With a slew of new, high-spec cameras in the last few years, some have enjoyed the limelight more than others. In this video, one photographer and videographer goes through his reasons why one cinema camera is underrated.
The Sony FX3 has undoubtedly been a popular choice for cinematographers and videographers as a B-cam, which is more or less what it has been pitched as. The compact, lightweight setup allows for high-end videography, with the newest spec features, and is said to combine the best fo the cinema line and the Alpha systems in Sony's catalog. However, is that selling it short? Is calling the FX3 a B-cam not appreciating its full potential?
Mattias Burling would more or less argue, yes, it is. I think this the fault of Sony, which is a bizarre situation to be in. For hand-held videography, it seems to me the focus on which camera to buy has gone one of two ways: the FX3's big brother, the FX6, which is clearly more of a "professional" body for cinematography. Alternatively, the beloved Sony a7S III acts as a hybrid body, albeit one heavily leaning towards video. The Sony FX3 has got lost in the fray a little, which is a shame as it's such a brilliant camera. If you compare the specs of the FX3 and FX6 they aren't worlds apart, but if you then consider the form factor of the FX3 — which is tiny — it certainly has its place.
Do you own an FX3? What do you make of it?