u/Royal-Nectarine4765

Solo shooter question for people who’ve actually used these setups in the real world:

I shoot mostly solo, handheld/run-and-gun cinematic stuff on an FX3, and I’m torn between two monitor setups:

1. Atomos Shinobi II + Hollyland transmitter attached to the back
   Pros:
   - Touch autofocus / touch-to-focus on the Shinobi II
   - Cleaner operating experience for focus pulling
   Cons:
   - Becomes bulky with the transmitter, extra battery, HDMI splitter/wires, etc.
   - Rig starts feeling complicated and heavy fast

OR

2. Hollyland Mars M1 Enhanced only
   Pros:
   - All-in-one monitor + wireless transmission
   - Can instantly send image to my iPad as a director’s monitor
   - Much cleaner/smaller rig
   Cons:
   - Lose touch autofocus functionality

My two biggest priorities are:
- Reliable autofocus usability
- Having a director/client monitor on my iPad

For those of you shooting solo:
How much do you ACTUALLY use touch autofocus on external monitors? Is it something that becomes essential once you have it, or is having wireless transmission to a director monitor way more valuable in practice?

Basically:
Would you rather have the cleaner all-in-one wireless workflow, or the autofocus control even if it makes the rig more Frankenstein-ish?

Also curious if anyone regretted going one direction or the other.

FX3 shooters especially — would love your thoughts.

I already own a Sony FX3 and just impulse-bought a Nikon ZR. Starting to wonder if I made a mistake or if this could actually be an amazing combo for filmmaking.
My situation:

I’m shooting an indie/art-house style feature
A lot of handheld/run-and-gun stuff
I care more about image character, mood, color, and emotional feel than perfect clinical commercial footage
I already have Sony glass + workflow built around the FX3
But the ZR’s internal RAW, RED color science/workflow, 6K image, and overall ‘cinema’ vibe really pulled me in
Questions:
Did I make a dumb move buying the ZR when I already own an FX3?
For people who’ve used both: how different do the images ACTUALLY feel?
Is the ZR more inspiring creatively, or is it mostly hype?
How hard is matching FX3 + ZR footage in a real project?
Does the ZR feel like a true cinema camera or more like a hybrid pretending to be one?
How’s the low light compared to FX3?
Any overheating/reliability issues in long shoots?
Is Nikon autofocus finally on Sony level or still behind?
Would you personally keep both or sell one?
What attracts me to the ZR:
Internal RAW

RED workflow
6K oversampled look/detail
Full frame
Nikon colors look gorgeous to me
Feels like a baby cinema camera
Way more cinematic-feeling than specs on paper should suggest

What scares me:

I’m already invested in Sony
Worried I’m chasing gear dopamine
Worried matching multiple cameras (FX3/iPhone/BMPCC/ZR) will become a nightmare
Lens ecosystem/adapters
Storage costs with RAW
Would love brutally honest opinions from people who’ve actually shot narrative work with either camera. Also curious if anyone thinks the FX3 + ZR combo could actually complement each other instead of compete.

Hey everyone,

I’m shooting on the Sony FX3 and mainly make short, dramatic / psychological films (think A24 / moody / character-driven stuff). I’m trying to figure out what lenses I actually need vs what I just want.

Right now my kit is:

- Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G

- Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM

- Sony FE 85mm f/1.4 GM

I love this setup. It feels very “cinematic,” but I’m starting to wonder if I’m missing something important… or just overthinking.

---

### Lenses I’m considering adding (and why I’m stuck)

1. Ultra wide (like a 12mm, e.g. Laowa)

- Feels like it could add a really unique, stylized look for psychological stuff

- But… is it actually useful or just a gimmick I’ll barely use?

---

2. Standard zoom (24–70mm, Sigma or Sony)

- Seems practical for run-and-gun / speed

- But overlaps heavily with my 20 / 35 / 85

- Worried it’ll make me lazy creatively vs primes

---

3. Anamorphic (something like a 33mm)

- I LOVE the look

- Feels very “cinema” and fits my style

- But is it worth it for narrative work if I’m not fully committing to anamorphic across the whole project?

---

4. Telephoto zoom (70–200mm)

- This one actually feels important

- I want those compressed, beautiful nature shots, background separation, long-distance moments

- Also useful for storytelling (isolation, voyeuristic feel, etc.)

---

### The bigger questions I’m struggling with

- Do I actually need a 50mm, or do my 35 + 85 already cover that space well enough?

- Is a macro lens something I should own for filmmaking, or is that more niche?

- Am I missing a core storytelling tool, or just chasing gear?

---

### My style / use case

- Narrative filmmaking (short films)

- Psychological / moody / character-focused

- Small crews, sometimes solo

- I care a lot about intentional visuals, not just convenience

---

### What I’m really trying to figure out

If you had my current kit:

20 / 35 / 85

👉 What would be the ONE lens (or type of lens) you’d add next that actually expands creative possibilities?

And just as important:

👉 Am I overthinking this and already fully covered?

---

Would love to hear what you all actually use in similar filmmaking scenarios vs what just sits in your bag.

Appreciate any insight 🙏