DPReview TV: Sony FX3 review - cinema camera or a7S III in disguise?

By Cinema, Sony and Canon appear to mean ‘any kind of video that will never end up in a cinema’.

Cameras used for cinema production, like the Arris and Reds, don’t need ND filters. The talent can smoke a cigarette while some lackey changes the ND filter.

The real world doesn’t wait and isn’t full of lackeys, so cameras used for event coverage, documentary, etc., benefit from built-in ND filters. The FX3 and FX6 are aimed at this sort of thing rather than narrative film.

I have heard nothing about a Canon C50 but imagine it won’t be full-frame, since the C70 is not. I wryly note that Canon, who generated the harmful and irrational obsession with magical full-frame in stills-land, is now awkwardly stuck at Super 35 in video. That won’t last, of course. Buying expensive Super 35 glass today is a sucker’s game.

And variable NDs both in front and behind the lens are hardly problematic. Again, yes a built in ND is nicer to have, but there is little to nothing in this price range and form factor that has them. Plus any that do are definitely not full frame or have the breadth of capabilities that the FX3 does. They make a camera one level above this for a reason.

None of the niggles are going to take away from what this camera offers at this end of the market.

The FX3 clearly aims for those who want to shoot long uninterrupted takes (concerts, interviews, long talks/presentations) and who want to keep their videography equipment as light as possible.
The camera is even more optimized for unlimited recording time than the A7siii due to the built in fan.

@ottonis Your examples are perfectly fine for A7SIII, too. FX3 is fine for an entire day of continuous noninterrupted shooting. Or, interrupted only for recording media change.
A7SIII is perfectly fine for 1.5 - 2 hours of interviews, sports events, concerts. FX3 is for extra long videography.

Cinema cameras have not historically had built-in ND filters. You're talking about ENG cameras.

Nor are cinema cameras full-frame. The full-frame-only fad is catering to ignorant fanboys who have no idea that full-frame refers to STILL 35mm cameras, not motion pictures.

Elisam: variable NDs are problematic in themselves and external filters are a major time-waster and risk (of scratches to lens and filter). Just keeping the filters clean is a job.

Alam12 and Francis: I’m not saying the use of Super 35 equipment is for suckers but that buying it now will expose you to massive depreciation.

Full-frame is taking over video as surely as it did stills. This does not have a rational basis but follows fashion and marketing (with nonsensical terms like “full” frame), just as in stills. Look at the success of the FX6 or Alexa LF. Canon will inevitably follow suit (and already has done at the high end with the C700 and C500 Mark II).

Cinema camera released in 2020

Blackmagic Design URSA Mini Pro 12K. S35
Canon EOS C70 Cinema Camera. S35
Canon EOS C300 Mark III Cinema Camera. S35
Panasonic LUMIX BGH1. M 43
RED DIGITAL CINEMA KOMODO 6K. S35
Sony FX6. FF
Sony FX3. FF
Z CAM E2-M4. S35
Blackmagic pocket 6k :S35

6 use Super 35, and looks like going nowhere

Also, FF on cinema camera is a complete mess, almost everyone make their own "FF size" so some lens may work and some lens need cropping, throw it on S35 and you get all the lenses work

The spreadsheets are often wrong, though.

I love the look of this camera, you know, the industrial design. In fact that seems to be the main appeal. Sexy design that shouts “pro” to people who care (mainly non-professionals, by the way).

And in isolation, the FX3 makes more sense than it does alongside the well established α7S III.

But imagine if Sony had made a ~500 g full-frame FX3, by removing the shutter and stabilisation mech and making the body smaller, BGH1-style, instead of this camera that is functionally similar to the α7S III.

Then the software omissions would be more easily forgiven, something genuinely new would be offered, and there would be clear daylight between the FX3, α7S III, and FX6.

As it is, I find the line-up confusing and needlessly unsatisfying at every level below the FX6.

Don’t get me wrong – attractive camera. But not as strong as it easily could have been in today’s market.

@SomeGuyWithA Camera

"Shooting waist level? WHY? So the poor quality screen is farther from my eyes? Seriously???? I was wanting to get one of these for my next work cam (corporate documentary camera) But that top toggle... That ALONE means its not going to happen. I'm NOT fighting with that stupid thing on a tripod all the time."

Sony has made the perfect camera for you - it's called the A7sIII. No 'top toggle' and a 9.2mdot EVF so you don't have to shoot waist level.

It’s not intended to compete with their FX6, they already have an FX6. Sounds like you’re just p!$$ed it isn’t an FX6 for $3800. Perhaps you’d like to buy the other perfect full frame doco cameras for $3800.... there’s the 🤔 and the... erm... and the 🤷🏻‍♂️

We’re so busy being p!$$y about minor things we’ve completely forgotten just how amazing cameras are these days. This can do 4K 120 with basically no limitations, in full frame, with amazing AF and halfway decent IBIS with added gyro data IS. It’s got excellent battery life, good codecs, external linear RAW output with full sized connectors and decent audio capabilities with inbuilt rigging options and no overheating. You want to p!$$ and moan about the LCD?

If you can’t shoot a decent doco on this thing, the problem is NOT the camera.

@elisam No offense mate, but as a videographer, I don't think you understand the video production market. It's not a Hollywood grade B cam, and it's not intuitive enough for run-and-gun. It's not good enough for a documentarian either because of the huge amount of odd quirks. I wouldn't get it just because I wouldn't want to spend so much time fighting with it.

I see it useful for event/concert videography as part of a team of cameras. Also it would be very effective for steadycam work, mounted on a small motorized gimbal (DJI S2), slider or jib. In any case do you don't need much access to the menu - the settings are made to be consistent with the other cameras.

You might not even need to record internally, rather use a recorder/monitor, WiFi monitor/transmitter, or SDI connection to a central switcher.

@It's_a_knife

"This is going up against the c70, bmpcc 6k pro, and the red Komodo. I think those three cameras have way better offerings than the fx3."

All of the cameras you've listed are aps-c, not Full Frame and none of them shoots 4K120 like the FX3. They're also a lot more expensive apart from the BM, and all of them are much, much bigger in size.

The Fx3 is about offering a FF sensor with fast read out at 24/60/120, a big range of mix-and-match codecs and sampling rates and excellent AF, in a very small package. As such there's nothing to touch it - except the A7sIII.

If you don't need that or want features not present - sure there are other options.

@SomeGuyWithACamera

"It's not good enough for a documentarian either because of the huge amount of odd quirks."

Huge amount of odd quirks? Lol. Yeah, it's really quirky - sub 9ms readout in all 4K modes. All i up to 4K120, Real Time Tracking AF, 4 channel audio...

"I wouldn't get it just because I wouldn't want to spend so much time fighting with it."

Somehow I think you have been fighting with Sony cameras for many years and will continue to do so, no matter what they bring out.

I have to agree. Don't get the comparison with the other cameras at all. The closest one would be the BMPCC6k, but without AF, it's a totally different market. And the Red is a massive camera. More like an FX6, not the FX3.

The FX3 is a small powerhouse. Great AF, reliable, fast readout and compact. Add an Atomos Ninja and you have even more flexibility. Ideal for smaller (or smarter) video agencies.

The biggest competitors are not the ones mentioned. It would be the Panasonic. But Panasonic still lacks in AF technology.

FX3 has its trenghts including size, but for many documentarian who do not use external monitors, small and poor FX-3 LCD is enough reason to forget about it. Sony has problem with bringing - even in top cams - poor and small LCDs... and it made here same big mistake.

So, "cinematic camera" in 2021 without good LCD and ND?

Mateus1 not sure it is. Would they be better with a BMPCC6K that doesn't have AF? Would they be better with a Panasonic with wobbly AF? Would they be better with a RED that is much bigger and has worst positioned LCD? Or would they be better with the R5 with overheating problems?

There's no perfect camera. I would choose a worst LCD and get an external recorder with more potencial over any of the other options if I was doing a doc.

“ Why do you think that? This is going up against the c70, bmpcc 6k pro, and the red Komodo. I think those three cameras have way better offerings than the fx3.”

All super 35 cameras. All bigger by a fair margin. Two of them are considerably more expensive. If this is going up against those than what does the FX6 compete with? Oh and none of them have IBIS. This camera offers a lot that those don’t. Komodo has no ND like the Sony. Komodo crops to get higher frame rates. They are basically non comparable. That doesn’t make any of them bad, just that they aren’t competition for this camera.

“ @elisam No offense mate, but as a videographer, I don't think you understand the video production market. It's not a Hollywood grade B cam, and it's not intuitive enough for run-and-gun. It's not good enough for a documentarian either because of the huge amount of odd quirks. I wouldn't get it just because I wouldn't want to spend so much time fighting with it.”

It’s not really a cinema camera (despite the branding). As for doco - What quirks exactly? No ND? Easily worked around. Other than that... Uhm very few quirks compared to pretty much any other camera even remotely in the price bracket. Nothing comes close in a video centric camera.

Alright, well who cares about full frame vs super 35mm. That's an argument for noobs. Yeah, the FX3 is cheaper but to get the features of the other cameras, you're going to need to build it out some and by time you've done that, you're at the same cost of a C70.

That's all I am going to say, but some of you need to go out shooting more and jump off the DPR comments.

@its_a_knife but not everyone needs the features from the other cameras.
I shoot fashion and beauty. I need a second body to film clips for advertising mostly on social media, and some in store displays. I need good AF on a light body that can travel well with my stills kit.

What would a C70 give me that this doesn't? What would a massive RED bring to the table?

I think this is where the fx3 shines. A great complement for someone like me that is having more and more video work but doesn't need something like an FX6. A light, cheap and portable creative tool.

You want it as a webcam?

@BTN1: True. Most Youtubers use smartphones, and of those who use something else, most use sub-$1000 cameras, one of the most popular being the Canon M50.

The YouTubers who use the expensive gear, like those who went to the a7sIII, are the small minority with enough viewers to afford it. Look at the subscriber count of those who do use equipment like this.

Many youtubers claim to have A7iii.

Because they have to make money via YouTube in order to afford a camera like this 🤦🏻‍♂️

Alpha camera? Yeah because everyone is an Alpha these days 🤦🏻‍♂️

There is a significant market for this type of camera. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Its to keep to the 180 deg rule, apparently it looks pleasing and a standard in cinema, don't think too much, a shutter angle option makes life easier for videos.

DPReview TV: Why Shutter Angle Is Better Than Shutter Speed (for video):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4vg1Qmb0Eg

I'm no videographer but I know a few who are and they all prefer working with shutter angle from an operational standpoint. It's what they've been trained on, it's faster and more efficient and reduces the potential for errors. There's a reason why the more expensive cinema cameras, including from Sony, all offer shutter angle as a settings mode.

I don't know why all digital hybrid cameras don't offer the option for shutter angle. It is just a matter of math and it so happens modern cameras have computers built in, and so can handle these calculations easily.

So yes, any camera sold as a cinema camera should offer shutter angle, as well as at least some of the features articulated by the OP.

I think it is partly about keeping costs down. For those who require these features the FX6 is a remarkable camera for its price point. Something has to give for this price and size.

Some users will also appreciate the stills features of this camera, which cinema cameras lack. No it wouldn’t be anyone’s primary stills camera, but it is still very useful and capable. I think in most ways the FX3 makes more sense than the A7S III.

Not many cameras have a true 24 fps setting (hence 1/48 shutter speed). Most are downsampled 3:2. Furthermore many cameras labeled 24 actually output 23.96. A notable exception is an iPhone, which says 24, 30, etc. and means 24.0, 30.0, etc. I get a mix of every possible combination in my work. Fortunately, Premiere Pro does an excellent job conforming the non-conformers.

I stay with broadcast drop-frame for most of my work: 29.97 or 59.98. I have the option to use shutter angle, but choose to use seconds.

@4sofnature Sony would NEVER, EVER give it anamorphic mode, their Cine line charges an extra license for that, there's NO WAY they are going to want people to think of this against their more expensive cameras.

true 24p - Yes that is stupid so stupid I suspect they will fix it in a firmware update.

waveform - also not gonna happen, they SHOULD to make it more competitive against Panasonic and canon but I doubt they will.
DCI 4K - Does anyone really use this :?
time code - Again such a dumb choice I think it will come in a firmware update
internal ND - Very good point
better LCD - %1000 YES

@SomeGuyWithACamera
All of the features I listed are common on both FX6 and FX9, both of which are Netflix approved cameras. If I could only pick 5 of those features for FX3, I would pick true 24p, shutter angle, time code, internal ND (or waveform), better LCD while keeping the Alpha camera menu. In fact I don't mind the camera costing more than it is for having all of those features despite in a different form factor.

Small, easy fixing points, run for flight duration without issue. We'll see.

Hardly anyone has a license to fly a drone capable of carrying an FX3. Furthermore it takes a team of at least two - one to fly and the other to observe.

Sony's drone sure looked big enough to me: https://www.dpreview.com/news/1525095759/sony-shows-off-its-upcoming-airpeak-drone-flying-steadily-in-44mph-winds -- in fact, it is carrying a FF alpha. BTW, pilot + observer is the norm for proper drone flights.

While the a7sIII generally doesn't have overheating problems there is a reason why Sony put the fan into the FX3. They didn't put it there for no purpose.

As the video makes clear, the a7sIII does sometimes overheat a lot faster in conditions of bright sunlight and heat. Think filming an outdoor wedding in Florida in the summer. As Mike one time pointed out, the reason could be that the passive heat exchange system works so well that it causes this in really warm environmental conditions.

Heat flows from the hotter region to the cooler. Under many conditions where the camera is used, the camera will generate heat and that heat will be dissipated from the camera to the cooler environment. But what if the environment starts out hotter than the camera? Then the heat flows from the outside to the inside.

Also if you record a very long period of time it's nice to have the peace of mind of the cooling fan.

Well, you could record to an external source, and I believe with the a7sIII and thus this model that you can change one memory card while continuing to record to the other.

But the point remains: Sony put the fan Into the FX3 for a reason.

Overheating problems? No, not really. But if your needs require that it never overheats, the FX3 is going to be the better choice. A7S III has very good thermal thresholds for a fabless ‘hybrid’. So I wouldn’t say it has an overheating problem unlike some other cameras.

Another thing to consider: the cooler the sensor, the less noisy it is as well. (I'm no videographer so no idea how important this might be for video, but it certainly is for astro so I'd guess any high-iso low-light work would benefit)

There's no way to make an FX6 small, even if you remove the handle. It is always 3x the size of an A7Siii or FX3. On the other hand, all the key controls are outside on the FX6, while many are buried in the FX3 menu. It also has an SDI port, which is preferable to HDMI for professional use.

I have an FS5, which is great to use but bulky. I would never consider using it in a light drizzle. Not so with the A7Siii or (probaby) the FX3.

Hmm how to explain that prores raw isn’t a Sony format either???

Go on Stonejack. Name us those "sony only cards".

Memory Stick; Memory Stick Duo.

Prores is Apple, Braw is Blackmagic but the biggest issue regarding raw format is RED holding some patents with regards to compressed RAW, I hope RED goes bankrupt.

Why hope that RED goes bankrupt? If they developed a useful format they deserve to be compensated for it. Companies can license it from RED.

I don't hope any legitimate company goes bankrupt because that has huge costs for employees and customers.

Blackmagic video assist already works with Panasonic, sigma, canon and Nikon. So it's not a licensing problem. It's just sony and Blackmagic talking and adding support on the Blackmagic recorder.

Oh look, Stonejack being a twaddling idiot again.

Enjoying your Sony XQD format in your Z6? Muppet.

Sony trolls can't listen to justified critique is nothing new. Sony just only recently stopped (and maybe even didn't stop) to put its proprietary formats, magic gates, betacams, memory sticks everywhere possible. Well, market passed by all those Sony formats including the XQD. Sony lost audio market to ipods and Apple, TVs to Samsung and LG, sold notebooks to private consortiumn, its smartphones lost to everyone possible, even in premium headphones AudioTechnica, even Apple are way ahead, and it seems Sony is on its merry way to become Playstation mostly company. It is also losing its way in cameras (This fx is a good example of not good for stills, not good for video Sony). Good riddance of Sony formats.

I'm not sorry I bought an A7Siii. Had the FX3 been out, I would have given it serious consideration, or bought both. An EVF is not much use on a tripod or gimbal, but the LCD is equally useless outdoors in sunlight. The older I get the and the more cameras I run, more I appreciate high performance with small size and weight.

“ But sometimes they just kind of repackage their existing tech into more lackluster releases, like the a7c and now the FX3. They aren't the only company to do that, but as with other companies, it needs to be noted.”

So like EOS R, RP, R6, M200, M50, M5, M6 II, 90D, 500D, 550D, 600D, 650D, 700D, 750D, 800D, 850D, 100D, 200D, 200D II, M50 II, M100, M, M10, M2, 1DC, C100, C100 II, C300, C300 II, C200, C70...

I’m sure I could go on.

Fuji cameras use one basic design and spawn dozens of variants that are effectively the same camera. Olympus. Nikon. Pentax.

Sony have way more unique hardware combinations and yet they use the same basic camera in TWO models and you decide to call them out.

Well yeah, that’s pretty much to be expected from you.