that he's trying to maneuver?

The BMPCC shines when you have the time to set it up, but it's really not a good option for more dynamic situations.

Cell phone crowd is deciding that this camera is not needed.

Driving in wrong lane.

If there is any "post-stabilize" with the FX3, then the results will be less than 4K. The camera is more for 2.5K and 1080p video. With the 6K BMPCC there is the option to post-stabilize, crop, zoom, center, and level the video and still retaining sharper 4K detail than possible with FX3.
I am sure the FX3 will do well when you have the time to set it up and plan shots, but with no EVF and a smaller read LCD, its not as easy to use as the BMPCC which has a 5 inch touchscreen and overhead to crop and stabilize.

But the BMPCC doesn't have IBIS, so that will require more post work to start with.

And the BMPCC won't be as easy to use when it doesn't focus... And that will probably be much more important difference between those cameras. If you need AF, sony. If you don't, BMPCC6kPRO.

The IBIS is not very good. Both cameras will need stabilization in post so that's pretty even. The only difference is the Sony will then drop to below 4K resolution (actually because of the Bayer filter it is never actually 4K to begin with).
With the BMPCC you have a large 5 inch display to verify focus and assist with focus pulls. Not so with the Sony. Instead its point and pray it picked the right subject. No AF system today is perfect, so why gamble?

Ibis is a lot better than nothing at all. And AF is essential when you can’t be operating the camera and focusing at the same time.

I wouldn’t be able to do the shoots I do with a manual focus camera at all. And with wider apertures, no way manual focus would be able to keep up.

The only place for BM cameras on set is to be destroyed. Avengers style.

StoneJack

Your not much into the professional Youtube univers are you?

Many of those who live on making YouTube contents, uses similar cameras like the FX3 in some cases even far longer up the pro ladder. Some of these has quite the studio to record the stuff, some of it you would have a hard time doing on a phone, the production value is constantly going upwards and subscribers demands more and more, it won’t be a long time before Youtube will run 4 or 8k content.

BM doesn’t do 4K 120. It has terrible battery life. No AF to speak of. Is only S35 vs FF. It’s only real advantage is in camera RAW vs external on the Sony. Downsampling might make things ‘sharper’, but sharpness in video isn’t everything. IBIS is useful, but the BM also is much bulkier and worse on a gimbal. It also doesn’t shoot proxies in camera or do redundant recording.

BM is a budget cine camera. The FX3 is more of a compact run n gun. There isn’t just ‘you tubers’ and ‘cinema’, there is a massive, massive market in between. Many of these users cannot even consider the BM as a practical tool. It isn’t cinema grade enough to be used for cinema and isn’t run n gun enough to outstrip the Sony. It’s for no-budget film productions and that’s about it.

To me the question more becomes; this or the C70. Where I am the C70 is only about 15% more expensive now that it is discounted. The C70 is about 2x the BM and IMO easily worth it.

So does Canon. I don't know if they use them in their cameras but they make some of the finest LCD's on the planet.

No one accuses Canon of having poor back LCDs like they do with Sony.

Canon LCDs are larger and with greater resolution. Not to mention that they've had full touch controls integrated in for several years now, whereas Sony only integrated that feature last year in the a7sIII.

That was another baffling thing: that Sony is so late to the game with something as simply as full touch controls on their LCD screens. They have the tech and use it in other products but couldn't bother to put it in their cameras.

This was Canon's reality forever. They make one mistake and the whole world goes bonkers. Same is now true for Sony... inferior rear screens??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEM!!! And on and on it shall go like this around in circles for eternity.

@bloodreyna: I do agree that everything needs to be kept in perspective. Certainly Sony's LCD screens are not the worst thing in the world. And for many the other features more than make up for it.

But I think the thing that amazes some of us is that it would be so easy for Sony to correct it. They have this super advanced tech in so many areas but yet don't take care of such a detail. It's like, come on Sony, give us this rich, luxuriant back screen like we know you can do.

Yeah come on Sony, give us a rich luxuriant screen!!!

The FX3 can stabilize using gypro in post. Also, it has IBIS when needed. If EVF are important then buy the a7s iii. The FX3 was made to be rigged to the external monitor and such. Thats why Sony removed the EVF. Also 12MP is perfectly fine to get no crop 4K up to 120fps without overheating and awesome dynamic range without compromising low light ability.

You dont seem to understand why its 12mp

TRU what is the PPI of the LCD ?

<< No ability to crop, zoom, center and stabilize while maintaining 4K resolution either. >>

Back in my day we had to get the shot right in *pre*-production, never mind post. You kids don't know you're born... ;-)

And anybody who's looked through the viewfinder of an Arriflex at f/8 (assuming they could afford one at £50K+ body-only) would give their right arm for a screen like the Sony's.

If you really need all the stuff you say you need, then basically you need a different camera. And budget.

@Thoughts R Us

"No one accuses Canon of having poor back LCDs like they do with Sony."

That's primarily because there isn't anybody like you, astroturfing for other brands.

Canon's best LCDs at 2.1mdot are lower than the best LCDs of any other manufacturer. Nikon has had 2.4 mdot for years, Sony is now moving to it. You will have the amusing situation, when it launches, of the R3 having a lower resolution rear screen than the Sony 7rIII! Although I don't suppose you will mention it.

unobtrusive ostrich with less resolution you can increase the reliability of the camera. Less processing, less heat generated, less problems when shooting in warmer environments.

It's a question of balance. If it had more resolution would it be able to cope with what it's expected from it?

@RubberDials: Do you know the resolution of the R3 screen? I haven't seen that spec yet.

But let's talk about the Canon 2.1 mdot displays like used in the R5. Yes they are less than Nikon's 2.4 mdot LCDs, but still closer than the Sony 1.44 mdot display used in most Sony models, including their flagship a1. And Canon uses a 3.2 inch monitor vs the Sony 3 inch which makes a difference too.

As you go up in specs the differences matter less. So Canon's is for all intents and purposes pretty close to Nikon's. But Sony's lags behind in most models.

Also sure now Sony is putting the better LCD in 2 older models, which begs the question of why not put those their flagship a1 costing far more, or this new FX3?

So again the LCD isn't everything but the Sony strategy here is really puzzling.

It gets expensive to record at 4K, much less 6K or 8K. A 2 TB SSD holds about 3.5 hours of ProRes 422 10-bit 4K (~ 500 Mb/s). Each 128 GB SD card holds about 2.5 hours of 4K, but highly compressed (~ 200 Mb/s). Add the time to copy, edit, and deliver 4K runs the tab even higher.

All this fuss over an LCD, for what? The LCD is best used for menu editing. You need a magnifier with a light shield to use it outdoors, but only at eye level. My camera usually sits on a tripod, a foot over my head. An apple box to stand on is just another thing to carry. I use an Atomos Ninja V or Shogun 7 as a combination monitor and recorder. Done and done! Furthermore, they can be used in bright daylight at a distance I can see with reading glasses.

You'll at least have a shoulder rig if you're spending $4k on a video camera. And that makes the EVF kinda pointless...

So why put the EVF in the a7sIII in the first place? And why make it their top level one? That was a question that people asked at the time and some just downplayed it.

Very few if any use the a7sIII as a stills camera. Many never use the EVF because they bought the a7sIII for video only. So why didn't Sony put this version out instead of the a7siii?

Also why didn't Sony give it the better LCD instead of those two older models? Given the lack of EVF, the better LCD would have been nice.

Thoughts R Us Exactly because this camera exists. The S line is for people that also want to use it as a stills camera and not video exclusively.

@PAntunes: the point is that virtually everyone using an a7sIII uses it exclusively for video, given its low pixel count for stills photography.

This is the camera that arguably the a7sIII should have been from the start.

Thoughts R Us but you now have both.... and not many disadvantages on the A7SIII... if people feel they don’t need the viewfinder because they don’t take photos, they can get this one. But if they feel they will use it as a stills and video tool, like many travel content creators do, the S line has got them covered.

@PAntunes: I suppose some use the a7sIII for stills...but I imagine it must be a very small group.

It's almost like the release order should have been reversed: because most use the a7sIII exclusively for video, release the FX3 first...and then a little later release the a7sIII for those who want to take stills as well.

And if that release order means the a7sIII doesn't sell that well, then that means that there are not enough using it for stills to merit its place in the market.

In order to use the A7Siii in more than the most elementary applications, you need to build it into a rig with a cage and rails. That's good enough for me at present, since I'm using multiple cameras for live streaming, none with large, heavy lenses. The flash shoe can handle only light loads, with questionable long-term reliability. The solid aluminum body of the FX3 with four threaded holes provides hard points for various accessories, including lights and recorder/monitors.

Would I have done differently were the FX3 available? For the moment, there is no fitted Arca plate for the FX3, which is my preferred mount. I ordered an L-plate for my A7Siii at the same time as the camera. Rather than a full rig, I have a base plate with rails and a battery plate and an RRS Arca clamp. I can use the same base for several cameras, and have three (at present) such base plates. That keeps the size and weight down, compared to a permanently assembled rig.

Thoughts R Us, if think the release should be when the cameras are ready...
If creating a totally new body and adding cooling, etc, took more time, there's no real point in delaying the A7SIII just because the FX3 wasn't ready.

Thoughts R Us, I have an A7S II and it's laughably the best stills camera for situations involving low light/funky light shooting like you would find in small concert venues. With the Topaz DeNoise AI software, I can shoot regularly using 51200 as my *base* ISO with a 1/320 shutter. And many YT reviews show the A7S III as being sort of an ultimate point and shoot when you want maximum reliability in getting a shots with little fuss or worry about the focus being off.

@MMatters: thanks for the insight. I am genuinely curious how many use the a7sIII for stills photography and how and why.

I actually think there is value to using a 12MP camera for stills: as you note the resolution is more forgiving, and of course the files are small and light.

But it seems that most use the a7sIII almost exclusively for video. Is that a mistake on their part? Should they consider using it for some other purposes?

How can it be a mistake on their part? That makes no sense...

In practice, I use a shutter speed of 1/60, f/4.0 to f/6.3, and ISO between 1000 and 3500 for indoor shooting. Higher shutter speeds lead to stroboscopic action, which is unpleasant to watch. Little or no noise and granularity can be seen in the videos.

Outdoors, in bright sunlight, I use a variable ND filter as needed to stay in this range, and S-Log 2 or 3 to manage the contrast.

Here's where SONY could think like Sigma and have an accessory EVF.

I have several Atomos recorder/monitors which serve very well in lieu of an EVF or LCD. Furthermore the Atomos units are bright enough to use in daylight with nor more than a minimal shade, and sharp enough for manual focus. I use the LCD for menus, at least indoors. A simple option displays the menu on the Atomos.

I generally believe anytime you have a camera without an EVF it helps to offer an optional accessory EVF.

These modern cameras are so ultra-sophisticated, yet somehow they miss common sense photographic things. State of the art DSLRs without better screens for manual focusing of lenses or a waist level finder. I manual focus many an autofocus lens.

That's what I would like to see in one system DSLR-a waist level OVF. Flippy LCDs or touch screens are not a substitute.

Good thought about Atomos. Apparently that is the wave of the future.

Among other things, the threaded mount could be used with a cable strain reliever. That's always a good idea when using HDMI.

"Literally" only if you ignore the ergonomic differences and threaded mounts.

FX means full frame, which it is. Whether its cinema or not isn't relevant if you're not using it for production.

With regard to video cameras, an EFV is nearly useless. The EVF on an ENG camera is mounted well forward, and can be adjusted to suit the operator. My FS5 has an EVF never used. It is now hidden behind a V-mount battery plate, and I don't miss it. I use the LCD for the menu, and a 5" or 7" Atomos monitor/recorder for a viewfinder.

I regularly use an A7Siii for 8 hours at a stretch, without overheating. The key is to have an external power source and video recorder. Using a dummy battery alone is enough to prevent overheating in a comfort zone, even while recording internally.

Woz D Boss: You do know what a fisheye lens is, don't you? For example, I have a circular fisheye that isn't very long and captures a 190 degree view angle. I think my rectangular fisheyes probably would catch it too, but I wouldn't be surprised if my Laowa 10-18mm catches it at 10mm. I'd wonder even more about the Laowa 9mm f/5.6 or Voigtlander 10mm f/5.6 -- very wide FE-mount lenses that are quite short. I suppose Sony doesn't make anything wider for FE than their fairly-long-barrel 12-24mm zooms, but I'm a heavy user of adapted lenses.

Actually, my widest lenses would capture the front of the camera & photographer... they always do -- so no complaints about them seeing the XLR Grip. I'm talking about a Spiratone Bird's Eye and an Egg Solutions 360. ;-)

Anyway, the issue I see is that the XLR Grip is THE thing to hook to the shoe electrical connections as well as a grip... it would make more sense to me if those two functionalities were separable....

Ah well done on completely changing what you were originally talking about from wide angle lenses to specialist attachments that are not actually lenses, lets get back to the real talk shall we.

Ultra wide full frame lenses on that camera will be large, even the primes, so in that respect they will protrude farther than that grip, before accounting for the angle of view. A Fisheye has a small chance of of showing some of it in the frame, but in reality what exactly are you going to be shooting with that kind that of lens? Would you not just remove the accessory for this ultra niche filming situation you have invented if its protruding into the frame?

yes, what is the use case for an ultrawide fisheye in video and even if, just take off the handle.