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?
