DPReview TV: Sony FX6 Review

10 bit video does not offset long frame compression and 4,2,0 color found in most hybrid cameras until recently. Sony and Canon have had high-bit video in affordable cameras like the FS7 and C300 for much longer than 3 years. Compression issues are largely moot thanks to Atomos monitor/recorders using low compression ProRes and DNx codecs.

If I had one video camera, the FS5 or FX6 would be at the top of my list, I choose Sony because I have built a nice collection of Sony lenses since 2014 (the A7ii). That said, COVID changed the video paradigm. One camera is not enough to make events and concerts accessible to a remote audience. Working mostly solo, size and weight are important considerations.

I remember the biggest complaint with the original A7S was the great slog and slog3 profiles but only 8 bit 4:2:0 color. This was more of the same with the A7Sii. Its one of the many reasons so many people like Jordan picked the smaller sensored GH5 and GH5s over the Sonys.
It is great to see Sony finally embrace internal 10 bit video in the A7Siii after all these years. But they still want their users to a pay a premium for DCI 4K even though Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic, and Canon have already embraced it in ILCs.

Its true COVID-19 and the down economy has changed the landscape. People can no longer afford a $3000 sports camera, a $3000 landscape (high resolution), and $3000 video camera. One camera like the X-T4 or R5 that covers all the bases make more economic sense, Its another reason why the R5 and X-T4 are leading in the "product of the year" voting.
Lens Rentals make more sense that ever too. Buy a good body and learn to use it, rent a second when necessary.

@LarryJones - "I remember the biggest complaint with the original A7S was the great slog and slog3 profiles but only 8 bit 4:2:0 color."

i don't remember any such complaints, probably because that's not what the typical tech was back in 2013, when the a7s came out.

@LarryJones - "This was more of the same with the A7Sii. Its one of the many reasons so many people like Jordan picked the smaller sensored GH5 and GH5s over the Sonys."

people who shoot cinema-style are generally not event shooters, and event shooters are the target market for hybrid milc.

@LarryJones - "...have already embraced it in ILCs... people can no longer afford [multiple cameras]"

this is an fx6 review, and fx6 is not hybrid milc... people who actually shoot video understand the differences, and so do the camera manufacturers, they know their markets.

sony makes specialty cameras because they are reliable and they perform better, they don't melt down all the time like certain other 2020 brand cameras do...

You always should set the thermal limit to high for shooting performances or similar stuff. I do this once when I receive a Sonys and kep it there - does no harm.

@LarryJones
R5 or XT4 are not possible to cover sport camera needs! Both are far away from universal cameras but better in some areas from older models.
And there is no even single 135 format camera in 2017 that has 120 fps FULL SENSOR PERFORMANCE! So this camera is made for speed, you need to live with that! And no R5 4K/120fps is not better or oversampled!

Seems like you are the new nick for troll on-shift spreading nonsense all over the place:
LarryJones
Joined on Dec 10, 2020

what up with 2018? Have you looked at the calendar lately? But completely agree, RED makes better video cameras no doubt.
8K always looks better too.

date is irrelevant to the subject under discussion.

8k sure can't look better when a canon camera is shut down from overheating...

They’ve been making them for decades for 2/3” broadcast cameras—but they start at $5,000 and rapidly get to $200,000 as zoom ratio and performance increases.
Scale that up to cover a 24x36mm frame and you wind up with lenses few people could afford or even lift.

Is that so Ed?
EVERY TV ENG camera operator uses an eye positioned EVF, servo zoom and manual focus on the shoulder. How would I know? I have worked in broadcast local and national (I’m a sound guy) for over 25 years. In all that time this has not changed. That is the REQUIRED work flow and form factor. You zoom way in, focus, and re-frame your shot. Now these TV camera operators my not be great photographers and frankly a large percentage know actually very little about photography. But this is the job they do day in and day out and that is the tool they need to get it done.
The ones at a stationary camera use an LCD. You probably don’t know this but all they do is follow action, focus and zoom. All color, and exposure is done remotely by someone else. The camera tripods are fitted with twist grips and rockers for focus and zoom. There is no time to fool around with little buttons or take your eye off the action.
Your comment would get you laughed out of the truck.

And a “tourist” holds their camera arms extended like an iPhone. Professional photographers use EVF.

When you add a magnifier and articulated arm to the LCD, it works the same as the EVF on an ENG camera. The EVF is mounted on the front, your cheek is against the left side of the camera and the camera is braced on your shoulder. The EVF on an FS5 (and presumably missing on the FX6) is at the rear of the camera. I haven't needed nor used it since I bought the camera.

As a rule, studio cameras like you describe don't have a viewfinder at all. Everything is extra. Many (e.g., Black Magic and 2/3" Pannies) are controlled remotely by SDI or fiber. The operator uses a top mounted monitor, points and zooms on cue. Much use is made of robotic cameras without anyone behind the camera.

When necessary, I use rail mounted motors to control focus and zoom, with aperture control optional, controlled by dials and rockers on the handles. AF is risky even with face recognition, if the subject turns to one side and someone behind faces the camera.

No, a network television truck / studio does not use Black Magic cameras. Well maybe they do in Australia. And yes, a stationary camera is built up. Including a quarter million dollar lens. Never said anything to the contrary. Hell the tripod head alone is worth more than my car.

An FS5 is a damn nice camera. It would be even better though for some people if it had a powered TV lens mounted to it. What more would one need? It’s great we have all that is available to us and we are fortunate to have so many choices. But some people don’t want choices. They want the same thing they learned on and the same thing that worked yesterday and that’s it. They walk in and shove their manly 50lb camera with a shotgun and a top mounted tungsten light in your face and push the red button. Just like they did 30 years ago. The everyday union ENG people are not ever going to consider all the stuff you are suggesting.

Different form factor, different user groups!

Watch the video again.

@corkymiller46 Aside from the electronic ND, everything you mention is lens dependant, not body dependant. I could put the exact same lenses on an a7S III, and enjoy a great EVF and IBIS as well. As I said in the episode, I'd rather have an FX6 on set, but if I was filming by myself, the a7S III is a better tool.

@JordanDrake - any comment on how the FX6 handles high iso NR as opposed to the A7SIII? Seems like it's baked in on the A7SIII? Probably not a big deal unless you do a lot of low light shooting. But it seems to be a pretty big difference between the cameras.

Sony has several power zoom lenses for this camera, including the high end PZ 28-135 f/4 and newly released 16-35 f/4 with a detachable zoom motor and geared rings.

With A7 cameras, you need a separate controller which attaches to the micro USB multi port, or a rail mounted servo motor (e.g., Tilta) and control. The latter will work with any lens, including an FE 200-600 f/4.5-5.6

There is nice video sponsored by RED explaining why DPs using their cameras rarely use zooms anymore. Instead they shoot in 8k and add the zoom in post. It provides a lot more flexibility, saves time and costs. But then what does RED know about video cameras, lol.
#ResolutionMatters

Prime lenses may predominate in cinema, but zoom lenses are indispensable for events, plays, concerts and news gathering. Imagine a producer calling time out at a football game to change lenses. It's bad enough they do that for commercials.

Just because you have a zoom lens doesn't mean you use it during a shot. Pans and zooms are used sparingly, usually just to put a hook at the beginning or end of a shot. Unlike a movie set with dollies cranes, camera movement is usually limited in bread and butter jobs. Plus you only have one chance to get it right, unlike movie sets that may repeat a 15 second shot a dozen times.

RED makes cameras, and people who know that they're doing use them.

None of these cameras would be used to televise football games.
And the Panasonic’s are not good for sports.
For consumer video camcorders and power zooms are fine. They have their place.

What lens would you put on it with a wide adapter that will still cover a full frame sensor? I’m no expert but I suspect those adapters are more suited for smaller sensors.

The 16-35 should be wide enough for most use cases I would think.

Sony has a new FE 16-36 T3.1 G lens with power zoom, for only $5500. That's wider than needed any video job I've encountered. That's a bit rich for me, but I find a Sony/Zeiss 16-35 f/4 gets the job done. I rarely zoom in the middle of a clip. I just use it for framing the shot. I haven't seen many wide angle zooms at football games, but 5000 mm zooms (the size of a compact car) are fairly common.

I mainly shoot social events and over 50% were weddings. a 16-35 won't cut it. Take for example a bride walking in the chapel with father, Priest says not to move and stay in one place. You are at the altar area, and can't budge. The bride and father are over 100 feet away. Lot of good the 35mm will do. No time to change lenses here. They walk slowly towards the altar almost 5 feet away from you and then the priest motions you to get out of sight to the far edge of the altar so now you really need a tele to get the closeup shots of the vows, expressions and the all important shot of the rings going in the fingers. I did this over 80 times a year and the priests/ministers/rabis/officiants etc. don't do you any favors. Ideally a lens of 16 to 135 mm F2.8 FF will do the nicely in a cavern like low light level church/reception environment. But I will settle for a 28-135 for upcoming weddings once this pandemic is over.

@Not just a hobby - "4096x2160 Appears to be requirement for Netflix now"

no, that's wrong.

there are multiple UHD: 3840x2160 cameras on the netflix approved list, and indeed that's what the actual spec says.

@Not just a hobby - "unlike the S1H which... is good for run and gun"

no, the s1h is a bad camera for event shooting, for multiple reasons:
1) dfd
2) no motorized parfocal zooms
3) weak hybrid milc form factor

people who shoot video for a living understand why those things matter.

Maybe the A7Siii isn't Netflix approved because it doesn't have a timecode jam sync. In the metadata section of the Netflix article it says that timecode should be included as metadata.

The A7Sm3 sensor is 4320x2832 pixels, more than enough for 4096x2160 DCI. The 16 bit RAW output is 4264x2208 @ p59.94. Stay tuned for a firmware upgrade.

There are third-party devices supported by Atomos which will jam A7 time code, among other cameras and devices, including a Zoom F8n 8-channel recorder.

Amazing. I guess before the R5 there were no good hybrid cameras for 4k... and the only suitable camera for 4K has a thermal problem.

Weird..

@ Ed Ingold: How important is this extra 4K quality from oversampling for a production that is shown on a television set or streamed on a PC or mobile phone?

@MikeRan I use a Sony A7S, A7 III, A6100 and RX10 IV which all take quite acceptable 4K video. Don't need a dedicated video camera.

@Ed Ingold: On a conventional Bayer sensor, you actually need a 6K readout to get "real" 4K. Anything over that is just pure luxury. Might as well get that 12K Blackmagic Ursa while you're at it.

@ yayatosorus: With a Bayer matrix sensor, all pixels contribute to resolution - just study a raw file before the debayering process. You lose a litte because of the double green filters, that's true, but you don't need 6K to get what you call "real 4K".

I maybe simplified it a bit too much, but the gist of my message was that, to achieve a certain resolution, say 4K, you have to take into account the amount of photosites a Bayer sensor has. With a 6K or 5.6K sensor, the debayering process causes the output to have an actual resolution of about 4K.

@ yayatosorus: This is simply wrong. Your way of (over)thinking would be correct if a block with filters (RGGB) was read out like one pixel. It is NOT. If you lok at how we perceive detail and color, you would find that there is detail that correspond with the number of pixels on the sensor, and more than needed info to colorize this image.

As said, just take a close look at a non-debayered raw file, and you will understand the concept.

I was being sarcastic.

@ yayatosorus: The article you link to is about COLOR resolution!

If you look at how we perceive COLOR, you will find that this is not a problem for real world photography.

There is a slight fine detail resolution too, but not much to worry about.

Add that for video we want a slight blur in frames with motion to get smooth and realistic movements - where is the need for the finest detail then?

@bwana4swahili

how dare you not spend $6000 for an acceptable 4k video camera :/

I don't think it's a scathing review, but more of a balanced one, showing both the strong and weak points of the camera. In other words, like most other reviews.

That being said, I do find it strange that Sony of all companies should put such poor quality LCD screens on their equipment. They should be the leader in this stuff. And the menu's are still atrocious. I wonder why they didn't bother to put in a new menu system with this camera, like they did with the A7S III. The price would easily justify that.

Thank you MILC, I appreciate that. I understand how so many of the features are essential and I'm glad this provides them. I love that idea with a whole other control system on a different side of the body. Indeed the CaNikon flagships have had that for ages, and add-on grips can add some of that too to the lower-level bodies for about any manufacturer.

But some of the other stuff like the hood, the lousy LED, the wobbly bayonet (presumably they're not all like that, are they?), and the preposterous power switch are just silly to me, particularly given the price of this thing.

Then there's the so-terrible-it's-worse-than-bad-Sony menu. Good grief. It's like Sony had their good video engineers on the a7SIII and then the team responsible for the original a7R did this.

Apparently there's no way - currently - to have both IBIS and an electronic ND. Or any build in ND.

@MILC I do not know why you are referencing ENG style cameras with large bodies and powered lenses. Clearly the F6 is none of those. Hence the need for IBIS assistance. I used to own two Varicams, so I know plenty about them.

For some reason people get all bent out of shape about IBIS. Like it is some kind of crutch losers have to use. Cameras the size of the FX6 are difficult to hold steady without a viewfinder to press against your face as another contact point. Micro jitters. You need some hands to operate the stills lenses one would be using so that leaves mainly one hand for all of your support. Might be fine for short periods but then again not the best either. Would you want to shoulder mount the FX6? Seems like a mismatch to me.

No worries. Everybody will use what they need. The mount depth explains it then. Thanks.

@Samuel I might not choose this, but I'd definitely choose something with proper camcorder ergonomics.

* Proper grip for video.

* Video-friendly controls.

* Proper audio built-in (ideally, XLR inputs with good controls).

* Decent mike built-in, isolated from AF/IS/etc.

* Enough battery for a long shoot.

* Etc.

I can do some of this with a franken-setup with a mirrorless, with special accessories screwed on for XLR, for grip, for power, and what-not, but it's not fun.

Disclaimer: I have both; a pair of older, proper camcorders, and a small fleet of mirrorless bodies.

Samuel,
"You would have to have a better reason than that"
Better than which reason? I didn't write any reason.
Fx6 is a better overall video camera. A7SIII has funny limitations or crippled functions compared to FX6.
A7s iii has also advantages but FX6 is a better package.

The FX9 add-on pistol grip produces a similar result to the bare α7S III. Can you explain what you mean by “proper grip”, Alphoid?

Shoulder-mounted ENG cameras like the Z450 / Z750 are a different kettle of fish. Those have very different ergonomics (and far more controls than the tiny FX6). They’re designed for speed of operation.

I don’t deny the FX6 has great advantages for certain specific uses. For example, it has much less noise reduction (optionally none?). The baked-in noise reduction of the α7S III can be a nuisance.

NexUser: “better overall” is a fanciful generalised notion. There is only “better” in specific ways for specific uses, and even then usually only for specific people.

The α7S III is way more flexible than any cine camera *and* way less expensive. You’d have to have concrete reasons to prefer an FX6 … which obviously exist (hence the huge order backlog).

They both have their place. The ergonomic controls, superb color and flexibility of an FS5 make it a pleasure to use. However when built-up in a rig with rails and motors, a 2# camera becomes 16#, and needs a 25" case to hold it.

The A7Sm3 has the same color and profiles of the FS5/FX6 in a much smaller package, even in fighting trim. Unlike earlier A7's, it can be powered from a V-mount battery via USB-C, not a flakey "dummy" battery. The full-sized HDMI connector is a huge improvement. I generally run SDI to a switching console, but a small BMD converter, powered from the video battery, does the trick.

Yes, there are applications for both types of cameras, a dedicated cinema cam and a mirrorless, as Jordan points out.

Generally, those for whom a cinema camera like the FX6 makes sense know who they are and they know the specific reasons why they would get a cinema camera. A general consumer would probably not be buying the FX6. I'm sure some do but end up returning it or just not using it much once they realize they need more experience in video to really utilize it.

"If I am really into video, I'd choose this over A7SIII."

That you for letting us know you would choose a video camera if you are really into video.

NexUser: I’m not agitated but curious to know *why* that is your choice, this being a discussion forum. I’m starting to think the answer is that you don’t know. Fine!

I see nothing ergonomic about the FX6 or any of these ‘cine’ cameras. They don’t work like shoulder-mounted cameras that may appear superficially similar to the uninitiated. Nor are they handheld cameras like the α7S III.

The FX6 is shaping up to be a great camera, don’t get me wrong. But ergonomic it ain’t. At least Canon is trying in that regard with the C70, etc.

Just to be clear I have lots of issues with lots of Variable NDs, but still think there are some good ones around.
Having hard stops avoids issues with Xs (which you will always get if you go too dark, but by then it's usually also too dark to be useful for video).
Some cheap-ish ones lose performance at longer focal lengths.
Some include a free Circular Polariser you can't control, including the "updated" Hoya one, here's me being a little rude to Hoya:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62888698
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62889743
Here's Philip Bloom on the Heliopan (from a while back), I do find some squeak when turned though:
https://philipbloom.net/2011/06/04/the-best-variable-nd-filter-i-have-used/

Those aren't camcorders.