SRV1981

I'll answer it for you and I've used the A7s3 and FX6 but not the A7IV.
Both cameras have heavily processed shadows that ruin the image. The A7s3 and FX3 are superior because you can shoot RAW externally and bypass the processing. Dynamic range isn't useful when it's being ruined by noise reduction.
The fx30 has much less processing at the lower native ISOs and would be my choice over either of those cameras. Or get a Nikon Z8.

Perhaps the premise of the question would be interpreted differently if the two cameras were more different to each other.  For example, if I asked the same about the GH5 vs GH6, then there would be things to talk about, and spending time looking at the various specs and performance would be worthwhile.  It's also helped by the likelihood that I'd own the GH5 and be questioning an upgrade - so it's a question that would have real-world implications and would be of value to discuss, rather than a purely theoretical question.
In the case of the A7S3 vs A74, the strengths are very similar or don't really matter (both have enough DR for almost anything you might want to shoot) and the weaknesses are similar too.

All good points, but perhaps most significantly, it has a cooling fan.....  in something approaching the size of an action camera.

Sony, etc, have no excuses.

Makes sense. I think the main differences between these Sony cameras are rolling shutter and the ability or lack of ability to record RAW if that is a feature you want to use. Dynamic range is all very similiar in latitude tests and imatest measurements. 

My pick for Sony is the FX30 as it is the cheapest and has a damn good image and a lot of cheap 3rd party lenses for it too. 

I'm confused...  you obviously don't want one, so why are you in this thread about camcorders arguing that no-one wants them?
I'm not interested in buying any cameras that exist right now, but I'm not sitting in all the threads arguing with people about them.

You could check the cined lab tests for both.  If you do, the a7 iv seems to have better DR (though much worse rolling shutter).

It's also worth pointing out that the film you posted could have been shot with almost any camera just by controlling the ratio on set with lighting.  I'm not being dramatic here - you could literally shoot that with the GH1 or my GF3 (of course the resolution and bitrates would suffer..) but the contrast could be replicated.

I think comparisons like this are a journey into very tricky territory.
I'm not saying that DR doesn't matter, or that the A74 doesn't have more than the FX3, but I wonder what situations this will really make a meaningful difference in.
12.9 vs 12.4 isn't that much of a difference, especially once you've got this much DR already.  I like to think about this in terms of "what shots can you get with one and not the other?".  I have spoken a lot about DR in my work, but that's because I tend to regularly be shooting people in front of a sunset, and I want the persons face and also not to clip the sunset behind them.  I think I could get that shot with either of these cameras.
Another shot is of people sitting by a fire, and wanting to show the surroundings as well as not clip the fire (white fire looks odd but you can clip little bits of it as they end up looking like fire highlights).  This isn't a shot I do so I'm not sure if this needs more DR than the A73.
You also need the skill to pull the shadows out in post.  I don't mean just raising the shadows slider either, I mean having the skill to match a shot with (let's say) 12.9 stops of DR with the previous and next shots which are likely to have dramatically less DR.  Imagine that the surrounding shots are of people sitting around the fire - they might have half the DR of the previous shot.  When you have the contrast / curves / LGG wheels / etc cranked one way for one shot, then cranked the other way for the next shot, will all the colours remain similar?  Will the contrast seem natural?  
Colour grading software is getting better but did you know that the normal colour grading controls were developed with algorithms that were simple for computers to do (to reduce processor requirements) rather than looking good?  This often doesn't matter when you're only adjusting things a little bit, but large changes will ruthlessly reveal the weaknesses.  Things like the Resolve HDR Palette were designed to be perceptually uniform, but are you grading in Resolve using this panel?
You also have to consider the other implications of a choice between the FX3 and A74, for example.  Comparing DR is great but it's an "everything else being equal" comparison, but of course, everything else isn't equal.  The extra DR might come at the cost of something else that is more meaningful to what you're doing.  Film-making doing anything other than shooting still-life images on a tripod inside (where everything is controlled and you have all the time in the world) is an exercise in having less time and attention than you'd want to, so you're always trying to work out what is most important and paying attention to that.  I don't know about you, but I routinely look at the footage I have shot and see all kinds of things that I should have done differently - but then I have to remind myself that I was walking down a staircase holding the camera with one hand and the railing with the other and trying not be steady and use the ninja walk while keeping the right focus distance to my subject and keep the nice framing and also not hit my head etc etc etc.  I didn't have mental capacity to do anything else, and if I had paid attention to that other thing then maybe I would have screwed up the shot entirely, etc.
You have to look at the total situation and review what the requirements are for you in your situation and think through what implications you'll have of swapping from one camera to another and the effect on your viewers as they are watching the final edit.  Everything else other than how your viewers feel is a means to an end.

In digital, highlights don't roll-off - they clip faster than a Ferrari without breaks.  The roll-off is applied as part of the processing that occurs after the image is read from the sensor.
In terms of DR, you have to find a source that has tested both with the same methodology.  Luckily, CineD is one such source:
https://www.cined.com/sony-a7-iv-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude/
https://www.cined.com/sony-a7s-iii-lab-test-does-it-live-up-to-the-hype/
 

you asked like the sensor in A7S3 and FX3 would be different. They're not.

They pretty clearly didn't- "fx3/a7s3 sensor vs. A7iv sensor" obviously acknowledges the FX3 and A7sIII are the same.

Hello,
This is the official topic for all Colorizer products.
My main focus is bringing high-precision Fujifilm Film Simulation LUTs to multiple cameras.
The following formats are supported at the moment, click the links for videos and details:
Fujifilm X-T3/X-T4 F-Log
Sony S-Log2/S-Gamut3.cine
Panasonic V-Log L & HLG
I also sell ACES IDTs for cameras that are not natively supported by Davinci Resolve:
- Fujifilm F-Log/F-Gamut
- Nikon N-Log/BT.2020
- Sony S-Log2/S-Gamut3.cine
- Z Cam ZLog2
- GoPro Protune
These packs include a lot of 3D LUTs simulating the ACES Rec.709 look, so it can be valuable for Premiere users as well.
I also have Technical fixes for common color shift issues caused by bad interpretation of certain clips in Premiere. I strongly suggest you check this out if you're a Fujifilm user.
As a bonus I created a bunch of free online tools for creating and modifying 3D LUTs, so if you're into this kind of stuff, visit http://colorizer.net.
Thank you for your attention,
Attila

Or, maybe (TI guy thinking problem) there is some serious issues with the firmware on the cameras and there are some processes causing memory leaks or going wild.

Gerald just dropped a video talking about how he has discovered that camera overheating tests are almost completely unreliable.
TLDR; he tested the same camera in the same environment with the same settings, and got results ranging between 55 minutes and 8.5 hours.
Here's the video, which talks about it in much much greater detail:
I think this pretty much means that camera overheating is an un-testable risk for any camera without a fan.  
This is because:
The tester probably didn't tell you what ambient temp they tested at The tester definitely didn't tell you what airflow and ventilation was present The tester probably didn't test all the modes you will use The manufacturer might update firmware after the testing and completely invalidate the data The test won't have been in the situation you're recording in
and, lastly, in case you're still with me... The test is probably a random number generator anyway I think that overheating is now officially the camera boogyman.
Sceptical of overheating in general? I've personally missed moments when my iPhone overheated........and that's a camera that no-one has identified as having a thermal management problem.

The biggest problem of the camera was not tackled yet - specially for video. 

Since all the previews are on the "is pre-production, wait for the final review" mantra, battery life was not really mentioned much. 

They made a newer IBIS, kinda smaller than the previous, hence the power consumption might be lower. But...I had tha X-S10, with the same smaller battery, and it had the worst battery life that I've known. On one instance, I've shot around 45 stills, then recorded around 18 minutes of 4k...one battery gone. For semi-pro use, 4 batteries in a day was almost certain.

There is another factor to consider (and it connects to the overheating video from Undone): there are two 4k modes on this camera, as in the X-T5. The "regular" 4k mode is not oversampled - it have some kind of line skipping / pixel binning. The image quality is worse (not VERY worse, but noticeable for trained eyes), but it requires less processing (and probably generetes less heat). The 4k HQ mode is oversampled, and uses a mild crop.

All the battery tests for video that I saw used non-HQ 4k video, in this case the battery life does not look so bad. But I could bet that with 4k HQ mode, camera in Boost mode and with IBIS, the battery would be chewed.

For the main targeted users, probably will not be a huge issue. But if the intended use for vídeo is a bit more than short takes, probably will be.

That was a Z Cam E2-M4. I saw similar results with the XT3 back when I used that primarily. Fwiw, I also saw similar color issues comparing Canon 5D3 8 bit vs magic lantern Raw. The color blocks are most obvious in relatively uniform gradients, such as skies. This tree shot isn't the best viewing since it's so busy with high frequency changes, but you can still see it pretty easily when you zoom to 100% or view on a 4K monitor, especially in motion. Most obvious is the greenish splotch in the bottom area that I highlighted, and the upper highlighted area has red and green splotches.
If it's not a big enough deal for what you do, then great! To me, it's a big enough deal, since I have the option of 10 bit. There's no downside: file size is the same, and I've never encountered overheating on any camera ever (shooting narrative I take relatively short clips with time in between).
That's not to say the difference is uber important... I mean I am splitting hairs about something that has very little bearing on the final product. I'm posting here to show what the difference is not to tell you that it matters for you. All else being equal, I'll always use 10 bit on the cameras I've tested.

10-bit is always better than 8-bit, and 4:2:2 is always better than 4:2:0, but the question is if that difference is actually visible / meaningful.  If you're doing very little grading in post then 8-bit vs 10-bit and 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2 probably doesn't have any visible or meaningful difference.
But I suggest doing a test.  Just find a bunch of scenes around the house (or not out of the way) and shoot the same composition in each mode and then just load them up side-by-side and look at them.  If the 8-bit 4:2:0 shot doesn't make your stomach turn then just go with it.
In the end, if you can lessen the impact or eliminate overheating, that you can lessen or eliminate the impact of running out of SD card space, then that means you can relax more while recording, you could shoot more, you can have extra time and energy and headspace that was previously devoted to worrying about or managing these things.  If you can have more headspace and be more relaxed while shooting then the way you use the camera, and the way that you behave while recording will be better.  If you behave better then what is in front of the camera might also be better.
So, realistically, the option is potentially of having a very slightly worse recording of potentially much better material.

OK, too late for me for 2024.
I was going to hold on until the end of March (and suspect it will be announced some time next month) but in the end…
A. I have some engagement type portrait shoots coming up in March and my Zf is not a long lens camera. OK I could manage a couple of shoots with my 70-180 on it but these shoots are a warmup exercise for the coming season so would kind of defeat the object of the exercise.
B. Do I actually need any of that spec?
In answer to B. maybe 🤔 probably yes…if I go over to Nikon 100% for both my video and stills needs, but as that cannot now happen in 2024 due to time constraints, it does not matter.
So I bought a mint used Z6ii with battery grip for 1600 euros.
Does exactly what I need it to do which is primarily be a lens platform for principally the 70-180 and the 20-40 option lenses, stills only, but ability to pull video duty in an emergency.
Compared with the S5ii, arguably it’s most direct rival, without grip, it feels a fraction smaller but with better grip, has my preferred tilt screen, has much better shutter feel and sound, identical stills capabilities but the S5ii edges it in the video department.
I’m still interested in the Z6iii as a possible contender next year to replace my entire existing L Mount and go back to a 3 body hybrid set up rather than my 2024 2x video + 2x stills set up, but not actively seeking to do so.
And interested to see how it fits into the marketplace as a whole.
Still not 100% on the e:shutter only Z8 and Z9’s…

Interesting takes 

The final line up for the 2024 season. 
From left to right…
S1H with battery grip, 70-200 f4 (not shown, Rode WG2) permanently on tripod shooting static full length ceremony & speeches, manual focus, 4k 25p.
Z6ii + adapted Tamron 70-180 f2.8 (not shown battery grip arriving tomorrow) with option Tamron 20-40 f2.8, stills only but can do video in an emergency. Sling on shoulder.
S5ii + cage + Sigma 28-70 f2.8 + Rode Micro as my all day run & gun, gimbal ready, 4k 50p unit (so 42-105mm equivalent). Right hip.
Zf + 40mm f2 candid stills but can also do video in an emergency. Left hip.
Single backpack with all lighting, all other audio, all spare batts, cards, power bank, chargers, gimbal etc, but actually lives in my cart along with the 2 big light stands, 40m extension reel and 500W portable power bank.

Oh, I owned an X100F for about eight months more than four years ago, so I cannot say directly (as much as everyone in this thread is typing based upon the specs of this latest release). I had an X100 for more than a year prior to that. That's all I can speak of based upon direct experience. I think it is a lovely camera that I just didn't connect with. 
I think it's primary use is as a stills camera and I think it fulfills a genuinely unique market niche really well - hybrid viewfinder and a fixed-lens. What else is there? For that, I think the bump to Fuji's 40mp sensor makes sense (not that I would have been asking for it) and the incorporation of IBIS is what really stands out to me. Since my first IBIS body, I simply won't go back. So many more creative options open up (for me). 
So to answer your question pointedly, IBIS. The rest of it might as well come along since it's already there.
I think the video specs are grand to have (why would you exclude what the XT-5, etc can do with the same sensor/processor?) and I would do b-roll grabs or creative work with it. But that would be a perk for me with the x-series rather than a goal for purchasing the camera.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting longer record times - it’s too bad Fuji didn’t include a socket for the fan that works with the xh2s and the gfx100 II (both of which, ironically, don’t really seem to be prone to overheating).  It’s totally valid to say that you record long clips and that a camera which overheats after 10 minutes isn’t for you and it’s equally valid to feel disappointment that a newer camera doesn’t include all of the features and upgrades that you hoped for.  
 
Luckily we live in a time when there are lots of fantastic cameras on the market and you can choose one that fits your preferences/needs (like your Ricoh)!  😄
 

I have the 12sUltra.  256gb.  Typing this on it now. Havent tried to shoot raw with it. 
FWIW, The 24pro app on this phone pushes the hardware to the limit and drops frames. boo.
Not perfect, but one can dial in the image much better than the native app.
I'll play with the motioncam app and see how it goes.

I think it's mainly tradition and what people are used to. Kind of like asking why more people like red than blue or why some people prefer LP sound.

Cool film, only let down by the poor codec and lack of ND.  I understand why you'd want to have a sponsor and why you'd want to tell a story with a phone in comparison to not telling it at all, but if you had freedom to choose and you were already getting a bunch of people on set and putting all that time and effort into something and then a phone sure isn't my first choice.
Same comments as above, but you can definitely see the stronger codec in this piece compared to the Xaiomi.