newfoundmass

Honestly I don't care what camera you get. Get the FX3. Or don't. 
What you NEED to do, no matter what camera you end up with, is stick with it. Learn that camera until you can operate it with your eyes closed and I promise you'll be able to squeeze pretty much anything you could want out of it (within reason, of course!)
Learning your camera's strengths and weaknesses allows you to lean into and adapt to each one. Until very recently my main camera was a GH5, a 5 year old camera that is very flawed but also incredibly capable in the right hands. Out of necessity, because the GH5 isn't great in low light, I had to really learn lighting techniques. It was something I should've been doing all along, but the GH5 forced my hand. By being weak in low light the GH5 made me a better videographer. Those skills will stay with me no matter what camera I'm using 10 years from now. 
That's part of the journey. Embrace it. Even if there were a camera out there that could create the images you want with minimal effort, where's the fun in that? Where's the artistry? What sense of accomplishment would you feel? It's cliché, I know, but the camera is just a tool. You're the artist, so learn how to express your art with the tool you have! 

Kye, it’s slightly disingenuous to state that anything and everything on YouTube is wrong and of zero value.
A lot of it is indeed crap, but the ability to pick and choose is an option, but “if it’s on YouTube, it’s worthless”, isn’t even close to being valid.

And still no mention of lenses...
Haha.
Hey, I've been there. I spent a couple years chasing an image. I went from a t2i to an eos-m to an nx500 to a G7 to a BMMCC...
Damn, I forget... I know there was a couple Sony cameras in there... some point and shoots... an FZ2500...
Eventually, I forked up the dough for an open box 5D Mark III, installed Magic Lantern Raw and never looked back. I've been curious about other cameras, but nothing in my price range has come even close. Right now I'm really curious about the Sigma FP and the S5. The FP for its raw capabilities, its small size and a bump in resolution. The S5 for IBIS run and gun, B&W with 14 stops of DR.
I'll probably just go forward with my 5D... I love the IQ, I already own it and KNOW it, and chasing specifics costs too much money for a hobby.
All that said... knowing what I know now... don't get the FX3. There's no reason why you can't get comparable images with the R6. I wouldn't even bother shooting Log right now. Practice with it and practice grading but just use Neutral Profile dialed down with the ProLost Flat settings... then make a couple simple adjustments in your NLE of choice... contrast and saturation... maybe add some Tint for style and move on.
If you're intent on buying a new camera... then get either an M50 Mark II or a GH5ii. The GH5 is a workhorse camera with plenty of headroom to manipulate the footage. Search Rowe Films on YouTube or Vimeo for examples of what can be accomplished.
The point is... it seems like you're chasing a pot of gold. I know, I've been there. I found mine, but when I did, everybody had moved on from it and I questioned my purchase a bunch of times... do I need 4K... should I have IBIS... do I need better AF.
It's all nonsense. The fact is this... all cameras under $4500 kinda suck in one way or another. So you either accept their faults based on other strengths (ibis and AF) and learn to bend the image a little or spend some money and get something more expensive... but then you won't have the convenience of the small size of hybrid cameras... and more expensive cameras aren't any easier to operate... they're just going to give you a sturdier footing.

The S1 can also be found for close to 1100 to 1200 versus 4600€ for the FX3. You can’t beat the S series for bang for buck.
Here are a couple of videos a friend and I shot last year on the S5 and S1:
 

I think putting the handles and matte box is as far as I'm going to go when it comes to trying to spiffy the camera up for clients. I'll add a monitor for functionality when I need it. To me, I want a compact, simple set up. I see "rig build" videos on YouTube and 90% of them are just way too much for me. 5 years ago I'd of had a totally different opinion, because I'd have been impressed and slightly jealous, but honestly the last thing I wanna do these days is spend more than 5 minutes setting up my camera rig and then have to lug this big thing around for a simple sit down talking head shoot or my friend blowing glass.
LUMIX S5 + cage + Panasonic XLR helmet + Azden SGM-250CX + SmallRig HSR2511 right grip with record trigger + NiceyRig left grip with Arri Rosette + Mini Matte Box Lite = enough!

Well for me the S5's time has finally passed. The lack of useable AF for the type of work that I do finally became too much to deal with. The Canon C70 has managed to meet and exceed my expectations in every possible video related area. Its AF is certainly not perfect either, but it is leaps and bounds ahead of the S5 and GH5 not to mention the integrated XLR inputs and internal ND filters has helped me set up and tear down faster than any previous camera I have owned.
For my fast moving run and gun type event work I gave up IBIS just to gain useable AF and so today I am getting rid of my C200, both S5's, and the GH5 since I haven't even turned on any of them since getting the C70. I have now shot multiple events and projects with the C70 and it has performed nearly flawlessly every time (hint: AF is terrible in lowlight/backlit scenarios). 
I still think if you can use MF for your work or if the AF is good enough for the type of projects that you shoot, the S5 is without a doubt the best hybrid photo/video camera out there for the price and offers the best of both photography and video, even audio is great with the XLR adapter, but for me the C70 is without a doubt a better fit. I still think the S5's greatest niche would be as a travel / mini doc hybrid photo/video camera.
With the S5 I was simply throwing away too much soft footage and it was always stressful trying to ensure people at events were in focus or that I at least managed to capture the peak action moment in focus.  Even simple handheld interviews I found myself using ISO4000 all the time just to increase the F stop to try to keep people in focus or I would use a wider lens. In the end I found myself making too many compromises and putting in too much extra effort just to keep the subjects in focus.
Surprisingly, at least to me, I still find the VLOG out of the S5 about even or maybe even slightly better than the CLOG2 I am getting with the C70 when it comes to dynamic range and colors. I know Canon's colors are legendary, and the C70's DGO sensor is supposed to be the best you can get below $10K at the moment, but there's something about the image quality out of the S5 with the Sigma 50mm and VLOG that I can't quite match with the C70.  I probably just haven't found the right CLOG2 to Rec709 LUT yet, but with the S5's VLOG I could grade it by hand without a LUT and get better results.

It's not the distance between the mount and the sensor, but the circular size of the mount itself. There's not a ton of room for the sensor to move left, right, up and down because the mount is so small. This limits how much the IBIS can work. I think they'd need a pretty substantial crop in order to get comparable results as Panny, Canon, and Nikon. 
I think this is why Sony has moved towards post-stabilization options with Catalyst Browse. 
It was simultaneously a very smart and very dumb move to use the same mount for FF. It is more of a positive, but it'll probably be a long time and require a lot of processing power if they're ever going to catch up in the stabilization department. It's nice that they've offered an alternative with Catalyst Browse but it's not ideal.
I wonder if Fuji is having similar problems because of the mount size? I'm also curious why there has been such a drop off in AF performance since the X-T3 and whether the IBIS is responsible? 

I will never understand why more companies haven't done more power zooms. That lens sounds like a killer, even if it is a little bit on the slow side. Well worth it for a versatile lens that can do all of that.
I kind of agree, but also kinda just wish they'd build a fan straight into the camera. I get why they didn't, and I get that for MOST uses it will not be required, but it's just hard to get behind the idea of having to buy an external fan accessory to help with overheating.
They are getting SO CLOSE, but I agree. There are just enough quirks still that make it hard to jump into the Fuji system. The big thing for me is they need updated lenses that can handle changes in exposure better. This new lens is definitely incredible, but what they've got out there right now aren't too good in this regard. That's a dealbreaker for me. The IBIS also doesn't look very good at all in video and seems more geared towards stills. My sports work needs good stabilization, because the cameras are so lightweight and small (+1 for the old heavy camcorders of yesteryear not needing stabilization because of how big and heavy they were!)
I love those Fuji colors so much though! I look forward to trying it anyway!

My guess is, given how few lenses there were to begin with, they probably figured it was better to just start from scratch.
 
I've used the A7Siii and I don't think it's as good as the S5's stabilization, but I'd have to do a side by side comparison to be sure. 
 

Everyone has their preferences, but to me Sony IBIS is almost pointless to have. It's one thing if you're just standing still since it'll eliminate most micro jitters but any actual movement looks pretty bad. I do wonder though if that's due to the size of the mount? 

It's not the distance between the mount and the sensor, but the circular size of the mount itself. There's not a ton of room for the sensor to move left, right, up and down because the mount is so small. This limits how much the IBIS can work. I think they'd need a pretty substantial crop in order to get comparable results as Panny, Canon, and Nikon. 
I think this is why Sony has moved towards post-stabilization options with Catalyst Browse. 
It was simultaneously a very smart and very dumb move to use the same mount for FF. It is more of a positive, but it'll probably be a long time and require a lot of processing power if they're ever going to catch up in the stabilization department. It's nice that they've offered an alternative with Catalyst Browse but it's not ideal.
I wonder if Fuji is having similar problems because of the mount size? I'm also curious why there has been such a drop off in AF performance since the X-T3 and whether the IBIS is responsible? 

It's not the distance between the mount and the sensor, but the circular size of the mount itself. There's not a ton of room for the sensor to move left, right, up and down because the mount is so small. This limits how much the IBIS can work. I think they'd need a pretty substantial crop in order to get comparable results as Panny, Canon, and Nikon. 
I think this is why Sony has moved towards post-stabilization options with Catalyst Browse. 
It was simultaneously a very smart and very dumb move to use the same mount for FF. It is more of a positive, but it'll probably be a long time and require a lot of processing power if they're ever going to catch up in the stabilization department. It's nice that they've offered an alternative with Catalyst Browse but it's not ideal.
I wonder if Fuji is having similar problems because of the mount size? I'm also curious why there has been such a drop off in AF performance since the X-T3 and whether the IBIS is responsible? 

Everyone has their preferences, but to me Sony IBIS is almost pointless to have. It's one thing if you're just standing still since it'll eliminate most micro jitters but any actual movement looks pretty bad. I do wonder though if that's due to the size of the mount? 

Meanwhile Canon's version is 2500 euros!
Any 16mm F2.8 zoom is going to take some serious glass, so these are not easy to make. I think it shows how much is going into the pockets of shareholders at the publicly listed companies vs private though.
Sigma can do this kind of lens for 1600 euros less than a corporation.
And they are making less of them too.
Which means the profit margins at Canon / Sony / etc. are absolutely enormous and we're being seriously ripped off.

For me this life style is as much about protecting my mental health than anything. There has to be more to life than work, and your work should be something that you enjoy. I tried working at a production company and it devastated my mental health. I just can't do it. 

Indeed and that is partly why I DO shoot weddings full-time.
The combo of reward vs effort etc, I haven’t been able to find with anything else, including other genres of photo and video.
I guess I am just suited to it whereas most folks probably are not…

It's survival depends on a lot of things, but I agree that it needs PDAF to grow and thrive. The market spoke long ago, and it demands PDAF. 

From the videos I've watched they unfortunately don't work well in video mode when it comes to AF. They work great for photos, but the results in video reminded me of trying to use AF with a speedbooster on my GH5.
I was going to get the Sigma 28-70 but the results I saw were bad; I thought about renting it to see for myself but it feels like it'd be a waste of $90 or whatever dollars. Right now I'm using the kit lens and is quite a gem to be honest. I am looking at the Panny 24-105mm though, as F4 is more than enough for my sports and event work. 
Related: I really, really like the S5. I can't believe I got a lightly used one with a cage, 2 OEM batteries, and the kit lens for $1400. I highly recommend getting it, especially if you can find a deal. The image is so good. 

I will never understand why more companies haven't done more power zooms. That lens sounds like a killer, even if it is a little bit on the slow side. Well worth it for a versatile lens that can do all of that.
I kind of agree, but also kinda just wish they'd build a fan straight into the camera. I get why they didn't, and I get that for MOST uses it will not be required, but it's just hard to get behind the idea of having to buy an external fan accessory to help with overheating.
They are getting SO CLOSE, but I agree. There are just enough quirks still that make it hard to jump into the Fuji system. The big thing for me is they need updated lenses that can handle changes in exposure better. This new lens is definitely incredible, but what they've got out there right now aren't too good in this regard. That's a dealbreaker for me. The IBIS also doesn't look very good at all in video and seems more geared towards stills. My sports work needs good stabilization, because the cameras are so lightweight and small (+1 for the old heavy camcorders of yesteryear not needing stabilization because of how big and heavy they were!)
I love those Fuji colors so much though! I look forward to trying it anyway!

From the videos I've watched they unfortunately don't work well in video mode when it comes to AF. They work great for photos, but the results in video reminded me of trying to use AF with a speedbooster on my GH5.
I was going to get the Sigma 28-70 but the results I saw were bad; I thought about renting it to see for myself but it feels like it'd be a waste of $90 or whatever dollars. Right now I'm using the kit lens and is quite a gem to be honest. I am looking at the Panny 24-105mm though, as F4 is more than enough for my sports and event work. 
Related: I really, really like the S5. I can't believe I got a lightly used one with a cage, 2 OEM batteries, and the kit lens for $1400. I highly recommend getting it, especially if you can find a deal. The image is so good. 

This seems like a good overview, and includes a few little sections to make sure social-media-bros now some of the basics...
 

I think putting the handles and matte box is as far as I'm going to go when it comes to trying to spiffy the camera up for clients. I'll add a monitor for functionality when I need it. To me, I want a compact, simple set up. I see "rig build" videos on YouTube and 90% of them are just way too much for me. 5 years ago I'd of had a totally different opinion, because I'd have been impressed and slightly jealous, but honestly the last thing I wanna do these days is spend more than 5 minutes setting up my camera rig and then have to lug this big thing around for a simple sit down talking head shoot or my friend blowing glass.
LUMIX S5 + cage + Panasonic XLR helmet + Azden SGM-250CX + SmallRig HSR2511 right grip with record trigger + NiceyRig left grip with Arri Rosette + Mini Matte Box Lite = enough!

Kinda late to this but its a subject I can definitely relate to and comment on. Clients are more and more educated/savyy about gear. Not only do they know most mirrorless models, they even know about lenses, audio, rigs, gimbals etc. Especially the younger ones, i.e. juniors, interns, assistants in their 20s/30s. I think it's mostly thanks to Youtube. Not always a bad thing, especially if you've got nice gear. Nice glass often gets the most respect, justifiably so. So I won't front, we do tend to overdo it a bit, especially with new clients: cine cams, big lenses, cages, rigs, gimbals, lights, tripods in fancy pelican cases. It's part of the show, even if sometimes less than half actually gets used. It can sometimes backfire though, because more equipment means more setup time etc. And clients aren't stupid, if all that gear isn't backed up with adequate footage, or you're inconsistent with what you're bringing, they'll see right through you and you're just an overpaid clown eating up their time. I've never actually experienced that but it's always on my mind.
There are so many more elements to get right on a paid shoot. More gear also means more things to manage and higher risks/mistakes. I've done some dumb shit by overdoing it. Sometimes less is more.  I won't hesitate to go monopod, handheld over tripod or gimbal, or even whip out an action cam if timing, shot or location constraints demand it. 
Same thing with bringing a ton of people on set of a bigger budget crew type project. Rookie mistake. More people, more problems. Keep it down to the essential.
In the end only, only respecting the time frame + footage results really matters. Show some creativity and confidence with your shots, composition, direction, decision-making, time management and human skills and even the toughest client will respect you no matter the gear..

Unfortunately, looking professional does matter to some clients. They have to look for something to justify hiring an "expensive" videographer. 
But I also believe it is more important to have a camera set up that works for you. Rigging up the camera to impress at the cost of usability is stupid, IMO.
I don't really have this problem because I usually bring my FS7, but I've seen people rig up their mirrorless camera to a point where it is absurdly big and heavy to use properly. The client may be impressed by his look. I highly doubted the client will be impressed by the video he made though. 

My favorite doc I’ve ever made was on handheld LUMIX cams without stabilization.