In the Field: Sony FX3 vs Sony VENICE for Videographers

In 2018, the Sony VENICE 6K cinema camera launched at a retail price of £31,000. Three years later, in 2021, we saw the Sony FX3 mirrorless camera released at just £4,200. But can you tell the difference between the two cameras, just by looking at this freeze-frame?

Over the past two decades, the gap between consumer/prosumer cameras and industry-standard cinema cameras has shrunk rapidly. Today, readily available cameras can achieve comparable quality to what the pros use on big-budget films and television series. Making movies with only the tools within your reach is now possible.  

To see this in action, we compared two different yet surprisingly similar Sony cameras: the Sony FX3 and the Sony VENICE.

Want to know the answer to the opening question? Watch our video to see which shot is from which camera.

Each camera is remarkable in its own regard, and each has gained its own level of filmmaking. First, let’s look at the Sony Venice CineAlta 6K.

Sony VENICE

Key Specs

• 24.7-megapixel full-frame CMOS sensor

• 500-2500 ISO range

• Sony E ARRI PL mount with included adapter

• Super35/APS-C sensor crop modes

Upsides

• 6K video capabilities

• High frame rate for 6K video

• PL mount adapter allows for flexibility with lenses

Downsides

• Tougher for solo shooters

• Cost

Filmmakers have used the Sony VENICE to shoot some of the biggest blockbusters of the past decade as well as smaller-budget independent films.

When it comes to blockbusters, the Sony VENICE has been used to shoot films like Top Gun: Maverick, Creed III, Severance, Avatar: The Way of Water, Ozark: Season 4, and Black Panther: Wakanda Forever. 

The list is ever-growing, and it includes lower-budget independent films, tools. However, the price tag ranging from £20,000 to £30,000 is both staggering and standard for what you’d expect from cameras used to shoot large-scale productions. (The rental cost isn’t cheap, either.)

Now, sitting at the other end of the Sony cine spectrum, let’s look at the Sony FX3. 

Sony FX3

Key Specs

• 12.1-megapixel full-frame CMOS Exmor R sensor

• 10-bit 4:2:2 XAVC S-I, 16-bit raw output

• Phase detection autofocus; face tracking/eye autofocus

• 80-102,400 ISO in Manual Mode

Upsides

• Impressive low-light capabilities

• Allows for easy handheld shooting

• Works well with most lighting setups

• Superior ISO range

Downsides

• No internal ND filters

With a price tag of about £3,400 and its remarkable image quality, the FX3 has dominated the videography world since its release in 2021. However, it’s also recently received a lot of attention for being the main camera used to shoot Gareth Edwards’s The Creator, a large-scale sci-fi epic film one might expect to have been shot on a camera like the VENICE.

But what does the VENICE have that the FX3 doesn’t? And does the footage from the FX3 really stand up to that from the VENICE?

Sensor and Resolution

For starters, the Sony VENICE has a 6K full-frame sensor, 15+ stops of dynamic range and can shoot 6K RAW footage up to 60fps with an external recorder.

The FX3 also has a full-frame sensor as well as 15+ stops of dynamic range, but it’s limited to 4K internally and when recording RAW externally. This really isn’t much of a heartbreak considering 4K is still the standard, more or less. Even most ARRI cameras don’t exceed 4K or 4.5K.

We didn’t have any external recorders for our test, so we recorded 4K 24fps internally with both cameras. While this may not access the VENICE’s full capabilities, we did switch the Imager Mode to 6K 3:2 to use the entire sensor.

Imager Modes on the VENICE are a pretty excellent feature. Essentially, Imager Modes allows you to decide how much of the sensor you’d like to use when recording. This is essential if you want to shoot in a specific format, and it makes the VENICE compatible with a variety of lenses made for different formats, including anamorphic lenses. 

We stuck to spherical lenses for this test, though.

Lenses

While both cameras support E-Mount lenses, the VENICE comes with a PL mount adapter, allowing you to use a variety of PL mount cinema lenses. To even the playing field, we attached a PL mount adapter to FX3 and used the same ZEISS Supreme Prime 35mm lens on each camera.

However, the FX3 wasn’t really made with these types of lenses in mind and it may feel clunky without supportive accessories. Using a lens adapter also forfeits the use of autofocus on the FX3 (a really sophisticated autofocus feature at that), but most cinema cameras like the VENICE require manual focus anyway, so it wasn’t a huge loss for this comparison.

ND Filters

A big miss on the FX3 is the lack of internal ND filters, something the VENICE does have and is pretty common in modern digital cinema cameras. (Even the FX6 and FX9 come with internal NDs.) So, for our comparison, we attached a matte box to the lens and inserted ND filters as needed.

Low Light

So far, in order to keep up with the VENICE, the FX3 needs a lot of additional accessories. 

However, the main feature the FX3 boasts over the VENICE is its low-light capabilities. With a dual base ISO of 800/12800, it tops the VENICE at 500/2500 and adapts to very low-lit lighting scenarios with minimal grain at the higher ISO.

Size and Usability

As far as general usability is concerned, the FX3 better suits solo shooters. It’s smaller, has many streamlined features and a menu system akin to other consumer Sony cameras such as the Sony A7S III. That being said, the VENICE also has a comprehensive menu system with lots of customisation options.

The VENICE comes with a viewfinder and two screens on either side. The inputs/outputs allow for a variety of compatible accessories as well, such as external monitors and focus-pulling tech. 

The FX3 has just the one screen, which is very adjustable, as well as an HDMI out for external monitors/recorders. The FX3, along with its included top handle for audio inputs/outputs, is very agreeable to shooting handheld, on the shoulder or to mount on a small stabiliser. 

The VENICE is not quite as graceful, but both cameras have an impressive internal image stabilisation system that greatly reduces shakiness when not on a stabiliser.

The VENICE is adaptable though, especially when considering Sony’s Rialto Extension System made specifically for the VENICE. 

Essentially, the Sony Rialto Extension System allows you to detach the VENICE’s sensor from the camera body by way of a durable cable, giving you access to all the camera body’s features, but now as if you’re holding a smaller camera when shooting. This makes shooting handheld much easier and allows you to shoot in tighter spaces. 

However, the Rialto system requires many moving parts and ideally you’d need a lot of supportive accessories and a crew to help you operate the camera.

Natural Light Test

When it came to the actual comparisons we shot, it was a pretty close call.

The real giveaway for the FX3 is the way it treats the highlights. The VENICE generally has better highlight rolloff, as opposed to the FX3, where the contrast is much more noticeable.

When colour grading in post, the footage from the VENICE was a bit easier to work with. While both cameras produce a great image, the FX3 had some issues with greens and magentas. The VENICE seemed to read colours more accurately. 

That being said, achieving a matching neutral colour grade for both shots wasn’t ever much of a challenge.

Shooting handheld was way easier with the FX3 just because of its size, but the internal stabilisation on both cameras was very impressive and a huge help. While the VENICE was definitely heavy, shooting with the camera on the shoulder still felt fluid and natural, especially while using the viewfinder.

Studio Test

For our studio test, we started with a three-point lighting setup. Then took lights away one at a time and tried different lighting setups to experiment with shadows and contrast. 

For these shots, we have each camera set at their lowest base ISO: the VENICE at 500 and the FX3 at 800.

Again, it’s generally a really close call.

But, the VENICE still pulls ahead in terms of highlight rolloff and the way it reads colours in the skin tones and shadows.

However, when we turned all the lights off, the FX3 really shined.

We shifted the VENICE to its higher base ISO of 2500, and the FX3 to its highest base ISO of 12,800.

The difference here is very noticeable. While the VENICE leaves our subject underexposed, the FX3 completely illuminates our subject with minimal noise for such a high ISO value.

This shows that the FX3 is adaptable to virtually any lighting scenario, and that you can shoot in low-lit locations without too much help from hefty lighting rigs.

In Conclusion

While the VENICE generally pulls ahead in terms of image quality, the FX3 really holds its own in this comparison. The final image from each cameras is really close, and proves that you don’t need the newest or most expensive cinema camera to make your next film or video look like the ones you see on the big screen. 

That being said, these comparisons are not meant to disparage higher-end cinema cameras. There are immense benefits to shooting with cameras like the VENICE that consumer or “prosumer” cameras just don’t have yet—not to mention there is an entire industry built around using these incredible tools.

However, the gap between these two types of cameras is shrinking very quickly, opening up a world of opportunity and possibilities to independent filmmakers, videographers, or in this case, those who shoot with Sony cameras.

Thanks for reading our breakdown of the Sony FX3 vs the Sony VENICE. If you liked this piece you may also enjoy our video on the difference between 8-bit and 10-bit videography.

For more camera gear guides and original content, visit the MPB content hub.