Nikon ZR vs Sony FX3: This fight is WAY closer than you might expect!

We've all been waiting for this: Nikon ZR vs Sony FX3, a battle so important that Nikon went out and bought another camera company in order to win it.

Yes, the Nikon ZR is the first camera not only made with Red DNA, but also to bear the Red name on a Nikon body. The Big N pulled out all the stops to dethrone the mighty Sony FX3, which is also under heavy fire from the Canon EOS C50.

So, how does this cutting-edge Nikon (which is largely based on the Nikon Z6 III) stack up against the FX3 from 2021 (which is largely the Sony A7S III from 2015 cosplaying as a cinema camera)?

The odds are against Sony, whose 10-year-old 4K sensor is squaring off against Nikon's 12-month-old 6K partially stacked sensor, complete with 32-bit audio, the latest autofocus tech, and Red codecs and color science.

Place your bets and let's see how the Nikon ZR vs Sony FX3 fight goes down…

Nikon ZR vs Sony FX3: At a glance

Nikon ZR vs Sony FX3: Price

• Canon EOS C50: $2,199 / £2,199 / AU$3,499
• Sony FX3: $4,098 / £3,799 / AU$6,499

Sony has had the run of the yard for the past four years, and thus the FX3 still carries a heavy asking price. But with both Nikon and Canon undercutting it significantly, that four-year-old tech doesn't offer particularly good value.

Nikon's camera is getting on half the price but offers so many more features and functions, notwithstanding the baseline bump in horsepower and performance you get from things like newer sensor and autofocus tech.

Unless there's a crazy-good promotion running, the FX3 is an incredibly hard sell next to the ZR.

🏆 Winner: Nikon ZR

Nikon ZR vs Sony FX3: Design & handling

• Nikon ZR: 134 x 80.5 x 49 mm, 630g, 4-inch screen,
• Sony FX3: 129.7 x 77.8 x 84.5mm, 715g / 1,015g with handle, 3-inch screen, IBIS

Nikon has made its camera comparable in height and width to the FX3, but remarkably it's only 58% the depth. It's an amazingly thin design that makes the ZR much more at home in the hands, though this does come with a few physical compromises – some of which leave the ZR feeling less of a cinema camera than the Z6 III on which it's based.

For example, it's limited to a micro HDMI instead of the full-size port on the Z6 III and FX3. The svelte body also means that instead of the memory card slots being situated on the side (as standard for a pro body) they are relegated to the battery compartment on the bottom (as is common on enthusiast cameras).

The latter is puzzling for a number of reasons. Firstly, the choice of underpowered microSD is very strange for a cine camera – likely a compromise due to the lack of real estate, which also brings performance compromises such as no redundant recording. Secondly, removing the microSD means also having to remove the battery in order to access it.

If that's not aggravating enough, you'll probably have to remove the entire camera from your tripod when you need to change the main CFexpress card; you can't actually open the battery compartment on many tripods, as the head obstructs the door hinge (which is why pro bodies usually put card slots on the side). In addition, the smaller chassis means there is only a single mount point.

The FX3 doesn't suffer these access issues, and features twin CFexpress A / SD card hybrid slots for higher paired performance and redundant capture. Its thicker frame also means there are five mounting points. All of these are pretty major points in Sony's favor – but the FX3 doesn't get everything right in terms of its design.

For example, the FX3 has a joystick but it's bizarrely placed on top of the camera! And while its 3-inch screen is perfectly fine, at just 1.44 million dots it's hardly the highest resolution display in the world. By contrast, the ZR keeps its joystick on the back (where it belongs!) and perhaps its crowning achievement is the huge 4-inch, 3.07 million-dot screen – over a third larger and over twice the resolution of the Sony.

Unlike Sony (and Canon), though, Nikon did not launch the ZR with a modular handle, which not only helps with ergonomics and handling, but also houses XLR ports – a notable omission for a camera in this category.

In all, there are pros and cons on both sides. Honestly, though, while I admire the ZR's size, the operability compromises – inferior storage media, the inability to access it without de-rigging the body, lack of handle and XLRs – mean that this round goes to Sony.

🏆 Winner: Sony FX3

Nikon ZR vs Sony FX3: Photo specs

• Nikon ZR: 24.5MP, 20fps RAW / 120fps JPEG
• Sony FX3: 12.1MP, 10fps

Pretty clear-cut win for Nikon here, as the ZR (which, again, is built on the same architecture as the brilliant Z6 III hybrid camera) outclasses the FX3 (which is built on the video-oriented A7S III).

Photo capability is hardly the selling point here, as taking a YouTube thumbnail or a still for the 'gram is probably the extent to which most users are going to use these cameras for photographs.

Sony's 12.1MP sensor has historically been a go-to for astro and low-light photographers, where the lower resolution and larger pixel size count in its favor. Outside that use case, however, Nikon's partially stacked sensor is far better for burst speed and overall image quality.

The ZR also packs the latest subject detection algorithms along with a rock-solid 7.5 stops of stabilization, compared to Sony's notoriously ho-hum IBIS (which is 5 stops on paper, but really doesn't feel like that in performance).

🏆 Winner: Nikon ZR

Nikon ZR vs Sony FX3: Video specs

• Nikon ZR: 20.6MP, 6K 60p, 4K 120p, FullHD 240p, internal RAW, 32-bit float
• Sony FX3: 10.3MP, 4K 120p, FullHD 240p, XLR capability

Nikon's camera has way too much firepower for the Sony to keep up. The higher resolution means it is capable of up to 6K 60p internal RAW – and that's with the signature Redcode RAW (R3D NE), along with other 12-bit RAW formats like N-Log and ProRes. You also have essentials like shutter angle control and waveform monitoring.

Meanwhile the poor old Sony can't even record RAW internally, and things like shutter angles and waveforms were conspicuous by their absence even four years ago. It does at least still produce very clean footage, thanks to the lower resolution and generous ISO80-102,400 sensitivity, but with the dual base ISO capability on the Nikon this isn't the advantage it once was.

Crucially, though, the Nikon ZR is missing an XLR handle – without which it cannot accept professional XLR input, which is definitely a big strike against it in the audio stakes (though unless Nikon is completely mad, an XLR handle absolutely has to be on the way). However, a huge boon for audio is the fact that the Nikon ZR is the only camera with built-in 32-bit float.

What is 32-bit float, and why is it important? Think of it like RAW files but for your audio – it enables you to enhance or even rescue sound in post, even if you've completely messed up your levels at the point of capture. While a number of Panasonic cameras have 32-bit capability, such as the popular Lumix S5IIX, they all require an additional adapter.

While the lack of XLR input is a black eye for the ZR, common sense tells you that it's on the way – and everything else, particularly headline features like Redcode and 32-bit float, more than makes up for it.

🏆 Winner: Nikon ZR

Nikon ZR vs Sony FX3: Lens selection

• Nikon ZR: Z mount
• Sony FX3: E mount

Here is the single biggest advantage the FX3 has over the ZR: the sheer landslide of native E-mount lenses compared to the relative trickle of Z glass.

It's no surprise; not only is the E mount 15 years old, with some 330 lenses on the market, Sony has cranked out over 80 lenses by itself. By comparison, the Z mount is only 7 years old and Nikon has just managed to crack 40 home-grown lenses.

More importantly, while Sony fully opened its mount to third parties very early on, Nikon is still very restrictive about who can produce Z-mount glass – at least, Z-mount glass with technology such as electronic contacts and autofocus, though there are a number of manual-focus dumb lenses on the market.

Nikon is aware of this, having announced that Nikkor Cinema lenses are in development, and it has licensed Leica to produce its new Leitz Hektor cine lenses for Z-mount – but that still means that the only native cinema lenses for the ZR cost $7,400 a pop.

The upshot is that while every single lens manufacturer can (and most do) make optics for Sony, there is a much smaller selection of third-party glass for Nikon Z. And unlike Canon, Nikon hasn't spent the past few years producing cinema lenses (because it didn't have any cinema cameras, until buying Red and launching the ZR), so it doesn't have any first-party cine lenses yet.

You can, of course, adapt all the most popular PL and EF cinema optics to the Z mount – which is what many people will do. But there's no getting round the fact that the ecosystem of native lenses is drastically smaller for ZR users.

🏆 Winner: Sony FX3

Nikon ZR vs Sony FX3: Verdict

This fight was actually far closer than I expected. While the ZR wipes the floor with the FX3 in terms of tech and specs, it's let down by ergonomics and design choices.

The lack of XLR inputs, the questionable choice of media with a lack of redundant recording, and the inability to swap memory cards without removing the camera from a tripod are pretty big sore points. And there's no skirting the fact that Nikon doesn't have any Z-mount cinema lenses – with uber-pricey Leica lenses being the only native options right now.

However, the headline features – namely the ability to capture internal 6K 60p RAW video in Redcode, 32-bit float audio, along with 7.5 stops of IBIS – compensate for these hangups. The Nikon ZR is a top-to-bottom better technological proposition than the FX3, and anyone choosing between the two cameras today would be well advised to jump on the Z Cinema bandwagon.

🏆 Winner: Nikon ZR