Sony A6700 vs Sony FX3: A Hands-On Comparison for Photographers and Creators

Choosing between the Sony A6700 and the Sony FX3 can feel like standing at a crossroads with two very different paths. Both cameras carry the Sony E-mount badge and offer solid video capabilities, but they cater to somewhat distinct user profiles and photographic demands. Having spent significant time behind the viewfinder and in the editing room with both these cameras, I’m here to share an experience-driven, technical, and practical comparison to help you decide which tool fits your creative workflow best.

Introduction: Two Sony Giants, Different Missions

At first glance, the Sony A6700 continues the legacy of the beloved APS-C a6000 series, targeting advanced enthusiasts and hybrid shooters craving a compact, versatile mirrorless camera. It’s a natural successor to the A6600, refined but not radically changed, offering an excellent balance of photo and video features for around $1400.

In stark contrast, the FX3 is a full-frame, pro-oriented mirrorless designed primarily for video creators and filmmakers, albeit with stills capabilities. Priced close to $3900, the FX3 is part of Sony’s Cinema Line, boasting robust video-centric features, advanced heat dissipation, and professional-grade ergonomics tailored to long shooting sessions.

If you’re the kind of buyer who juggles photos, occasional video, and wants something pocketable, the A6700 might lean toward your wheelhouse. However, if video production and full-frame image quality are your bread and butter (or you want high ISO performance at almost any cost), the FX3 demands serious consideration.

Build, Handling, and Ergonomics: Size Matters but So Does Comfort

The size and weight difference is immediately noticeable. The A6700 tips the scales at a lightweight 493 grams with compact dimensions (122x69x75 mm), making it an all-day carry winner. The FX3 is heftier at 716 grams and a bit chunkier (130x78x85 mm), but it’s not bulky for a full-frame cinema camera.

Looking at the top controls, the A6700 offers a traditional shooter’s dial layout - mode dial, exposure compensation dial, front and rear command dials, and a cluster of customizable buttons. This is familiar territory for photographers who like tactile control and instant access to settings.

The FX3 forgoes an electronic viewfinder (more on that later) and prioritizes minimalist video-friendly buttons, including a dedicated record button easily accessed with your thumb, as well as customizable buttons large enough to find on the fly in a rig or shoulder mount. Its body has multiple mounting points (cold shoe, quarter-inch threads), visible only when you inspect closely, aimed at integrating into professional rigs and gimbals.

Both cameras sport fully articulated touchscreens, but:

• The FX3’s 3.0-inch 1.44M-dot LCD offers higher resolution than the A6700’s 1.04M-dot screen, providing clearer image playback and menu navigation.
• The A6700’s electronic viewfinder is one of the best in APS-C cameras, with 2.36M-dot resolution and a 0.71x magnification - a solid tool for bright outdoor shooting and quick composition.
• In contrast, the FX3 makes a deliberate choice: no EVF at all. Sony expects FX3 users to monitor through external devices or use the rear screen. This will be a dealbreaker for many photographers who rely on eye-level framing but suits video-focused pros using external monitors.

Ergonomically, the A6700 has a comfortable thumb grip with a deep, rubberized grip ideal for one-handed shooting. The FX3 has a squarer, boxier grip designed to mount in rigs and for hand-held video shooting, which feels different in hand but practical for its purpose.

If you prize compactness with clubs-for-thumbs handling and an EVF, the A6700 is your winner. The FX3 offers pro video rigs compatibility but compromises on traditional stills handling.

Sensor, Image Quality, and ISO Performance: APS-C vs Full Frame Debate

Here is the tech heart of these two cameras:

• The A6700 features a 26-megapixel APS-C sized BSI-CMOS sensor (23.5 x 15.6 mm). This sensor size has dominated portable advanced mirrorless cameras because it strikes a great balance of image quality, lens size, and cost. It offers more pixels across a smaller sensor area, useful for tight crops and reach, especially in wildlife or sports.
• The FX3 swaps that for a 12.1-megapixel full-frame BSI-CMOS sensor (35.6 x 23.8 mm), emphasizing larger photosites for superior high ISO performance, improved dynamic range, and better color depth. The FX3 is made to shine in challenging low-light environments where grain and noise reduction are critical (think weddings or night shooting).

From real-world tests:

• The A6700’s ISO range extends natively from 100 to 32,000 with an expandable range up to ISO 102,400, but image quality starts to degrade past ISO 12,800 for clean detail.
• The FX3 goes from ISO 80 to 102,400 natively, expandable to 409,600 - and its noise control is noticeably better across high ISO values due to the bigger photosites and full-frame sensor advantage.

Color depth and dynamic range measurements from DxOMark put the FX3 far ahead (24.2-bit color depth, 13.4 stops dynamic range) compared to what we’d expect from the A6700’s smaller sensor. This means smoother gradations and more recovery room in shadows and highlights for FX3 shooters.

The lower resolution of the FX3’s sensor means you lose some framing flexibility in cropping, but images generally have a more cinematic, creamy look in low light.

Autofocus Systems and Speed: Hybrid Autofocus with 759 Points

Both cameras sport the same impressive 759-point hybrid autofocus system (phase detection plus contrast detection):

• Eye and animal eye AF work superbly on both, locking on with confidence and speed in most lighting conditions.
• Continuous AF tracking is solid on the A6700 at 11 fps, perfect for still subjects or moderate action.
• The FX3 trails slightly at 10 fps continuous shooting - enough for pro video but less targeted at high-speed photography.

Here’s a crucial difference: The FX3 is optimized for video AF tracking, especially face priority and smooth pull focusing (great for interviews and filmmaking). The A6700, however, excels for still photographers who want a snappy lock on a moving subject in sports or wildlife.

For street and candid shooters who value eye-detection accuracy (especially portrait creators), both cameras perform well, but the A6700’s EVF helps faster frame acquisition.

Video Capabilities: Cinema-Grade vs Hybrid Shooter

This is where the story diverges significantly:

• Both record 4K at up to 120p using 10-bit 4:2:2 internally, delivering high-quality footage with smooth slow-motion capability.
• The FX3 supports additional professional codecs (XAVC S-1), richer color grading potential, and has built-in cooling for extended recordings without overheating - essential for filmmakers.
• The A6700 is a solid video hybrid with 4K/120p but more limited by thermal constraints and shorter continuous recording duration.

Both have headphone and microphone inputs, but the FX3 adds two full-size SD and CFexpress Type A slots - a boon for heavy video workloads - while the A6700 manages with a single SD slot.

With the FX3, you get a footprint and ergonomics designed for gimbals and shoulder mounts, and full compatibility with Sony’s professional cinema accessories (XLR adapters, handles). Also, its digital audio interface delivers pristine sound recording.

If video is your main priority and you want a camera tailored for on-set work, the FX3 offers a tangible advantage here. The A6700 shoots excellent video but is best for casual or supplemental usage.

Specialty Photography Use Cases: Landscape, Portrait, Wildlife, and More

Let’s drill down into how these cameras perform across popular photography types:

Portrait Photography

• A6700: Its 26MP sensor provides detailed skin texture rendering, and thanks to the APS-C crop, standard lenses behave like longer focal lengths (1.5x crop factor), which can be handy for tighter headshots without breaking the budget on tele lenses. Eye-AF is reliable for pin-sharp portraits, and the 5-axis IBIS helps avoid blur in handheld low light.
• FX3: The full-frame sensor, despite fewer megapixels, produces exquisite tonal gradations and beautiful bokeh with fast lenses wide open. It handles skin tones with impressive fidelity, especially under mixed lighting, and its exceptional noise performance at high ISO is a boon for indoor or event portraits.

Landscape Photography

• The A6700’s 26MP resolution is great for medium-sized prints, and it’s easier to pack a travel kit around its lighter weight and smaller lenses.
• The FX3’s lower megapixel count may deter pixel-peepers, but its wider dynamic range and better color depth contribute to stunning landscapes with deeper shadows and detail retention.
• Weather sealing exists on both, but neither are weatherproof in a heavy-duty sense - use covers for wild environments.

Wildlife and Sports

• Reach wins here: The A6700’s APS-C sensor with a 1.5x crop can effectively extend your telephoto lenses, helping wildlife and sports photographers get closer without spending on ultra-telephoto glass.
• While the FX3’s full sensor may mean faster lenses and wider apertures for shallow depth of field, it lacks the reach advantage, and its slower continuous shooting speed (10fps vs 11fps) is marginal.
• Autofocus tracking on both is excellent, but the A6700’s EVF allows quicker subject acquisition through the viewfinder, a big plus for fast action.

Street Photography

• The compact size and weight of the A6700 make it discreet and agile - crucial for street shooters who want to blend in.
• The FX3 is bulkier, and lacking an EVF makes composition harder in bright daylight; plus, it screams “videographer” rather than “stealthy photographer”.

Macro Photography

• Both cameras rely heavily on lens choice here, but the A6700’s smaller sensor means more depth of field at the same aperture, which some macro shooters appreciate for critical focus control.
• IBIS on both helps handheld macro shots, but the A6700’s better viewfinder aids in fine focus adjustments.

Night and Astro Photography

• The FX3 is the clear winner for ultra-clean ISO performance and expansive dynamic range, which helps bring out star fields and nightscape details with less post-processing pain.
• The A6700 can still be pushed for some astro work but expect more noise and the need for stacking techniques.

Connectivity, Battery, and Storage: Efficiency Matters

Both cameras support built-in Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, enabling quick transfers and remote control.

• Battery life: The FX3 edges out slightly at around 600 shots per charge versus 570 for the A6700. Such numbers depend heavily on usage, but both use Sony’s NP-FZ100 battery, a robust and widely supported standard.
• Storage: The FX3 supports dual card slots - specifically SD + CFexpress Type A - appealing to professionals needing redundancy for critical video projects. The A6700 sticks to a single SD card slot, which might be a limitation for some pros but perfectly fine for enthusiasts.
• USB connectivity on the A6700 is USB 3.2 Gen 2 (10 Gbps), allowing fast transfers, while the FX3 has slightly slower USB 3.2 Gen 1 (5 Gbps).

Price and Value: What Are You Paying For?

The list price difference is significant: $1399 for the A6700 vs $3899 for the FX3.

• The A6700 offers excellent bang-for-buck, combining solid stills, capable video specs, and portability at a price that’s accessible to advanced amateurs or budget-conscious pros.
• The FX3 commands a professional premium, justified by full-frame sensor performance, video-centric features, heat management, dual cards, and cinematic ergonomics, making it a sound investment for filmmakers and serious hybrid shooters who need strong video-first specs.

Looking at the numbers objectively in performance ratings:

• The A6700 scores best in street, wildlife (due to crop factor reach), and hybrid photo-video roles.
• The FX3 dominates low-light, video, and professional workflows.

Lens Ecosystem Compatibility: Sony E-Mount Universalism

Both cameras use the Sony E-mount, meaning they can operate with the entire range of Sony APS-C and full-frame lenses, plus third-party glass from Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron, and others.

• The A6700’s APS-C sensor crops full-frame lenses, effectively multiplying focal length by 1.5x, great for reach but at the expense of framing flexibility.
• The FX3 uses full-frame sensors, so lenses perform without crop, true to their designed focal length and aperture characteristics.

Budget-wise, APS-C lenses tend to be lighter and cheaper, favoring A6700 users. FX3 users often invest in more expensive full-frame, often cine-style lenses.

Real-World Shootouts and Verdict

Sony A6700 front Sony A6700 screen back Sony FX3 front Sony FX3 screen back

Shooting side by side in nature, portraits, and urban environments highlighted a lot of subtleties:

• A6700’s sharper detail and cropping ability pleased sports and wildlife shooters.
• FX3’s creamy bokeh, low-noise shadows, and motion handling shined in portraits, low light, and video.

When pushing video in a controlled studio, the FX3 performed flawlessly without heat throttling, compared to the A6700 which occasionally forced cooling breaks after extended 4K 120p clips.

Pros and Cons in a Nutshell

Sony A6700

Pros:

• Lightweight and compact for travel and street shooting
• High-resolution 26MP APS-C sensor with good detail and crop reach
• EVF for easy framing in bright light
• Fast 11 fps continuous shooting for action photography
• Fully articulated touchscreen with touch-focus
• Sensor-based 5-axis image stabilization
• Affordable price point for hybrid shooters
• Strong autofocus with eye and animal detection

Cons:

• Single SD card slot limits card redundancy
• Video overheating under heavy use
• Dynamic range and high ISO performance lag behind full-frame
• No professional video features like XLR ports or active cooling
• Moderate weather sealing only

Sony FX3

Pros:

• Full-frame 12.1MP sensor with superb low light and dynamic range
• Professional video-centric features and codecs
• Dual media slots (SD + CFexpress Type A)
• No overheating issues even in extended recording
• Superior audio capture options and XLR compatibility (with adapter)
• Lightweight for a full-frame cinema camera
• Robust focus tracking optimized for video
• Excellent battery life and interface optimized for video workflows

Cons:

• No electronic viewfinder - awkward for stills photography
• Lower megapixel count limits framing flexibility for photos
• Heavier and bulkier than the A6700
• Price is prohibitive for many enthusiasts
• Less intuitive for still photography ergonomics

Which One Should You Buy?

If you’re primarily a photographer or enthusiast looking for a do-it-all camera that balances excellent APS-C image quality, usability, and some video capability - with portability and a reasonable price to match - the Sony A6700 is the sensible choice. It’s ideal for travel, street photography, portraits, wildlife, and general shooting with an intuitive user interface and a strong lens lineup.

On the other hand, if your main focus is professional video production or you need a tool built to handle prolonged shooting, extreme low light, and cinematic quality footage with the flexibility of full-frame photography as a bonus, the Sony FX3 is well worth the investment. It’s the go-to full-frame cinema camera for solo shooters, wedding videographers, and hybrid creators with bigger budgets demanding reliability and professional features.

Final Thoughts

Both cameras serve distinct purposes, and your choice boils down to where your priority lies between photographic versatility with a budget-conscious frame, and pro-grade video-centric features for demanding cinematic creation.

At the end of the day, whether snapping wildlife at dawn on a trail with the A6700’s reach or filming an intimate wedding documentary under dim ceremony lights with the FX3’s full-frame power, Sony offers two powerful options - each excelling where it matters most.

Happy shooting, and may your next camera fit your creative vision like a glove!

Note: For further technical specs and detailed image quality analysis, consider cross-referencing DxOMark and field test reviews to align with your specific usage scenarios.