Sony FX3 camcorder registered - 8K?

ozmorphasis said:
I seriously doubt there is ND, but if it has eND, then it can be set to auto and you NEVER, EVER need to turn it off after unboxing the camera and turning the variable auto ND on. Ok, back to reality: It won't have ND.
Click to expand...
The only reason I thought it had ND was that I was trying to think of what exclusive feature would a video centric camera have to differentiate itself from a hybrid camera such as the A7s3. And there has been some tech advancement that they can be fit in small spaces or it's a layer on the sensor, so no mechanical filters...

It looks like a very niche camera with its only selling point is it has attachment points on the body. Must have other features but seems like not a lot separating itself from the a7s3
 
Last edited:
ozmorphasis said:
I seriously doubt there is ND, but if it has eND, then it can be set to auto and you NEVER, EVER need to turn it off after unboxing the camera and turning the variable auto ND on. Ok, back to reality: It won't have ND.
Click to expand...

what if you want to manually control the exposure instead of accepting the dictates of the meter? I mean, you could be adjusting the metering response with the exposure compensation dial, but six of one, half a dozen of the other
 
I also highly doubt there's ND but latest gen AF and eND would be the two biggest innovations in the (pro) drone world in a long time so you never know.
 
rob norton said:
I meant on screen like other functions you can adjust without going into the menu.
Click to expand...
Sony has been pretty far behind Canon offering touch screen functions while recording. Even if the did, the only time you'd be using ND is outside in bright sunlight which make using the lcd difficult.
 
Peter C. said:
Sony has been pretty far behind Canon offering touch screen functions while recording. Even if the did, the only time you'd be using ND is outside in bright sunlight which make using the lcd difficult.
Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s going to happen but I’d take the camera with ND, even if it’s accessed by the screen than the same camera without that feature.

I have a feeling the majority of ND users are using in more situations than exclusively exterior bright sunlight.
 
rob norton said:
I don’t think it’s going to happen but I’d take the camera with ND, even if it’s accessed by the screen than the same camera without that feature.
Click to expand...

Ditto

I have a feeling the majority of ND users are using in more situations than exclusively exterior bright sunlight.
Click to expand...

Especially with that terrific ISO 12800. For a varied walkaround interior, you can set the camera to the brightest exposure you'll need and let the ND do the rest. The worst thing about how I currently use the A7SIII for long take gallery exhibition gimbal shots is that I let auto ISO adjust exposure and the settings just below 12800 are noisy as hell.
 
My fear is that people will flock to this camera thinking that because it has a handle with an audio input, it will somehow be better than or a replacement for a proper cinema camera. You can see people saying that online already.

I love mirrorless cameras and what they offer and use cameras like my A7SIII for B-cam shots all the time in my work. But, I hate seeing these young guys convince themselves that they are better tools for video than a proper cinema camera like the FX6 or FX9 simply because they are smaller and cheaper. They are not the same thing.

I cannot find freelance shooters in my area to hire anymore who have anything other than a mirrorless camera or DSLR for video. Many don’t even own tripods these days. It’s insane!
 
Last edited:
Industry's always changing...truth is that mirrorless' are now considered proper cinema cameras for many.

Maybe not traditionally as in that expensive piece of hardware that has NDs or XLR inputs or can balance well on the shoulder, but more in the sense of a device that can do everything really well for many people in the new world of content production that's highly inspired by YouTube.

Years ago old timers required servo zoom lenses for their cameras to be proper.
 
Joshua Milligan said:
My fear is that people will flock to this camera thinking that because it has a handle with an audio input, it will somehow be better than or a replacement for a proper cinema camera. You can see people saying that online already.

I love mirrorless cameras and what they offer and use cameras like my A7SIII for B-cam shots all the time in my work. But, I hate seeing these young guys convince themselves that they are better tools for video than a proper cinema camera like the FX6 or FX9 simply because they are smaller and cheaper. They are not the same thing.

I cannot find freelance shooters in my area to hire anymore who have anything other than a mirrorless camera or DSLR for video. Many don’t even own tripods these days. It’s insane!
Click to expand...

The rub is more about money/cost/wages than mirrorless vs "proper" imho. Is this for corporate work or film production? The pay scale often does not warrant buying a $6,000 + accessories on up camera for many people. How much are you willing to pay shooters to bring a $10,000 camera plus lenses along with them? Does it match your project budgets? I am not a fan of the term "cinema camera". Lets face it, there are good cameras and there are better cameras. They are all mirrorless with some level of sensor and inputs. It is more about professional vs semi-professional on down. It is tough to know what these categories are anymore as they used to be defined by experience which translated to large dollar investment into gear.

So Sony comes out with a lower priced camera that produces very nice images. The whole balance is thrown off as experienced operators can make the new camera sing but prefer to use higher end gear. Newbies want the low barrier of entry model just to hang their shingle, but that image quality is still part of the package. It still comes back to dollars and what is experience worth?


I can see your pain as somebody who owns a lot of gear and think of it as an extension of my business. But, I can say that I fall in to the category that I can not justify more than the cost of owning mirrorless cameras. The tech is changing so quickly that you take a risk buying something expensive and not being able to sell it for very much in a short time period.
 
I'm talking more about the guys that drop $3,500 into a camera like the A7SIII, then go on to buy a set of Peter McKinnon Polar Pro ND filters for another $500, the K3M adaptor for audio for $600, a cage for another $400 just to get a top handle and places to mount your accessories, all just to have a camera that can do what a camera like the FX6 can do out of the box. By the time you spend that kind of money, you could've just bought the right video tool to begin with. Those same people then throw that camera on a monopod and call themselves a cinematographer.

I get that the FX3 looks to eliminate the need to buy a cage by intergrading screw holes and adding a top handle and an audio adapter, but the cost is higher and you still have to have ND filters and by the time you add that, your photo camera is now back up to the cost nearly of a camera like the FX6. I just see this so often and it doesn't make sense to me.

I want to hire guys who show up with a solid tripod and a camera that's built for video, not a camera that relies on 100 attachments for it to shoot video and a monopod. But that's what we have today because of the rise of YouTubers and "content creators" (my least favorite term).
 
Just not getting the appeal of the fx3. Maybe because I don't fly my cameras? Nor do I get the appeal of building out a dslr style camera as Joshua said. Cinema camera (fs/fx etc.) + mirrorless as b-cam is the way to go IMO. Plus, does anyone else besides me find the fx3 to be horribly ugly?
 
Joshua Milligan said:
I'm talking more about the guys that drop $3,500 into a camera like the A7SIII, then go on to buy a set of Peter McKinnon Polar Pro ND filters for another $500, the K3M adaptor for audio for $600, a cage for another $400 just to get a top handle and places to mount your accessories, all just to have a camera that can do what a camera like the FX6 can do out of the box. By the time you spend that kind of money, you could've just bought the right video tool to begin with. Those same people then throw that camera on a monopod and call themselves a cinematographer.

I get that the FX3 looks to eliminate the need to buy a cage by intergrading screw holes and adding a top handle and an audio adapter, but the cost is higher and you still have to have ND filters and by the time you add that, your photo camera is now back up to the cost nearly of a camera like the FX6. I just see this so often and it doesn't make sense to me.

I want to hire guys who show up with a solid tripod and a camera that's built for video, not a camera that relies on 100 attachments for it to shoot video and a monopod. But that's what we have today because of the rise of YouTubers and "content creators" (my least favorite term).
Click to expand...

I've been hiring shooters in other states quite a bit lately. I always tell them or the booker, "No mirrorless, DSLRs, I expect an FS7, C300 MKII or better camera..." period. It's not even always the camera, it's the talent of the shooter.
Many people who only own mirrorless or a PCC 4K don't know how to shoot well, light, deal with clients, etc. at all. For me, the camera my hired shooter has is an indicator of being a pro and competent. Not every shooter who owns a
pro camera is a pro, but a lot of people who only own mirrorless and DSLRS are NOT pros.
 
scorsesefan said:
Just not getting the appeal of the fx3. Maybe because I don't fly my cameras? Nor do I get the appeal of building out a dslr style camera as Joshua said. Cinema camera (fs/fx etc.) + mirrorless as b-cam is the way to go IMO. Plus, does anyone else besides me find the fx3 to be horribly ugly?
Click to expand...

I built out one of my XT-3s with the whole shebang, cage, rods, FF, external battery, monitor. It's still a pretty terrible camera for handheld. Mirrorless and DSLR style cameras have gotten so good as far as image quality but ergonomically, they are too small and light to be a good video camera
and everthing is in the wrong place for pro level shooting. Not saying it can't be done, just really the wrong tool. If you want all of that crap and hang it off of your tiny mirrorless, you likely bought the wrong tool and are now just putting wide wheels and fancy rims on your Civic. I probably should
sell all of the junk I got for the X-T3, its a tripod/gimbal cam.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
I've been hiring shooters in other states quite a bit lately. I always tell them or the booker, "No mirrorless, DSLRs, I expect an FS7, C300 MKII or better camera..." period. It's not even always the camera, it's the talent of the shooter.
Many people who only own mirrorless or a PCC 4K don't know how to shoot well, light, deal with clients, etc. at all. For me, the camera my hired shooter has is an indicator of being a pro and competent. Not every shooter who owns a
pro camera is a pro, but a lot of people who only own mirrorless and DSLRS are NOT pros.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
 
Joshua Milligan said:
I'm talking more about the guys that drop $3,500 into a camera like the A7SIII, then go on to buy a set of Peter McKinnon Polar Pro ND filters for another $500, the K3M adaptor for audio for $600, a cage for another $400 just to get a top handle and places to mount your accessories, all just to have a camera that can do what a camera like the FX6 can do out of the box. By the time you spend that kind of money, you could've just bought the right video tool to begin with. Those same people then throw that camera on a monopod and call themselves a cinematographer.

I get that the FX3 looks to eliminate the need to buy a cage by intergrading screw holes and adding a top handle and an audio adapter, but the cost is higher and you still have to have ND filters and by the time you add that, your photo camera is now back up to the cost nearly of a camera like the FX6. I just see this so often and it doesn't make sense to me.

I want to hire guys who show up with a solid tripod and a camera that's built for video, not a camera that relies on 100 attachments for it to shoot video and a monopod. But that's what we have today because of the rise of YouTubers and "content creators" (my least favorite term).
Click to expand...

If the Fx6 had an EVF then it would be ready out of the box like the Fs5. Unfortunately it’s missing the one thing to be able to film in every light situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top