If you keep yourself informed about the camera world in any capacity, you will definitely have heard of Sony’s latest release: the FX2.

With its combination of design, features and price it immediately sparked controversy and uproar. But why is that? Well I think we might be missing the point.

But first some Disclaimers:
I’m going to throw around some specs here and there, as it’s hard to talk about a camera without referring to what it does or doesn’t do, but this will not be a thorough analysis.
I have a few thoughts and considerations about the FX2, so this is me sharing them.

I am a Canon user. I’ve been using Canon since I started.
I tried cameras of most other brands and even considered switching, but as of now, I’m still with Canon.

Addressing The Complaints

So, I’ve heard a few different complaints regarding this camera, but most of them seem to be tied to one element: the sensor.

“The readout speed is too slow”; “the 4k60 forces a crop”; “it’s an old sensor”; “it’s just an upcycled A7IV”, to quote a few.

I think there’s something bigger going on, but I would like to address all of these complaints first:

THE READOUT SPEED IS SLOW

compared to what? Sure it’s a bit slower than other more action-oriented cameras, but not by much, and the margin decreases dramatically in Super 35 mode.
More importantly: not everybody needs an action-oriented camera, and if you do, well this is just not one, IT’S NOT WHAT IT’S MEANT TO BE.

THE CROP IN 4k60

feels like a bit of a let down, I agree, but it’s there. Good thing is: it provides faster readout speed and most importantly the quality is great.

If you want more DOF or don’t have enough light, you can always grab a fast prime, or adapt the Sigma 18-35 1.8 zoom.
You could also shoot 4k24 or 30 and try DaVinci Optical flow if you prefer, or upscale from 1080p60.

But I would pose the question: how much time do you spend recording 4k60? And is it pivotal for you to have it full frame?
It is a commodity, sure, but is it a need?
Again, it could very well be. In that case, this is just not your camera.

THE SENSOR IS OLD

Yes, and?
Many people still use the A7IV and love this sensor. Hell, many people still buy old DSLRs, just for the look of their sensors.
The resolution in this is great, the dynamic range is great, and really age means nothing in this case.

IT FEELS LIKE A RECASED A7IV

Well, it may feel this way, but you’d be wrong.
The sensor is the same, true, but the FX2 adds many features the A7IV is lacking, and we’re talking cinema-line features as much as performance and quality of life features, to the point that at its price of just a few hundred dollars more, it makes the A7IV kind of obsolete.

Why all the fuss then?

I think that this is for the most part a misunderstood camera. Looking at the complaints, you might notice it is often being compared to other recent releases – like the Lumix S1II and Nikon Z6III – when they have different purposes, and are aimed at different people.

Also I feel like many people wanted something new, and are just taking their disappointment out on this camera, actively looking for reasons not to like it.
And I mean, nothing’s perfect. The moment you approach something looking for “flaws”, sure, you’re going to find some.

Honestly, I think this camera could be amazing for a DOP (director of photography) or anyone working on sets, especially on smaller budget independent sets, and could represent the first step towards the birth of a really great hybrid cinema camera in the future.

Why? Well, because it offers everything you would need for that.

• Despite being cinema-oriented, the A7IV sensor provides the FX2 with enough resolution to take great photos and shoot both full frame and Super 35 video without a big hit on quality. All while maintaining a great low light performance with its dual base ISO.

• It is the first in Sony’s Cinema Line to maintain a viewfinder, and a great one at that, with the possibility of tilting up 90°.

• It can take stills from Shot Marks: allowing you to press the shutter anytime during video recording to mark out frames that the camera will save as additional stills. I think all cameras should have this.

• And lastly, another first I think: this camera allows you to take pictures in log, so you can apply exactly the same edits on both photos and videos.

In conclusion

Not every new camera can nor should be revolutionary. The FX2 definitely is not.
As well as it is not for everybody, it was never intended to be.

This does not make it a bad camera in any way.

In fact this is a no-nonsense, very sensible camera.
It’s a workhorse, a well thought out and well-made tool.

What it does, it does really well, and it’s a great entry-point into Sony Cinema Line, as well a great companion camera, if you are already shooting with Sony’s Cinema Line.

Personally, coming from Canon, to me this is what the R5c should have been.

If I was a Sony shooter I would be more than a little interested in this.

If you want to know more about this camera, check it out here, on Sony’s own website.