FX9 / FX3 raw any good?

[Martin.G]

So what is the concensus about raw quality from these cameras after some use now?

I have a project where i am going to shoot landscape photography (non-timelapse) with sunsets and shadows, with Davinci grading afterwards. And im wondering if getting a Ninja V+ might be worth it. But then again, perhaps even FX9 raw for an even better image?

 

[Grug]

Personally I find the FX9's raw recording solution to be far too physically cumbersome, so I won't use it myself. The FX3 is much simpler in that you simply attach a monitor to the camera (Ninja V+) and that offers you a fairly streamlined raw recording solution.

If you want to use the FX3's high ISO mode, then I would absolutely recommend using the Ninja V+ for raw, as it will bypass the intensive noise reduction that gets applied to it's internal XAVC recording.

With the FX3, shooting raw at 12,800 ISO, allows you to overexpose the image a stop or two (which you can then bring down in post) in order to achieve very clean, low-noise, high ISO performance. It allows the FX3 to match the FX6 in that regard (where, otherwise, its internal noise reduction would get in the way).

I am however (as someone who uses Davinci Resolve grading, and works with post houses who also use Davinci Resolve) not a fan of the current Prores Raw to Prores4444 workflow required to work with that footage in Resolve.

So if Resolve is an integral part of your post chain, and you can get away with just shooting the internal 10-bit XAVC codec - that is 100% the workflow I'd suggest going with - you're going to have a much easier time of things on the whole.

But if you want those 12-bit files, and are working with software that supports Prores Raw natively, then I'd say go for it.