markr041

That is precisely why I have been trying out the fx3 and the fx30 - I am about to travel to China and I need a compact camera and lens. The fx3, with its full frame, really requires big lenses to have range and wide aperture. I am settling on the fx30 with the Sony Zeiss 16-70, which is a compromise, but gives me a small rig, with decent versatility and quality. 10bit and Slog3 are essential. The fx30 and the Zeiss lens and the Sony 15mm f1.4 for low light and night is where I am going. And, yes, my Samsung phone gives me the ability to take stills with no fuss, and I need a phone. This 4K video is likely my final test run with the fx30 and Zeiss lens. I use all of the special features here - CIZ, gyro stabilization in post (Catalyst Browse) for walking-with-camera shots, and 4K 120p slow motion:

And I agreed with you that YOUR camera takes better pictures than the fx30. It is a better hybrid camera. Read my post again. I was "simply pointing out" that the fx30 is not a hybrid camera. My cell phone has better built-in GPS than the fx30. My toaster makes better toast. My TV has a better LCD screen. I prefer apples to oranges. Get it? Let's stop with the ownership bias already - I have access to an unlimited number of cameras (not IMAX or the ARRI LF). I have shot with scores of cameras that are currently available. Let's get back to the cameras. Enjoy YOUR camera. It is a great camera.

OK. This is the type of comment that downgrades this whole forum. Just think about what you posted. Are you proud of your post? Should you reflect on what made you do it? Do you think it is clever? Do you think it impresses your friends and family?

You are correct, the a7iv is a better hybrid camera than the fx30. That is because the fx30 is not a hybrid camera, it is a video camera. It therefore has many features that aid in shooting video that the a7iv does not and never will. The fx30 and fx30 are perhaps the worst hybrid cameras. So are the ARRI LF, the RED Komodo, the Sony Venice II, the Sony fx9, etc. And, so you don't get all riled up, the a7iv can take great video, unless of course you want to shoot 4K DCI 24.0P or shoot a Netflix film.

You can download the ungraded version from here (you download "Original"): Note: this video was rendered from the original 300 Mbps All-I 10bit 422 clips to HEVC 10bit 422 with a lower bitrate. But no grading, so still Slog3. Ignore the Vimeo streaming version. above.

Just to be clear, you want one original nongraded clip from the video (Slog3), or the whole video rerendered without transforming (grading) so it is just the Slog3 version?

I think I can find the video; and I have a Vimeo account. But may take a day or two to retrieve the original.

fx30 at night:

Go to my YouTube channel @markr041. You will see hundreds of videos with lots of different cameras - GoPros, Canon R5 and R7, BMPCC6K, Zcams, GH5, GH4, Sigma fp, and a lot more. Olympus, Fujinon, JVC, Yi, DJI, Kandao, Nikon. I have zero brand loyalty. I don't wish you do find someone who loves Sony cameras like I do, because you will be very disappointed.

Another vote for internal mics:

I have shot many videos with both cameras (not borrowed for one week from Sony). I thought I would like the fx30 better, since I am a bit of a stickler on resolution, and the fx30 oversamples 4K from the full sensor. But, what I found is I just like the look of the full-frame 4K from the fx3. And the fx3 4K 120p is uncompromised, while that from the fx30 is clearly noisier and has a big extra crop. With the fx3 one can mix together slow motion (from 4K 120p) with any regular-motion frames (in my case, the dreaded 4K 60p). The "big" fx3 disadvantage for me is that the lenses for the full-frame fx3 are so much bigger. I need to travel light, and also cannot poke big rigs into crowds or in some travel spots. Thus, I tried out the fx3 with the smallest zoom lens there is the "kit" 28-60 collapsible lens. It is slow and has limited range. So, can you get shot variety from it? - Clear Image Zoom though helps it get to 90mm essentially losslessy. Do you sacrifice image quality from this cheap lens, including subject isolation from shallow DOF? I took this combo to Bryant Park to capture the Spring blooms and the activities. The video mixes slow motion and regular motion (some bocce and pingpong clips are in slow motion 2X). I was pleased with the results. The one issue is that I cannot smoothly manually zoom the kit lens, and I am normally very good at manually zooming. Clear Image Zoom gives me smooth variable-speed zooms, though, but only up to 1.5X. Note this video does not use any of the new firmware features - this video could have been shot with the a7siii.

You do have rigid views - widescreen only anamorphic, widescreen only 24p. Post after post your rigid beliefs are stated. I am not offended; I appreciate hearing your views. And I understand there are many people like you. And I understand why. You do realize that 24 fps was chosen because of original equipment constraints? You do know that anamorphic lenses were used to attain widescreen with little resolution loss to bypass the constraints of film frames? So these attributes of cinema became traditions. They are not born of aesthetic preferences, but from equipment limitations. People became used to them. And some, like you, treat them as sacred aesthetics, which they are not. Yes, now cameras can shoot 4K 60P. Though, seriously, cell phones cannot match the video quality of any of the cameras you use, whatever their frame rate. Let's forget cell phones, and the silly argument that some well-known director shot one film using one.The point is that cameras that can shoot uncropped, non-pixel-binned oversampled 4K DCI 60P with a large dynamic range, good color science, 422 10bit etc. are still rare. So, widescreen 60P videos with good color and high resolution are a small minority. They are different. They are the future. And they evidently upset the rigid. Here, be annoyed :):

I like wide aspect ratios. I like motion depicted realistically. I don't care what most people do, often done because of equipment constraints. It is a rigid mindset to think something is awkward because you are not used to seeing it. 24p and 25p motion is literally awkward if the midset is reality. There is nothing natural about any aspect ratio - 16:9 is a TV standard, 2:39.1 is a cinema standard. So what. Loosen up, man. Some combos are inappropriate, like 24p sports video that is not part of a fictional (faux) story. 60p live sports do not look like soap operas and are not dreaded or awkward. And, a 60p video of a jazz trio is not either of those also, whatever the aspect ratio.

No, 60 fps is used for live broadcast of sports to better depict motion in real time. No "editor". Slow motion in boroadcast sports is done with specialized hfr cameras, using framerates above 60 fps. You just cannot get out of a cinema mindset. What is awkward is fast movement shot at 24 fps. You are just used to seeing that. There is nothing "faux" about my videos. Narrative films are faux, on purpose. They distort reality for artistic purposes - with unnatural motion, coloration, sometimes aspect ratios, etc. I respect that. I am not pretending to ape narrative film looks or soap opera looks.

Roland CS 10EM.

OK, here is one with a less cinematic aspect ratio: I really do not see why an aspect ratio has to be tied to particular frame rate. I like widescreen aspect ratios and I like realistic motion. I get that low frame rates and widescreen are what some people are used to, but why should that be so limiting? There have not been many cameras that can actually shoot non-crippled 4K 60 fps in widescreen. And I really do not think that soap opera style is defined by a frame rate. TV soap operas were (are?) shot with flat lighting, little contrast (and stilted dialogue deliveries). There is a TV soap-opera look. It is far from the look of my videos. Are football games - shot and shown in 60 fps on TV (Fox, ABC, ESPN) - soap operas? 60 fps = realistic motion. And now we have a portable, inconspicuous, camera with IBIS and great AF that can shoot 4K 60 fps, with oversampling and no additional crop, in widescreen. Which is why I use it. I can shoot the videos I like. And here is a parade in 4K 60p. Lots of motion - why would anyone shoot a a sports event or a parade in 24 fps?

Here you go: 4K DCI (2.39:1) in the French Quarter, New Orleans

How many times do I have to say that Sony behaved badly on the a7siii and I agree with you on their bad behavior for you to understand I am not defending Sony. Read my posts again. My point is if you need the added features of the fx3 then trade up. That you do not do that reveals you are just blowing hot air, because you are unwiiling to buy those features. Two days work, or less, for the difference between the a7siii trade-in-value and a new fx3? Sony misbehaved. You have an option if you need the new features, but it will cost. The fs7 does not have those features either. For a casual camera person, the trade up is a big cost for a hobby. But for a real pro making a living from video prowess, it seems to me ludicrous to just whine if one actually needs the new features. I don't call into question your right to whine, or the useful techical info you provide, just your credibility about how important you claim these added features are to you.

It is whining when you - yes, you - post the same complaints over and over again. And brand loyalty is silly. You get the best available equipment that suits your needs. We all agree that Sony is being nasty. So, move on. Brave influencers is an oxymoron. They are parasites. The key point is that if you really needed those Sony updates, you would switch. You evidently do not and would rather complain. You have a choice - spend money for those updates (trade in - the a7siii is worth a lot on the used market) - or settle with the constraints of the a7siii. Can you make great videos with the a7siii - yes! Professional video - yes! But if your creativity requires focus breathing compensation, 4K DCI, time code, no overheating, and the other features then put up. Or....

Yes, I acquired the a7siii when it first came out for its video features. It was the best option, then. As soon as the fx3 was introduced I traded. The fx3 was clearly superior as a video tool, even without the updates. I agree not upgrading the a7siii is deliberate marketing. But if the new features of the fx3 are important and one's profession is video it seems odd to not trade up. If a professional hangs on to the a7siii, then it is actually clear the new features are unimportant to her. The trade up cost is a tax-reducing investment and is a trivial expense, again, for a professional making a living based on video quality. Just whining is not professional. Worse are those who say they will never buy Sony again over this. That is surely not professional.

That's perfectly reasonable. But, 4K DCI and 24.0p do affect the image, as do focus breathing compensation and allegedly the EI options. LUT use for baking in camera also. But if those are not important, then there is no need to whine about lack of the fx firmware updates.

The fx3 and fx30 are cameras for people who take video seriously. And cameras like the a7s iii are not for them or other hybrids, with or without breathing compensation. Of course this does not mean an owner of an a7siii is not professional. Just she ended up with the wrong camera.

10bit Colors!

fx30 for travel:

fx30 for action: 4K 120p and 60p.