Leaderboard

Yes, a speedbooster will improve low light performance. I think the argument that the FX3 is better in low light is overblown. It's always nice to have, but 99% of the time you'll never need to film at those higher ISOs. And the FX30 is no lightweight when it comes to low light anyway, especially if you're using fast lenses, which you can buy with the money you save not buying the FX3.

If you need anamorphic, dci 4k, cine-ei, timecode, 24p then FX3, if you think you don't need those feature then A7SIII, bear in mind a7siii doesnt have firmware update for years unlike FX3 which have more frequent feature update. A7SIII is like abandoned child by Sony.

Well maybe you don't have to wait more than a week.

Yeah, if the FX3 had a good crop mode Id probably chose it as a second camera as I do sometimes need a B/C Cam when working with the FX6 and FX9 so having a FF sensor makes sense but while I can’t shoot S35 on FX3 I CAN shoot full frame on FX30 with the Metabones speed booster so to me, the FX30 is the more versatile choice. Also, when I’m B or C cam-ing to the FX6 or 9 it’s almost always with cine lenses so the lack of AF with the speed booster is a non issue. I’m also a big fan of the over sample the Fx30 sensor does. Looks great and makes the clear image zoom super usable. As an example, I used it today on a small shoot with my Sigma 18-35. Clear image zoom gives me an 18-52mm 1.8 internal zoom lens with amazing AF if I need it and an image that rivals many primes. So versatile!

Those P+S Technik lenses are $25K a pop and I see some crane shots using GFM gear (also $25K a pop): https://www.pstechnik.de/lenses/technovision-lenses https://www.gripfactory.com/gf-mod-jib Not exactly minimal or budget equipment. The handheld shots may be but that's not exceptional aside from Tilta which is obviously low-end lol. I also imagine everything was shot using 4.2K RAW external recording. And there is clearly tons of VFX going on. At that point there is little to no doubt you can shoot a feature on a mirrorless. Still impressive it was actually done. Mirrorless has certainly gone a long ways! The FX30 is definitely almost a bargain at its price point. Other advantages over the FX3 is it uses an oversampled from 6K image and S35 means you can speedboost FF lenses. FX3 can't do S35 unless you use clear image zoom hack but you're then getting sub 4K image. The FX3 still wins in low-light which is probably why it was mainly chosen for The Creator which has a lot of night scenes it seems.

It was, but also I imagine a super high end set of cine lenses, big crew, decent budget and at least one pro colourist. Still good bragging rights for any FX3 owners for sure!

That's an interesting product. Obviously you'd have to rig it up by adding a recorder, power solution, and some sort of control setup, but it's not too far off the "Blackmagic Box Camera" that so many people online seem to want. Depending on what controls are available, for example if there's a handle with these things integrated, then maybe paired with a recorder that can deliver power out, it might be a small setup. I'd also hazard a guess that as it's aimed at drones etc it might have more effective thermal management as the old logic of "just buy a proper cinema camera" doesn't really work.

I don't mind manufacturers segmenting by price, in a way that's sort-of reasonable, as long as it doesn't go too far in the direction of being anti-competitive. The thing I mind is that they also segment on camera size. If you want great image quality then the cameras just become unwieldy and attention-grabbing. Modern technology makes everything smaller over time, but they ate up that size advantage with extra megapixels. Of course, the elephant in the room with overheating is that it's caused by the blind pursuit of more and more pixels. Of course, some people have convinced themselves of the "need" for more pixels, but the frilly pink dress that the elephant is wearing that no-one will discuss is that you can't see anything more than 720p (at best) on a smartphone, which is the primary viewing device for most of what is being filmed by these people.

I think whether or not it's the best camera depends on what kind of work you're doing and what your needs are. We're really fortunate to have so many options to choose from, and frankly you can't go wrong with most cameras these days as they're all quite excellent, but some cameras have better strengths than others and it also boils down to preference. At one point I was leaning towards going with Sony, but ultimately decided against it. For my work I do a lot of handheld shooting, so Panasonic's IBIS was a big selling point for me. I also prefer Panasonic's colors over Sony's, and find V-log to be better than S-log to grade. I did have to compromise though on things like autofocus (though I still insist its not nearly as bad as people say.) Ultimately that's what ya gotta ask yourself when choosing a camera: what compromises can you live with? I think though if you're just doing video, have decided that Sony is the best tool for you and don't need any photo features then the FX3 is the better option, especially given it has received more firmware updates as @ntblowz stated. The FX3 also pairs well with the FX30 in the event you ever need a reasonably priced b-cam. Heck the FX30 is an excellent option as an a-cam and is a bargain.

Speaking of what high-end images actually look like, here are some 8K scans of IMAX 5-perf from Oppenheimer. https://dam.gettyimages.com/universal/oppenheimer The files with filenames like GF-number seem to be 3K, but the other ones seem to be 8K TIFF files - 133Mb each! How do they look? Strong colours, often strong contrast, not sharp.... like cinema.