The tiny FX3 is part of Sony's line of professional cinema cameras, but it's basically a Sony a7S III under the hood. Jordan shows us how it's different and tells us which one he would choose.
The thing that puzzles me about Sony and really any company that puts out a camera that purports to be for heavy video usage, is why they don't put in that shutter angle feature.
All it takes is the software; it's just a calculation. And computers are great at calculation. There is no hardware change required.
Sony could add this feature with a software update. And also, any other company can add this to any camera they release that they claim is video-centric.
It seems to me that if you want to claim your camera is a "cinema" camera that it needs to have the type of features that cinematographers are used to, like shutter angle.
Then there was the issue of not having separate modes for video and stills. I was hired to shoot both video and stills at a party. I wound up having to shoot stills in SLog because I might have had to roll video on an instant's notice.
I am an absolute Sony fan, but I am totally with you guys. Most things Sony makes brilliantly, but, weirdly, for some features or lack of them I am completely puzzled: all of these are simply softare, shutter angle, new touch menu, separate modes for video. Fortunately, you can live with these limitations easily. But true, these could be done a lot better. On the other hand, whenever I gave a try to other cameras, I always came back to Sony eventually. E mount ecosystem is huge.
The FX3 delivers exactly the same IQ and overall performance as the A7siii, with a slightly different control button layout, that might be helpful to some videographers and not to others. The XLR adaptor hints to documentary work/interviews being a primary target scenario for the FX3 that is overheating-proof by the help inbuilt fan and allows for very long takes. So, in my opinion, this is a very niche product for a very limited crowd, that wants a small and compact solution for long uninterrupted takes.
Sony’s marketing is the most confusing in the camera industry.
The lack of internal ND filter reveals this camera to be Cinema in name only. That token effort would have explained the two cameras’ presence in the line-up (this and the α7S III) and justified the lack of software video features (to protect the FX6).
Without ND filters, where is the value?
It’s not as if the α7S III’s overheating is a big problem, outside a few pros shooting critical stuff with a single camera. The camera doesn’t usually overheat. And it has a great viewfinder.
Meanwhile, all the software omissions on the α7S III – no shutter angles, waveform monitor, DCI 4K, true 24p, time-code support, etc. – remain.
And yet, some α7S III owners must wish they had waited for the FX3. Was it worth annoying those customers, wasting effort on a similar camera instead of a unique one, and squandering one of the few remaining chances to grab market share before Canon points all barrels at Sony? My gut says no way.
Let’s see how much better the C50 is than this. Looking like not, at all, better. ND is hardly the biggest deal breaker. Yes it is nice having it in camera, but it’s not like you can’t have ND with it.
Shot the Alexa plenty with no ND, didn’t ever hear anyone complain about that. Correct me if I’m wrong, but no REDs have NDs built into them either.
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.
@samuel dilworth Well, physics, lens edge will always be softer than center, to fix that will be really really expensive
just an OK FF cine lens turned great on S35 btw, guess who is the sucker if forcing using bigger sensor but can't afford a lens that can pull it's full potential
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).
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
"buying it now will expose you to massive depreciation."
Only if you're relying on the demand from ignorant noobs. Which... one might be.
The full-frame camera you want is one that allows you to shoot at least 4K from a cropped Super-35-sized area. Sadly the Sony A7S III can't do that. The A1 can, and oversampled at that... for the price of a pretty good used car.
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.
Samuel Dilworth to do what you're saying they would've needed to redesign the entire interior of the camera. Battery position wouldn't be the same, chips wouldn't be in the same place, sensor mount would be totally different, etc, etc, etc.
All of that would require new development. This allows them to share the internals with the A7S, saving a lot of money.
And what other cameras at this price point and size have everything you're asking for?
We all want the best camera at the cheapest price. But realistically, is what they're offering good value for what they're asking?
The only thing in common between every "cinema camera" I can think of is that they all have at least two 1/4-20 holes on the body. The FX3 makes the term almost meaningless in the Sony lineup.
Nice review, guys. The FX3 fits into my work requirements, but the $600 audio adapter is something I could do without.
The tally light is most useful, IMO, if the videographer can see and not ignore it. Too many times I've accidentally stopped the recording, or not started it at all. It's too easy to press twice. I have tally lights that are big and bright, for multi-camera shoots and streaming so the tallent knows where to look. All the cameras run all the time, but the tally lights show which one is on air and which is cued up. They're operated by the switcher.
When you stream or record with multiple cameras, all are transmitting video at any one time but only one is live in the output. To be effective, the tally light must show red for on-air status, and ideally (in an M/E switcher) green for the camera in preview. The camera tally light is only on if you are recording internally, and you don't have to record to transmit via HDMI or SDI.
Some cameras reflect their control status, notably BMG Ursa cameras. This requires active control from the console, which is provided by BMG ATEM switchers, among others. I use and independent tally system, using ethernet commands by the ATEM to a tally control module.
This is SONY, they do not want this thing competing with their sales for their cine grade cameras. Canon does the same thing with their XF lineup, no waveform allowed, gotta get into their C line to do it. They want to separate their markets, if a smaller company without a cine line made it, it would probably have it. Im not surprised with the lack of 3rd party LUTs either, that's pretty standard for this range.
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.
No 48th of a second? Seriously?
It has potential but without some fixes, it's not happening.
TL;DR It's not amazing, it's about what I should have expected for this range, but fix the stupid Gameboy screen, and ergonomics, and the shutter speeds. Then ill look again.
So the FX3 is part of an ongoing conspiracy. You've been watching too many "evil corporation" movies.
This camera has essentially a built-in cage, with hard points which can support gear that would eventually break the smart shoe. If you've used a camera and a rig, you know that an EVF is of little use, and the rear LCD is used only for menu access.
"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.
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.
@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.
"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.
"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.
That’s a comment of defeat. I don’t disagree that S35 is still super strong, in fact it would be my preference. I’d take the C70 over this, for me. That doesn’t mean that the C70 is a direct competitor. FX6 is more like it, but offers a lot more. If this isn’t for you, feel free to say so. But that’s not saying this isn’t a superb tool.
I am really perplexed by the hate for this camera. It’s not much different from an A7S III? Who cares? That’s an excellent tool and so is this.
@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.
@TRU I kinda agree with you, its the one they WANT not the one they can afford, and as I have said like three other places, There are just way to many quirks for fluid use.
FX3 missed out on so many important cinema features - true 24p, shutter angle, waveform, anamorphic mode, DCI 4K, time code - not to mention internal ND, hybrid articulating screen, removable EVF, dual bottom 1/4 screw, better LCD, customizable noise reduction - that it only makes us question why Sony not only placed it in the FX line but also priced/spec'ed/released it so similarly/closely with A7S3.
If you think about it, the shutter angle in a mechanical camera cannot exceed 180 degrees, whereas in a digital camera 360 degrees is relatively common and "slow shutter" effects can exceed even that. If you can multiply and divide, I don't see how it matters when describing shutter speed.
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.
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.
@TRU "it's faster and more efficient and reduces the potential for errors." bingo. This is the exact argument for shutter angle in a working environment. Even more so when you're working in mixed frame rates on a project.
I hadn't realized until watching the DPR TV video that the camera doesn't have waveform either; I can't understand why this camera or the A7S III would have histogram and NOT waveform with the target market being video.
@SomeGuyWithACamera "DCI 4K - Does anyone really use this :?" I've honestly wondered the same thing: a lot of people talk about being happy to have it in their cameras, but between it not being a commonly delivered aspect ratio and being a terrible idea for filming anamorphic, cannot figure out why I'd ever want to use it..
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.
I bought an adapter which couples a Sony wireless receiver digitally through the smart shoe. Dangling mic cables are out of the question. Although I've tested it, there's been no reason to use it during the COVID panic. Instead, I shoot with 2-4 small cameras, connected to a multi-channel recorder with SDI inputs, and a pair of balanced inputs from my sound board.
I don't use or need an EFV. If I could remote the menu, I wouldn't need the LCD either.
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)
@Greg VdB the impact that heat has on SNR in modern sensors is something I've been really interested in learning more about - between the A7S III/FX3 and Panasonic S1/S1H, I haven't seen anything (ie manufacturer claims or real world tests) that shows active cooling having an effect on noise performance. I've been curious about whether the reason for that is because a/manufacturers don't want to acknowledge it, b/it would take sustained recording conditions to see a difference or c/sensors have gotten to the point of outgrowing the issue in a noticeable way - which doesn't seem possible from a physics standpoint, but the only recent mentions of the whole thing seem to be for sensors used for scientific applications
Had to watch the FX6 review again, trying to understand why this thing needs to exist. Seems like a very narrow use-case for all 3 cameras (the A7s3, FX3, and FX6) with very abnormal differentiation. Might come down to "how well will this fit with my existing rig" or "how many XLR inputs do I need" or other non image related things.
Meh, none of this is targeted at me as a hybrid shooter anyway. Good luck figuring out your purchasing decision!
Yeah, it seems like it just comes down to which form factor is better for your preferred workflow. The A7S III and FX3 share essentially the same guts (other than the fan and the EVF) but they have different bodies. Doesn't have to be more complicated than that.
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.
not going to happen. Feel lucky they did not put in betacam cassettes or magic gate or something like that sony only cards (forgot the exact name). Sony likes only ots own proprietary formats.
Only Sony makes CFxpress type A cards, which can be used as an alternative to SD cards, and are required when shooting at 600 Mb/s.
ProRes Raw is licensed from Black Magic, I believe. It is 12 bit rather than the full 16 bit, but has wide support for recording and edit editing. It is the only codec Atomos recorders can use for raw video.
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.
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.
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.
StoneJack, justified critique? You're the one talking about proprietary formats when the camera already records non proprietary formats... And you're talking about the brand that has a lens protocol available for third party manufacturers...
I was considering it to buy for documentary movies using it with build LCD only but it's the weakest part of FX-3 - small, low res, and very poor performance in bright light. So, no buy.
But if it had good 16x9 monitor it would be best selling Sony I suppose.
An Atoms Ninja V is ideal for the FX3 and also the A7Siii (or FX6). It is small, weighs very little, and has a 1920x1080 display which can be used in bright sunlight.
totally agree with Jordan's review. 2 things he missed (highlighted by LinusTech's team.) -bottom tripod mount (centre) is 1 instead of 2 This makes aligning a perfect 90deg on tripod difficult. -with audio setup, not only it is cheaper (sans mic), it is more compact than A7Siii with the same audio setup.
Yes, the camera is as it appeared to be from the beginning: a repurposed a7s iii.
It has its uses as articulated by Jordan but as he also notes, they missed some opportunities to make it more of a true cinema camera, like leaving out features like shutter angle, waveforms, etc.
Also with the FX3 you can see the downfall of having that lower res back screen, where you don't have a nice EVF to compensate. This also makes the decision by Sony to put those better LCD screens in the older a7r4 and a7r3 even more puzzling: they could have put the better screens in this FX3 model as well.
Sometimes, as with the a7s III and a1, Sony hits it out of the park with very innovative and high performing cameras. 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.
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.
It is not a real video camera, so yes, it is same thing with a different name. When Apple decided to release multiple variants of its macs under dfifferent names (like Performa, LC, etc), it went almost bankrupt, because consumers were so confused by same things under different names. Same with Fuji E and XT-3, same thing, slightly different design. Did not help them much.
IMHO you cannot mix up the Fuji E line with anything else in their camera lineup. If people obsess over 4 way button vs joystick or PASM or not, placement of EVF is outright intuitive. What Fuji did screw up was e. g. the H1, though.
It took me years to figure out the different as a photography newbie between the 800d (t7i), 77d and 80d! Sony won’t be the first or last company to do such things with product lines. Most people buying cameras won’t post on these comments, so Sony will soon see whether this strategy works based on their sales. Perhaps they had feedback to encourage such products. Only they will know.
Canon's EOS R7 is a 33MP APS-C enthusiast mirrorless camera built around the RF mount. It brings advanced autofocus and in-body stabilization to the part of the market currently served by the EOS 90D.
The Canon EOS R10 is a 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera built around Canon's RF mount. It's released alongside a collapsible 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM zoom to give a usefully compact, remarkably 'Rebel'-like camera.
It says Olympus on the front, but the OM System OM-1 is about the future, not the past. It may still produce 20MP files, but a quad-pixel AF Stacked CMOS sensor, 50 fps shooting with full AF and genuine, IP rated, weather sealing show OM Digital Solutions' ambition. See what we thought.
Is the GH6 the best hybrid camera there is? Jordan has been shooting DPReview TV with the Panasonic GH6 for months, so he has plenty of experience to back up his strong opinions.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
Most modern cameras will shoot video to one degree or another, but these are the ones we’d look at if you plan to shoot some video alongside your photos. We’ve chosen cameras that can take great photos and make it easy to get great looking video, rather than being the ones you’d choose as a committed videographer.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
Canon's EOS R10 and R7 share a lot of their spec, including an impressive AF system, but the closer you look, the more differences emerge. We look at how the two models compare.
The SmartSoft Box allows the degree of its diffusion to be controlled electronically and varied in 100 increments from clear to heavily frosted via the main control panel of the Rotolight AEOS 2 light. Changes in electrical charge alter the diffusion and the angle of coverage of the light
Camera accessory company Nine Volt now offers a camera body cap that includes a secret compartment designed to hold an Apple AirTag tracking device, giving victims of camera theft hope for recovering a lost camera.
The R7's 32.5 megapixel APS-C sensor is an interesting prospect for sports and wildlife shooters. Check out our shots from sunny (and scorching) Florida to see how it performs.
Canon just launched an entry level camera using the RF Mount! You should probably take a look at some photos it (and Chris Niccolls) captured in Florida.
Canon's EOS R7 is a 33MP APS-C enthusiast mirrorless camera built around the RF mount. It brings advanced autofocus and in-body stabilization to the part of the market currently served by the EOS 90D.
The Canon EOS R10 is a 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera built around Canon's RF mount. It's released alongside a collapsible 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM zoom to give a usefully compact, remarkably 'Rebel'-like camera.
Chris and Jordan took a trip to sweltering Florida to test out Canon's new RF-Mount APS-C cameras. Give it a watch to find out our initial impressions.
The Canon EOS R7 brings a 32.5MP APS-C CMOS sensor to the RF mount. In addition to stills at up to 15 fps (30 fps with e-shutter), the camera offers IBIS and 4K/60p video.
While its lineage is clearly inspired by Canon's line of Rebel DSLRs, this 24MP APS-C mirrorless camera takes plenty of inspiration from Canon's more capable full-frame mirrorless cameras.
These two RF-mount lenses are designed to be paired with Canon's new APS-C mirrorless cameras, the EOS R7 and EOS R10. Both lenses offer seven stops of image stabilization and use Canon's stepping motor technology to drive their internal AF systems.
Late last week, DJI quietly released a firmware update for the Mini 3 Pro drone that adds, amongst other improvements, 10-bit video recording in the D-Cinelike video profile.
The patent explains how the auto-zoom feature could use a combination of digital and optical zoom to better frame subjects within a composition with little to no input from the camera operator.
360-degree action cam manufacturer Insta360 has shared a teaser video for a new product set to be announced tomorrow. And based on the visuals provided, it appears as though it might involve some kind of drone.
The Ricoh GR IIIx is a popular camera among photo enthusiasts thanks to its small size and 40mm (equivalent) F2.8 lens. Ricoh's GT-2 tele conversion lens is a 1.5X converter that extends this focal length, though it comes with some compromises. Learn more about it and check out our sample gallery shot with the GT-2 on the camera.
This 'Mark III' lens offers a few improvements over its predecessors to get even better image quality out of its ultra-fast design. The lens is available for Canon EOS R, Fujifilm X, Leica L, Micro Four Thirds, Nikon Z and Sony E-mount APS-C camera systems.
Chris and Jordan are out of the office this week, so we're taking a trip in the wayback machine to feature a classic episode of DPRTV: a review of the EOS R, Canon's first full-frame mirrorless camera.
Last week, we featured Markus Hofstätter's scanner rebuild, which saw him spend three months bringing back to life a massive scanner to better digitize his collection of large format photographs. This week, we're taking a look at the results, kicked off by a beautifully detailed 30cm x 40cm collodion wet plate portrait.
The lenses lack autofocus and image stabilization, but offer a fast maximum aperture in an all-metal body that provides a roughly 50mm full-frame equivalent focal length on Fujifilm and Sony APS-C cameras.
Apple has responded to an open letter published last month, wherein more than 100 individuals in the entertainment industry asked Apple to improve the development and promotion of Final Cut Pro.
Venus Optics has launched its Indiegogo campaign for its new Nanomorph lenses, revealing additional details about the world’s smallest anamorphic lenses.
Most smartphones these days offer great-looking video and make vlogging very easy, but there are always accessories that can help to make your footage, and you, look even better
The WG-80 remains largely unchanged from the WG-70, but it now has a front LED ring light that's twice as bright as its predecessor. Aside from that, the 16MP CMOS sensor and 28-140mm full-frame equivalent lens stays the same.
Comments