There is a new “Nikon ZR vs Sony FX3 side-by-side comparison video” published by Matti Haapoja comparing the video footage from both models (keep in mind that the $4,098 Sony FX3 is almost twice as expensive as the $2,196 Nikon ZR – see the specifications comparison here):
Here are a few more video comparisons (some of them I already posted online last week):
Next is the AI recap:
Comprehensive Comparison: Nikon ZR vs. Sony FX3 (based on the above YouTube videos)
Drawing from the recapped YouTube videos (e.g., comparisons by creators like those in the provided links, emphasizing hands-on tests for filmmakers, wedding shooters, and creators) and recent 2025 analyses (including readout speed benchmarks and filmmaker-focused breakdowns), here’s a detailed recap comparing the Nikon ZR (a 2025 Nikon/RED collaboration cinema camera) and the Sony FX3 (a 2021 model still relevant in 2025). The ZR, priced at around $2,199–$2,200, positions itself as a budget disruptor against the FX3’s $3,999–$4,100 premium tag. While the FX3 has a proven track record, the ZR’s recent launch has surged it into Amazon’s best-seller lists, overtaking the FX3 in sales rankings.
The comparison highlights trade-offs: the ZR excels in value, RAW video, and innovative features like 32-bit audio, making it ideal for budget-conscious run-and-gun shooters. The FX3 shines in low-light reliability and polished ergonomics for pros. Neither is universally “better,” but the ZR edges out for most users in 2025 due to its price-to-performance ratio.
Price and Value
- Nikon ZR: $2,199 (body only), often bundled with adapters for Sony lenses. Represents aggressive pricing—half the FX3’s cost—while sharing a sensor tech lineage with the Nikon Z6 III ($2,500). Reviewers praise it as a “game-changer” for indie filmmakers, saving up to $1,000–$2,000 on accessories like external recorders. It’s already #44 on Amazon’s mirrorless best-sellers, surpassing the FX3.
- Sony FX3: $3,999–$4,100, with recent price hikes. Established ecosystem value for Sony users, but feels dated in 2025 against newer entrants like the ZR.
- Verdict: ZR wins for affordability and entry into high-end RAW workflows without breaking the bank. Videos note it’s “insanely competitive” for creators upgrading from mirrorless hybrids.
Sensor and Image Quality
- Nikon ZR: 24MP full-frame partially stacked sensor (shared with Z6 III), dual-base ISO (800/6,400, up to 86,400 native). Delivers ~11 stops dynamic range at 4K (per CVP tests), with natural colors and film-like noise in 6K RED RAW. Easier color grading in DaVinci Resolve; OLPF reduces moiré. Low-light is solid but trails FX3; excels in detail and balanced shadows/highlights.
- Sony FX3: 12MP full-frame stacked sensor, dual-base ISO (800/12,800, up to 409,600). Superior low-light (clear winner in tests) with ~14–15 stops dynamic range and minimal noise. H.265 footage is punchy but requires more grading; 4K limits resolution compared to ZR’s 6K.
- Key Differences (from 2025 benchmarks):
Aspect Nikon ZR Sony FX3 Resolution 24MP (better for cropping) 12MP (optimized for video) Dynamic Range ~11 stops (4K) ~14–15 stops Low-Light ISO 6,400 (high base) 12,800 (high base) Noise/Detail Film-like, more detail Cleaner in shadows - Verdict: FX3 for low-light pros (e.g., events/night shoots); ZR for higher-res detail and RAW grading flexibility. Videos show ZR’s 6K outperforming FX3’s 4K in post-production punch.
Video Capabilities
- Nikon ZR: Internal 6K/60p RAW (R3D RED Code 12-bit, Nikon RAW, ProRes RAW), 4K/120p (1.5x crop). No open-gate or anamorphic de-squeeze (firmware hopes). File sizes are large (~190 Mbps for 6K), but justified by quality. Readout speed: 9.44 ms (excellent for motion, close to pro levels). No overheating in tests despite no fan.
- Sony FX3: Internal 4K/120p (1.1x crop, no RAW—requires external via HDMI), H.265 10-bit 4:2:2. Faster readout: 8.8 ms (best-in-class for rolling shutter, minimizing skew in pans). Reliable for long takes with internal fan.
- Key Differences:
Feature Nikon ZR Sony FX3 Max Resolution 6K/60p RAW (internal) 4K/120p (no internal RAW) Slow-Mo Crop 1.5x (4K/120p) 1.1x (4K/120p) Readout Speed 9.44 ms (4K/24p) 8.8 ms (4K/24p) Codecs RED/Nikon/ProRes RAW H.265 (external RAW opt.) - Verdict: ZR for higher-res cinematic RAW (ties or beats in quality despite crop); FX3 for smoother motion and reliability in fast-action. Reviewers tie slow-mo but favor ZR’s internal RAW for workflows.
Autofocus and Stabilization
- Nikon ZR: Nikon’s hybrid AF with eye/animal/object detection—reliable and a “first” for RED cameras. 7.5 stops 5-axis IBIS (best in class for handheld). Menus are clunky (“big 12” vs. FX3’s intuitive “big six”), but quick video menu helps.
- Sony FX3: Sony’s Real-time Tracking AF—comparable or slightly edges in sticky subject tracking. 5-axis IBIS (~5 stops). User-friendly menus and proven in pro cinema.
- Verdict: Tie on AF (both excellent); ZR wins stabilization for run-and-gun (e.g., weddings/docs). Videos show no major issues for either.
Build, Design, and Ergonomics
- Nikon ZR: Compact (longer/thinner than FX3), lightweight (~700g), 4-inch 1,000-nit flip screen (superior visibility, often eliminates external monitors). Z-mount (adapters for Sony/Canon lenses). Drawbacks: Micro HDMI (fragile), micro SD slot (limited to H.264/265, no dual recording), few buttons/no grip (needs rigging), shared battery/card door.
- Sony FX3: Ergonomic cage-like body (~715g), 3-inch flip screen (good but smaller). E-mount (native Sony lenses). Full-size HDMI, dual CFexpress Type A/SD slots, internal fan. More mounting points for rigging; intuitive controls.
- Key Differences:
Aspect Nikon ZR Sony FX3 Screen 4-inch flip (brighter) 3-inch flip Ports Micro HDMI, CF-B/micro SD Full HDMI, dual CF-A/SD Build Fewer mounts, no EVF More pro rigging, no EVF Weight/Size Slightly larger/thinner Compact, grippier - Verdict: FX3 for polished pro build; ZR for screen and compactness, though ergonomics need tweaks (firmware updates expected).
Audio and Connectivity
- Nikon ZR: Internal 32-bit float audio (game-changer via 3.5mm mic—no adapter needed; recovers clipped audio). Bluetooth/HDMI timecode. Tally light included.
- Sony FX3: 24-bit internal (needs external for 32-bit). XLR handle option (~$400 extra). Strong HDMI output.
- Verdict: ZR dominates audio innovation—praised in videos for wireless mics like Hollyland. FX3 requires more setup.
Pros and Cons Summary
| Camera | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Nikon ZR | Affordable ($2,200); 6K internal RAW; 7.5-stop IBIS; 4-inch screen; 32-bit audio; lens adapters; surging sales in 2025. | Large files; micro HDMI fragility; clunky menus; 1.5x slow-mo crop; limited monitoring tools (no false color). |
| Sony FX3 | Top low-light/dynamic range; fastest readout (8.8 ms); reliable fan/build; intuitive menus; minimal crop in 120p; Sony ecosystem. | Expensive ($4,000+); no internal RAW; 4K limit; older (2021) tech; smaller screen. |
Which Camera is Better Overall?
Based on the YouTube recaps (which lean toward the ZR for value and RAW quality in side-by-side tests) and 2025 updates (e.g., ZR’s sales surge and near-par readout speed), the Nikon ZR is the better camera for most users in 2025—especially budget-conscious filmmakers, wedding/event shooters, and run-and-gun creators. Its 6K RAW, superior IBIS, massive screen, and 32-bit audio deliver pro-level features at half the price, making it a “killer” alternative that doesn’t compromise much on quality. Reviewers conclude it’s ideal for experimental or hybrid workflows, with easy Sony lens adaptation easing transitions.
However, the Sony FX3 remains better for professionals prioritizing low-light excellence, seamless motion (fastest readout), and ecosystem reliability—particularly if you’re already invested in Sony gear or shooting in challenging lighting. For cinematic 7K needs, consider the Canon C50 as a side option, but it lags in IBIS.
If your workflow emphasizes affordability and future-proof RAW, go ZR—it’s the 2025 disruptor reshaping the compact cinema market.
Nikon Zr pre-order links:
Comparing the Nikon ZR camera with the RED Komodo X, V Raptor Z-mount models
