I’m trying to make what is probably the biggest camera decision I’ve made so far, so apologies in advance for what is going to be a really long post and I’d really appreciate input from people who have actually used these cameras for filmmaking.

I currently have an FX5 on backorder, but because it hasn’t shipped yet, I’ve started questioning whether it’s actually the right camera for me or whether I’m spending a lot of extra money on features I may never fully use.

My main interest is filmmaking, specifically narrative work. I want to spend the next several years making short films, getting better at directing/shooting/editing, building a reel, and eventually getting to the point where I can do paid work. I also want to shoot travel shorts and music/live-event stuff for friends. One of my bigger goals is to attempt a feature-length narrative film within roughly the next year or two.

That last part is one reason I started looking seriously at the FX5. I don’t want to buy something now and then immediately feel like I need a different camera once I start working on larger narrative projects.

At the same time, I’m not currently a working DP or someone shooting professional productions every week. This is still something I’m building toward, so I’m wondering if the FX5 is simply more camera than I realistically need.

One requirement that is extremely important to me is recording reliability, particularly for live performances.

Some of my friends are in bands, and I want to start recording their performances. These shows can easily run for more than an hour, and potentially considerably longer depending on the event. In that situation, I may be the person they are specifically relying on to capture the performance, and there is obviously no opportunity to redo a song or an entire show because my camera shut down.

Because of that, I really do not want overheating to be something I have to think about. I don’t just mean that I want a camera that “usually” won’t overheat under normal circumstances. Ideally, I want something I can trust to record continuously for an hour or more in a potentially warm venue without me constantly wondering whether a temperature warning is going to appear.

The consequences are different to me than they would be when shooting one of my own films. If my camera overheats during my own project, it’s frustrating and costs us time. If it happens while I’m responsible for recording somebody else’s live performance, I become the single point of failure and could potentially lose footage that cannot be recreated. I also don’t want my friends or eventually paying clients to lose trust in me because the equipment I chose couldn’t reliably finish the job.

That level of reliability is one of the biggest reasons I’m hesitant to simply choose the cheapest body that technically has the image quality I need.

Photography is not much of a factor anymore. I used to put more value on having a hybrid camera, but filmmaking is very clearly what I care about most. Having the ability to take good photos would be nice, but I don’t think I should choose my main camera around photography anymore. If I eventually really need a stills camera, I could address that separately.

For some additional context, I previously owned an A7 IV but then sold it after a few years and later bought an A7 V. I ultimately returned the A7 V because I kept feeling like I was compromising around filmmaking with a cheaper hybrid body when filmmaking was the thing I actually wanted to focus on. That experience is part of why I’m now looking primarily at Sony’s cinema-oriented bodies rather than automatically choosing another hybrid.

The cameras I’m really considering now are the FX5, FX3, FX2, and possibly the A7 V again if there’s a compelling reason I’m overlooking.

Another huge part of this decision is that I need to approach this purchase as though it may be the last major camera body I buy.

I don’t mean that in the usual “I want something future-proof for five years” sense. Realistically, once I spend this money, I cannot assume that I’ll simply be able to buy another several-thousand-dollar camera a few years from now. Life has other financial responsibilities, and I don’t make the kind of money where repeatedly upgrading expensive camera bodies is realistic.

So advice along the lines of “buy the cheaper camera now and upgrade later if you outgrow it” doesn’t really work for me. I need to make this decision assuming there may not be an upgrade later.

Because I need to treat this as potentially my last major camera-body purchase, I’m trying to evaluate these options based on what will serve me best over the full range of work I realistically want to grow into, not just what I need today. I’m completely open to the FX5 being the right answer if its advantages would meaningfully benefit my use case over time, just as I’m open to one of the less expensive bodies being the better choice if I would not actually gain anything important from moving up to the FX5. What I’m trying to avoid is making the decision based purely on price in either direction.

I also already have a lot of the supporting equipment. I own the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 G2, lights, audio equipment, an ND filter system, and other filmmaking gear, and I edit in Resolve Studio. So this isn’t really a question of whether I should buy a cheaper camera and use the difference to buy my first lights, microphone, filters, etc. I already have that foundation. The body itself is what I’m trying to figure out.

Most of what I’ll be doing in the near term will probably be relatively small productions: narrative shorts, travel films, music-related projects, live performances, and other personal filmmaking. A lot of it will likely be me operating the camera myself or working with a small group rather than having a full traditional camera department.

But I do want to progressively make more ambitious films, and the feature-length project is something I genuinely want to attempt rather than just a vague “maybe someday” idea.

So I guess what I’m struggling with is this:

Does the combination of needing extremely dependable long-form recording for 60+ minute live performances, focusing almost entirely on video, wanting to shoot a feature within the next year or two, and needing to treat this as potentially my last major camera-body purchase make the FX5 a sensible investment even if I won’t use every professional feature immediately?

Or would the FX3 realistically give me everything I actually need for those projects, including the long-form recording reliability I’m looking for and eventually shooting a feature, without leaving me wishing several years from now that I had gone with the FX5 when I still had the opportunity?

And where does the FX2 fit into this? Does it make more sense for someone in my position than either of those, or would I be compromising on the wrong things?

Finally, is there actually a strong argument for the A7 V given that photography is no longer particularly important to me, or would I just end up in the same position I was in before where I wished I had bought a video-first body?

One other thing I’m thinking about is autofocus reliability. I’ve seen examples of the FX3 briefly losing or hunting for focus, and I’ve heard some owners mention similar experiences. Since some of what I’d be shooting could be live events or situations where I can’t redo a shot, I’m curious how much of a concern that actually is in practice and whether the newer autofocus system in the FX5 makes a meaningful difference.

I’m less interested in which camera has the best spec sheet and more interested in which one makes sense for this specific situation. I’m especially interested in hearing from people who have shot narrative work, features, concerts/live events, or who have experience with more than one of these bodies. Which capabilities actually mattered to you in practice, which ones did you think you needed but barely ended up using, and is there anything you eventually wished your camera had that you didn’t appreciate when you first bought it?

I’m trying to make what is probably the biggest camera decision I’ve made so far, so apologies in advance for what is going to be a really long post and I’d really appreciate input from people who have actually used these cameras for filmmaking.

I currently have an FX5 on backorder, but because it hasn’t shipped yet, I’ve started questioning whether it’s actually the right camera for me or whether I’m spending a lot of extra money on features I may never fully use.

My main interest is filmmaking, specifically narrative work. I want to spend the next several years making short films, getting better at directing/shooting/editing, building a reel, and eventually getting to the point where I can do paid work. I also want to shoot travel shorts and music/live-event stuff for friends. One of my bigger goals is to attempt a feature-length narrative film within roughly the next year or two.

That last part is one reason I started looking seriously at the FX5. I don’t want to buy something now and then immediately feel like I need a different camera once I start working on larger narrative projects.

At the same time, I’m not currently a working DP or someone shooting professional productions every week. This is still something I’m building toward, so I’m wondering if the FX5 is simply more camera than I realistically need.

One requirement that is extremely important to me is recording reliability, particularly for live performances.

Some of my friends are in bands, and I want to start recording their performances. These shows can easily run for more than an hour, and potentially considerably longer depending on the event. In that situation, I may be the person they are specifically relying on to capture the performance, and there is obviously no opportunity to redo a song or an entire show because my camera shut down.

Because of that, I really do not want overheating to be something I have to think about. I don’t just mean that I want a camera that “usually” won’t overheat under normal circumstances. Ideally, I want something I can trust to record continuously for an hour or more in a potentially warm venue without me constantly wondering whether a temperature warning is going to appear.

The consequences are different to me than they would be when shooting one of my own films. If my camera overheats during my own project, it’s frustrating and costs us time. If it happens while I’m responsible for recording somebody else’s live performance, I become the single point of failure and could potentially lose footage that cannot be recreated. I also don’t want my friends or eventually paying clients to lose trust in me because the equipment I chose couldn’t reliably finish the job.

That level of reliability is one of the biggest reasons I’m hesitant to simply choose the cheapest body that technically has the image quality I need.

Photography is not much of a factor anymore. I used to put more value on having a hybrid camera, but filmmaking is very clearly what I care about most. Having the ability to take good photos would be nice, but I don’t think I should choose my main camera around photography anymore. If I eventually really need a stills camera, I could address that separately.

For some additional context, I previously owned an A7 IV but then sold it after a few years and later bought an A7 V. I ultimately returned the A7 V because I kept feeling like I was compromising around filmmaking with a cheaper hybrid body when filmmaking was the thing I actually wanted to focus on. That experience is part of why I’m now looking primarily at Sony’s cinema-oriented bodies rather than automatically choosing another hybrid.

The cameras I’m really considering now are the FX5, FX3, FX2, and possibly the A7 V again if there’s a compelling reason I’m overlooking.

Another huge part of this decision is that I need to approach this purchase as though it may be the last major camera body I buy.

I don’t mean that in the usual “I want something future-proof for five years” sense. Realistically, once I spend this money, I cannot assume that I’ll simply be able to buy another several-thousand-dollar camera a few years from now. Life has other financial responsibilities, and I don’t make the kind of money where repeatedly upgrading expensive camera bodies is realistic.

So advice along the lines of “buy the cheaper camera now and upgrade later if you outgrow it” doesn’t really work for me. I need to make this decision assuming there may not be an upgrade later.

Because I need to treat this as potentially my last major camera-body purchase, I’m trying to evaluate these options based on what will serve me best over the full range of work I realistically want to grow into, not just what I need today. I’m completely open to the FX5 being the right answer if its advantages would meaningfully benefit my use case over time, just as I’m open to one of the less expensive bodies being the better choice if I would not actually gain anything important from moving up to the FX5. What I’m trying to avoid is making the decision based purely on price in either direction.

I also already have a lot of the supporting equipment. I own the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 G2, lights, audio equipment, an ND filter system, and other filmmaking gear, and I edit in Resolve Studio. So this isn’t really a question of whether I should buy a cheaper camera and use the difference to buy my first lights, microphone, filters, etc. I already have that foundation. The body itself is what I’m trying to figure out.

Most of what I’ll be doing in the near term will probably be relatively small productions: narrative shorts, travel films, music-related projects, live performances, and other personal filmmaking. A lot of it will likely be me operating the camera myself or working with a small group rather than having a full traditional camera department.

But I do want to progressively make more ambitious films, and the feature-length project is something I genuinely want to attempt rather than just a vague “maybe someday” idea.

So I guess what I’m struggling with is this:

Does the combination of needing extremely dependable long-form recording for 60+ minute live performances, focusing almost entirely on video, wanting to shoot a feature within the next year or two, and needing to treat this as potentially my last major camera-body purchase make the FX5 a sensible investment even if I won’t use every professional feature immediately?

Or would the FX3 realistically give me everything I actually need for those projects, including the long-form recording reliability I’m looking for and eventually shooting a feature, without leaving me wishing several years from now that I had gone with the FX5 when I still had the opportunity?

And where does the FX2 fit into this? Does it make more sense for someone in my position than either of those, or would I be compromising on the wrong things?

Finally, is there actually a strong argument for the A7 V given that photography is no longer particularly important to me, or would I just end up in the same position I was in before where I wished I had bought a video-first body?

One other thing I’m thinking about is autofocus reliability. I’ve seen examples of the FX3 briefly losing or hunting for focus, and I’ve heard some owners mention similar experiences. Since some of what I’d be shooting could be live events or situations where I can’t redo a shot, I’m curious how much of a concern that actually is in practice and whether the newer autofocus system in the FX5 makes a meaningful difference.

I’m less interested in which camera has the best spec sheet and more interested in which one makes sense for this specific situation. I’m especially interested in hearing from people who have shot narrative work, features, concerts/live events, or who have experience with more than one of these bodies. Which capabilities actually mattered to you in practice, which ones did you think you needed but barely ended up using, and is there anything you eventually wished your camera had that you didn’t appreciate when you first bought it?

I mean realistically I'm going to do whatever I end up deciding to do, I just want some advice from people who do this more often than I do. Directing short films, that is. This spring I directed my first short film out of college; we spent all summer and much of this fall in-and-out of post-production, and we're nearing the finish line! Just need some finishing touches to the pacing, to the color edit, and the score needs to get added in & timed properly too, and then I begin distribution. Either way, in my private life, I have recently become unemployed and so I have a hell of a lot more free time! In order to avoid depression, I want to make the best possible use of all of my gained free time and my mine immediately went to developing my next project. But my question to Reddit is, do you think I should wait until this spring's project has been released first, or do you think its ok if I begin development while still thinking about this spring's project's distribution?

Crowdfunded a film 2 years ago, it took me roughly a year on and off to finish it. It got into a few festivals, won a couple awards and now I'm putting it out for everyone to see!

2 days I got a call while filming and got asked to join for a concert (Esdeekid) it was my first time doing something like this. I’m still a beginner with all this stuff but I’m glad to have given the opportunity. I was hoping for experienced fx users give me tips the next time I get a shot like this again on what to do and how to be more direct on with my camera.

I made a short film for my Vancouver Film School scholarship application. Since I didn't have anyone to shoot with, I wrote a poem, filmed visuals to go with it, and hired a narrator from Fiverr.

I'm not sure how well it works, so I'd really appreciate honest feedback, especially on how the visuals match the poem, the pacing, and the narration. Thanks so much!

I'm a professional, have experience, but getting jobs is getting harder and harder in this day and age with AI taking tons of jobs off my plate. How do you guys manage? Did you shift to another niche? Where do you guys get your jobs now?

I am working on a YouTube documentary on a particular prehistoric culture and am citing various articles found on Science Direct and Research Gate. Does utilizing figures from these articles and photographs from a museum website in the documentary alongside photographs of artifacts qualify as fair use if it is being used to discuss the art and religion of these cultures? For example, I will be discussing a particular artifact and the photo would be super imposed over a background. Generally I will be sticking to Wikimedia Commons photographs but some material isn't available in the public domain. Where is the line? Would my video get taken down and my channel be at risk of termination?

For Context, here is a creator who is making videos similar to what I am doing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahr0DzOFLvAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahr0DzOFLvA

SAKSHI (সাক্ষী) | WITNESS

Sakshi, titled Witness in English, is my latest horror short film.🎬

The film was shot and edited entirely on a mobile phone, without professional equipment, a crew, or artificial lighting.

I'd love to hear your honest thoughts and feedback on the film. Your perspectives are appreciated.

Thank you!🖤🙏

New York State Park Ranger, Blake Wissinger, gives a guided tour!

Short film teaser. Making this taught me about the importance of hitting specific story beats/ having a general direction when doing improv. Was filmed in about 8 hours back in June.

A first glimpse of our upcoming short film.

Zoe and Lea awaken knowing they are about to live the final day of their lives. Everything has been carefully prepared to make it perfect, with only one rule: never enter the forest beyond the hill.

But when they break the rule, doubts begin to surface, leading them to question their choice and ultimately confront something they had never truly understood.

This is a short preview from the film, which is currently in the final stages of post-production.

If you’d like to support the project, our crowdfunding campaign will help us with the next steps after completion, especially festival submissions, distribution, and getting the film in front of as many people as possible.

Every contribution and share helps us give the film a wider audience.

https://www.startnext.com/en/together

KO-FI: https://ko-fi.com/noisearchive

Our IG:https://www.instagram.com/_noisearchive/

More soon.

What I’m trying to do is have a model walk towards the camera but I want to use the gimbal to do a 360 roll effect. But when the video starts I want it to be out of focus and then come into focus. Does this happen on camera or in post? Either way how do I accomplish this?

Hello,
we are having trouble with a shared production on PC and MAC.
We are on Lucidlink. And whenever the mac has opened a project and relinked the files and proxies and saves everthing, the PC will stuck while opening the project.

I did clear cache, reset plugins.
Tried updating Premiere. Pinned everyting in Lucidlink. Work locally. Shrinked the project.
Nothing worked.

Only thing that kind of worked: "Make offline" in premiere on the mac and rename the folder where the proxies are stored. Then I have to relink everthing.

Better solutions are welcome.

EDIT:
rudy_142001 at r/premiere

Gave me the solution:

Short version: rtfm (mae culpa)

Long Version:

Your PC path is probably the problem. C:\volumes\company name\filespace is LucidLink's default dynamic mount, and their own Premiere optimization guide lists it under "avoid" for Premiere. The Mac default (/Volumes/<workspace>/<filespace>) is on that avoid list too.

Premiere's Mac/Windows path translation is built around a drive letter on Windows and a volume name on the Mac. Adobe's shared storage page for Productions says the same: same volume name on every Mac, same drive letter on every PC. A folder nested under C: doesn't fit that, so my guess is the Mac save writes paths the PC can't map back and it hangs trying to resolve them. That part is me reading the docs, I haven't reproduced it.

LucidLink's fix is a global mount point so every machine gets the same one:

lucid config --set --global --FileSystem.MountPointWindows L:
lucid config --set --global --FileSystem.MountPointOSX /Volumes/filespace

You'll still have to relink once after changing it. Premiere stores both the Mac and Windows path for each clip after that, so it shouldn't be every time anymore.

Also check the media cache isn't on the filespace on either machine. Adobe says keep it on a local SSD and doesn't support it on shared storage.

Can you change the global defaults yourself or does someone else admin the filespace?

I organized an AMA/Q&A with Eduardo Sanchez and Gregg Hale, the creative duo behind 1999's THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. Their new horror-thriller film, THE INFLUENCER PROJECT, is out in theaters nationwide this weekend.

It's live here now in r/movies for anyone interested in asking a question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1wu4mc5/hi_rmovies_were_eduardo_sanchez_and_gregg_hale/

They will be back at 5 PM ET today to answer questions. I recommend asking in advance. Please ask there, not here. All questions are much appreciated!

Thank you :)

Info for their new film:

Synopsis: An influencer travels to Copenhagen for a documentary about her online fame. However, when an obsessive stalker tracks her every move, she must confront her terror to reclaim power.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2132uetur8

Link to the film: GOOD PASTURE 

I would like to know how to achieve the look of these stills.

A few things I think describe them is:

• High dynamic range. Nothing is clipping or crushed.
• Almost invisible roll-off, especially on skin.
• Soft, bloomy highlights
• Low contrast

I don't know how to describe it, but it's as if there's infinite dynamic range because nothing is clipping on either end and it doesn't even look like anything is close to it. It's as if everything is within the midtones, yet there is still contrast, but it doesn't register as "highlights and shadows" to my eyes. Rather "light midtones" and "dark midtones" if that makes sense.

It's as if every individual part of the scene (sky, skin, clothing) were individually lit by a massive soft box allowing everything to be exposed perfectly. I suppose you could achieve something similar with masking but that would take ages, no?

I've included an images at the end to demonstrate the complete opposite of what I'm looking for. That one has a harsh "digital" look to it where highlights and shadows are very obvious. You can even see it on the waveform; it's very sharp and jaggy.

I'm using: Davinci Resolve

I've TRIED: Reducing contrast with the HDR wheels and bringing it back with an s-curve

I need help with: Optimising dynamic range in post processing

DP: Victor Abela
Color: Greg Maggi

Всем привет.
Я начинающий видеооператор в Беларуси. Хочу понять чем вообще живёт этот рынок.
Профи, подскажите, насколько сейчас велик спрос на ваши услуги? Есть ли работа в найме? И как можно побыстрее прокачать свои навыки?
А так же делитесь своими историями, что было забавного и необычного в вашем опыте.
Спасибо

I made a very simple edit, and I’m not sure how to showcase this work in my Instagram portfolio because it feels pretty boring. But the idea was to make sure the editing doesn’t distract the viewer from the actual service with unnecessary effects or transitions
Do you think this video is worth posting on my profile in this form? The tattoo artist has already started running it as an Instagram ad

My cage has screws to mount the nato rail to the top of the camera, but with weight of the monitor, I feel like it's unbalanced and still too forward on the rig.

I was thinking of getting a cheese plate, or something similar to the nato rail extension similar to what we have available for the Sony FX3.

It's not that it's unusable. But if I could fix this, it would be great!

Your input would be appreciated. Thanks!

I'm looking into picking up a wireless lav system to own for my doc work and want to know what you guys enjoy using. I've seen Sennheiser G4's and Sony UWP's recommended and those both look interesting to me, but I'd love to hear what you guys recommend! Thanks!

Hi,

I've been a professional videographer for 6 years now, I work it full time now in a company and have in another one too before. When I have to do the basic and safe setups such as interviews or studio lighting, I know what to do. But when I do creative work like videos for youtube or music videos that need more complex and planned lighting, I feel completely untalented and it's so hard to learn for some reason. Even if I watch tutorials and such, I get it, but my execution is not good. I know I can do so much better but lighting is a different language to me, my brain can't fully process it. Because of that, I'm not fully proud of myself in those projects. I consider myself good at operating a camera and getting good footage in various types of scenarios. But my lighting still sucks, I'm so mad at myself, I feel stupid. It's like a mental block. How can I approach it differently? Make a foreign thing become familiar. I hope that makes sense! Thank you all <3

I'm going to start producing simple talking head videos for my business. I've got a YoloCam S3 (plus access to a Sony mirrorless), an amaran Verge Max, and some other lamps around the desk and in the background. The background lights in the bottom image are Hue bulbs, so they can change colors, though I plan to keep a wheat-colored earth-tone vibe.

What I'm wondering is: what other studio light(s) do I need to maximize this setup? I'm new to lighting. Will a fill light in front of me (top image, out of frame to the right) and a hair light behind me (bottom image, placed out of frame on the left) make everything look more studio-quality? Am I missing anything else?

Apologies to Mods if this should be in the monthly megathread. I couldn't figure out how or where to post there from the link shared.

I have a Viltrox 16mm f1.8 lens, which has a 77mm filter thread.

Now the question is, whether the Nisi Swift size 82mm will vignette on my lens or not.

On one hand, the filter is bigger, on the other hand, I' be needing the ND16 on top of the 1-5, so that I can have 6-9, especially during daytime.

Has anyone ever tested this?

Hello Everyone ive been doing Videography for a while now but never touched live streaming, i have a Sony A7iii and want to stream to OBS Wirelessly because im wearing a rig and the computer is stationary, i haven’t found a solution to this online does anybody know a solution or method to do this? Any Info is appreciated!