Sony has made some serious moves in the video sector of our industry, with some heavy-hitters both as mirrorless, hybrid bodies, and standalone cinema cameras. But where does the FX3 stand?
Sony's FX3 is undoubtedly a video-centric camera with an impressive spec sheet, boasting 16-bit raw, UHD 4K at up to 120 fps, as well as S-Cinetone, 15+ stops of dynamic range, and so on. It has a small form, lots of peripherals that can be added, had generally been well received. So, why are some cinematographers suggesting it's a "pretend" cinema camera?
Well, firstly, this isn't to say that the camera is bad — in fact, none of the cinematographers I have seen have said it's anything but a great camera for video. The issue is purely with it being called a "cinema" camera. It does have a number of features that you'd see in cinema cameras, but there are a number of important features missing.
The DP Journey goes through why the Sony FX3 is a strong camera, but much closer to the brilliant but hybrid Sony a7S III, rather than the FX6, FX9, or VENICE, which are Sony's true cinema bodies.
What do you make the FX3? Is it a true cinema camera, just the cheaper version of the FX6? Or does it lack too many fundamental features central to how cinema cameras function? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
