ZR vs Z6III

Sorry to open a whole new thread on -i think- a very common discussion topic. But I would like to hear advanced Nikon users' opinions here and to express my thoughts, as a "proud" Z6III owner...

1. Given that hardware-wise, ZR is about identical to the Z6III, what's that factor that makes ZR better for videography? I mean, what are those features on ZR that makes Z6III incapable of getting the same results?

2. Is DR improved on the ZR compared to Z6III? If so, how is that? Exact same sensor for both of them!

3. What about the flickering issue of Z6III, is it solved in the ZR? Nikon will always say that they have already fixed the flickering issue with an older firmware update but we all know, the problem is still there...

4. Why all that hype on ZR reviews, compared to a lot of disappointing reviews on the Z6III a year ago?

Closing question: does it make sense for someone to suspect that the "flickering" and less than optimal DR issues of Z6III have been an intentional "feature" by Nikon to make commercial room for the ZR later on?

Theo2482 said:

4. Why all that hype on ZR reviews, compared to a lot of disappointing reviews on the Z6III a year ago?

Click to expand...

It looks like Nikon has recruited a bunch of "influencers" that are new to Nikon, and they are more video centric. Those people have produced a lot of YouTube videos to hype up the Zr. (I watch YouTube videos in English as well as in Chinese, and there are a lot of Chinese YouTube videos on the Zr as well, from influencers that I didn't notice before.) It should be clear that the Zr is merely the first in a series of video cams from Nikon. Those people are busy trying to please Nikon so that they will continue to receive pre-production products from Nikon to produce exclusive videos to make money on YouTube. As I said, it is a symbiotic relationship. I would watch those reviews with a small grain of salt. There are a few critical videos on the Zr. I wonder whether those people will be invited back in the future.

I wouldn't consider the Z6iii to be a disappointment, but some of the (relatively minor) issues were discovered by actual users after production Z6iii had gone onto the market. The Z6iii also came on the heels of the Zf. I think plenty of people had purchased the Zf for the better AF on a 24MP body and didn't bother with the Z6iii, which is what a lot of them actually wanted. As a Z6iii owner, I am quite happy with it as a secondary camera.

Theo2482 said:

Closing question: does it make sense for someone to suspect that the "flickering" and less than optimal DR issues of Z6III have been an intentional "feature" by Nikon to make commercial room for the ZR later on?

Click to expand...

Please no conspiracy theory.

BTW, as I posted on a different thread, currently the Zr and Z6iii are priced exactly the same, to the penny, at B&H. In a way the Z6iii is cheaper since B&H is giving some freebies.

I think the main reason to get a ZR is to shoot R3D NE raw video. If you're doing anything else, the Z6III will be better. Yes, there's 32-bit audio and the XLR hot shoe accessories, but those are relatively minor and solvable in other practical ways. It also sounds like, but not confirmed, that the h.265 codec is softer due to increased noise reduction, but no one's done a direct comparison to past cameras yet.

For flickering, I have seen it in some of the reviews which were using pre-production cameras, eg. Matti Haapoja's review of it at 22:00 when he shoots a cityscape at ISO 25600. It's side-by-side with footage from an FX3, which does not have the flicker, so this probably is not a YouTube artifact.

re. hype: IMO, people are discovering how beautiful Nikon Z cameras' footage can look. It's taken branding it with Red for people to even give it a 2nd look. Nikons have always had subjectively beautiful image rendering, but didn't have the film hype of Fuji or Canon's history, so people didn't take a look at it seriously. Matti's video is another great example of that (and he admits his biases).

Theo2482 said:

Sorry to open a whole new thread on -i think- a very common discussion topic. But I would like to hear advanced Nikon users' opinions here and to express my thoughts, as a "proud" Z6III owner...

1. Given that hardware-wise, ZR is about identical to the Z6III, what's that factor that makes ZR better for videography? I mean, what are those features on ZR that makes Z6III incapable of getting the same results?

2. Is DR improved on the ZR compared to Z6III? If so, how is that? Exact same sensor for both of them!

3. What about the flickering issue of Z6III, is it solved in the ZR? Nikon will always say that they have already fixed the flickering issue with an older firmware update but we all know, the problem is still there...

4. Why all that hype on ZR reviews, compared to a lot of disappointing reviews on the Z6III a year ago?

Closing question: does it make sense for someone to suspect that the "flickering" and less than optimal DR issues of Z6III have been an intentional "feature" by Nikon to make commercial room for the ZR later on?

Click to expand...

Just off the top of my head...

1. Screen size. Digital hot shoe.

2. We don't know yet. Personally, not a big deal.

3. We don't know yet. I haven't seen anybody mention it, though. Have seen multiple people talk about how H.265 video quality is just alright.

4. Redcode raw. Getting it in a $2200 body is the biggest deal to most people that are excited about this camera. IMO, if you already have a Z camera and don't need red code raw, you can probably skip the ZR.

Theo2482 said:

Sorry to open a whole new thread on -i think- a very common discussion topic. But I would like to hear advanced Nikon users' opinions here and to express my thoughts, as a "proud" Z6III owner...

1. Given that hardware-wise, ZR is about identical to the Z6III, what's that factor that makes ZR better for videography? I mean, what are those features on ZR that makes Z6III incapable of getting the same results?

Click to expand...

Video features, audio, cooling, and the size and weight is better for rigging it out.

Theo2482 said:

2. Is DR improved on the ZR compared to Z6III? If so, how is that? Exact same sensor for both of them!

Click to expand...

Sigh... DR is NOT a big issue with the Z6III. I use 10k ISO all the time, sometimes higher.

Theo2482 said:

3. What about the flickering issue of Z6III, is it solved in the ZR? Nikon will always say that they have already fixed the flickering issue with an older firmware update but we all know, the problem is still there...

Click to expand...

That is going to be subjective, and I do think you'll see more testing and comparisons on YT.

Theo2482 said:

4. Why all that hype on ZR reviews, compared to a lot of disappointing reviews on the Z6III a year ago?

Click to expand...

I don't care about reviews. The Z6III brought me back to Nikon after a year with Sony. Because the Zr is RED, smaller, lighter, introduces a whole new UI, and priced the same as a currently discounted Z6III. It is even smaller than a Z5II.

Theo2482 said:

Closing question: does it make sense for someone to suspect that the "flickering" and less than optimal DR issues of Z6III have been an intentional "feature" by Nikon to make commercial room for the ZR later on?

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be the first or last time company walked that line. I'm not getting that vibe from Nikon, and just imagine what they'll offer in the first firmware update, but don't buy a camera based on a firmware update (cough like a Z7II.)

Theo2482 said:

Sorry to open a whole new thread on -i think- a very common discussion topic. But I would like to hear advanced Nikon users' opinions here and to express my thoughts, as a "proud" Z6III owner...

1. Given that hardware-wise, ZR is about identical to the Z6III, what's that factor that makes ZR better for videography? I mean, what are those features on ZR that makes Z6III incapable of getting the same results?

Click to expand...

I can only answer the first question. The Zr is not really identical to the Z6 III. The Zr actually has smaller heat spreaders in front of the sensor and behind the main board compared to the Z6 III. However, the Zr's sensor heatsink (part of the image sensor unit) appears to be larger than the Z8's, which in turn is larger than the Z6 III's. You will be able to confirm this once the Zr self service repair manual becomes available in the near future. I can only guess that there may have been technological advances and the Zr's chips are more efficient/produce less heat than the Z6 III, given the smaller heat spreaders.

Alberto Tanikawa said:

Theo2482 said:

Sorry to open a whole new thread on -i think- a very common discussion topic. But I would like to hear advanced Nikon users' opinions here and to express my thoughts, as a "proud" Z6III owner...

1. Given that hardware-wise, ZR is about identical to the Z6III, what's that factor that makes ZR better for videography? I mean, what are those features on ZR that makes Z6III incapable of getting the same results?

Click to expand...

I can only answer the first question. The Zr is not really identical to the Z6 III. The Zr actually has smaller heat spreaders in front of the sensor and behind the main board compared to the Z6 III. However, the Zr's sensor heatsink (part of the image sensor unit) appears to be larger than the Z8's, which in turn is larger than the Z6 III's. You will be able to confirm this once the Zr self service repair manual becomes available in the near future. I can only guess that there may have been technological advances and the Zr's chips are more efficient/produce less heat than the Z6 III, given the smaller heat spreaders.

Click to expand...

Exactly what IC chip differences are you referring to? Aren't the Z6iii and Zr using exactly the same sensor and the same EXPEED 7 processor? Or the sensor has been further modified?? Nikon announced the Z6iii in June 2024 and the Zr in September 2025, roughly 15 months apart. I wonder how much the technology has changed in the mean time. It is not like we are talking about a totally brand new EXPEED 8 processor.

Since the Zr has a smaller body than the Z6iii, if anything, I think the Zr may have more issues with overheating. Meanwhile, the Zr has no mechanical shutter and therefore can save some room inside.

The Z8 is the one that tends to have overheating issues, but that is a 45MP camera with 8K video capability. For still and video, we are moving a lot more data on the Z8. I haven't experienced any overheat issues on the Z6iii, but I also haven't pushed it all that hard either. When I restrict the Z8 to 4K video, I also haven't had any overheat issue.

As far as chips, that was just a guess on my part, I am not privy to such information. But I do know the image sensor units are not the same between the Zr and Z6 III (different part codes). And not having a shutter unit frees up room for an additional heat spreader in the Zr.

Alberto Tanikawa said:

As far as chips, that was just a guess on my part, I am not privy to such information. But I do know the image sensor units are not the same between the Zr and Z6 III (different part codes). And not having a shutter unit frees up room for an additional heat spreader in the Zr.

Click to expand...

Thanks. It sounds like the Zr's sensor is slightly different from the one in the Z6iii.

shuncheung said:

Alberto Tanikawa said:

As far as chips, that was just a guess on my part, I am not privy to such information. But I do know the image sensor units are not the same between the Zr and Z6 III (different part codes). And not having a shutter unit frees up room for an additional heat spreader in the Zr.

Click to expand...

Thanks. It sounds like the Zr's sensor is slightly different from the one in the Z6iii.

Click to expand...

Not that I know of.

Theo2482 said:

1. Given that hardware-wise, ZR is about identical to the Z6III, what's that factor that makes ZR better for videography? I mean, what are those features on ZR that makes Z6III incapable of getting the same results?

Click to expand...

I've been pretty up front about that: R3D and the UX in using it. Things the Z6III doesn't have: P3 Rear LCD, the touch control UI centered around video tools, the View Assist using real LUTs when recording R3D. Those things alone go a long way.

Theo2482 said:

2. Is DR improved on the ZR compared to Z6III?

Click to expand...

Not that I know of.

Theo2482 said:

3. What about the flickering issue of Z6III, is it solved in the ZR?

Click to expand...

Not that I know of. I'm pretty sure that I see the low level flicker in deep shadow still. But I need a production camera before I'm going to test that.

Theo2482 said:

4. Why all that hype on ZR reviews, compared to a lot of disappointing reviews on the Z6III a year ago?

Click to expand...

Nikon marketing ;~). Nikon appears to have not just targeted a set of video influencers, but gone out of their way in getting them early and full access. Us "other" folk weren't in the loop until very late, and then almost as an afterthought. With the video folk Nikon sought out, they emphasized my answer to #1, above, over and over. And it appears to have resonated.

Theo2482 said:

Closing question: does it make sense for someone to suspect that the "flickering" and less than optimal DR issues of Z6III have been an intentional "feature" by Nikon to make commercial room for the ZR later on?

Click to expand...

No.

Thom Hogan said:

Theo2482 said:

1. Given that hardware-wise, ZR is about identical to the Z6III, what's that factor that makes ZR better for videography? I mean, what are those features on ZR that makes Z6III incapable of getting the same results?

Click to expand...

I've been pretty up front about that: R3D and the UX in using it. Things the Z6III doesn't have: P3 Rear LCD, the touch control UI centered around video tools, the View Assist using real LUTs when recording R3D. Those things alone go a long way.

Thom Hogan said:

2. Is DR improved on the ZR compared to Z6III?

Click to expand...

Not that I know of.

Thom Hogan said:

3. What about the flickering issue of Z6III, is it solved in the ZR?

Click to expand...

Not that I know of. I'm pretty sure that I see the low level flicker in deep shadow still. But I need a production camera before I'm going to test that.

Thom Hogan said:

4. Why all that hype on ZR reviews, compared to a lot of disappointing reviews on the Z6III a year ago?

Click to expand...

Nikon marketing ;~). Nikon appears to have not just targeted a set of video influencers, but gone out of their way in getting them early and full access. Us "other" folk weren't in the loop until very late, and then almost as an afterthought. With the video folk Nikon sought out, they emphasized my answer to #1, above, over and over. And it appears to have resonated.

Thom Hogan said:

Closing question: does it make sense for someone to suspect that the "flickering" and less than optimal DR issues of Z6III have been an intentional "feature" by Nikon to make commercial room for the ZR later on?

Click to expand...

No.

Click to expand...

"2. Is DR improved on the ZR compared to Z6III?
Not that I know of."

Is it not with R3D NE? 15 stops vs 13?

JustSomeone said:

"2. Is DR improved on the ZR compared to Z6III?

Not that I know of."

Is it not with R3D NE? 15 stops vs 13?

Click to expand...

15 stops is kind of dubious, but Gerald Undone did measure almost a full stop of DR increase in R3D compared to N-raw on his pre-production camera. You'll get closer to 10-11 stops realistically.

Andre Yew said:

. You'll get closer to 10-11 stops

Click to expand...

Testing methodology can be important.

The UK Digital Camera edition 298 laboratory testing found just over 12 stops DR for the Z6 III and the recent Lumix S1 II at 100 through to 400 ISO, 12 stops at 1600 ISO. and 11 stops at 12,800 ISO.

Andre Yew said:

realistically.

Click to expand...

Laboratory testing and real world photography are not always the same thing.

Laboratory testing excludes all light sources other than rear directional light.

What dynamic range is achieved in the field is part determined by the lighting conditions and the lens flare limiting ability.

I expect a Nikon 50 mm AF pre-nano coating and the 50 mm ZF 1.2 with better than nano lens coatings, each at f8 with a some frontal light subject would result in a dynamic range difference of around two stops.

Eight stops dynamic range encompasses the brightest whites to a dark subject in shade in a common sunlight scene.

I do not have DR issues with my Z6 III compared to my Z8 or Z9.

Alberto Tanikawa said:

As far as chips, that was just a guess on my part, I am not privy to such information. But I do know the image sensor units are not the same between the Zr and Z6 III (different part codes). And not having a shutter unit frees up room for an additional heat spreader in the Zr.

Click to expand...

Same sensor itself, yet different part numbers because of different chassis mounting, IBIS, etc. however since the ZR is a thinner body, maybe the heat spreaders are closer to or touching the insides of the outer shell, so it would dissipate the heat without need of a fan. Expeed 7 seems to run pretty cool anyway, as long as it's not tasked with 8K video.

I have some concerns about how a flash would work, but otherwise it reminds me in some ways of a steroidal E-PL1. No EVF, has PASM controls, advanced extra bits in the hotshoe connector. Obviously that old Olympus wasn't video centric (although competent in its day) I'm referring mostly to the screen on the back as the only visual interface. I have the Olympus microphone accessory kit for mine. But anyway..

I kinda want one versus the Z6III, despite the lack of mechanical shutter. The only real usability issue would be, I'd have to wear my readers when using it because my close up vision isn't great anymore. The larger screen could be a help there, however.

I like what they're doing with the ZR. If you really want it bristling with 1/4-20s, put it in a cage.

Andre Yew said:

JustSomeone said:

"2. Is DR improved on the ZR compared to Z6III?

Not that I know of."

Is it not with R3D NE? 15 stops vs 13?

Click to expand...

15 stops is kind of dubious, but Gerald Undone did measure almost a full stop of DR increase in R3D compared to N-raw on his pre-production camera. You'll get closer to 10-11 stops realistically.

Click to expand...

Still an improvement that was my point.

On paper we have 15+ vs 13. And if you think Nikon's claim is dubious, I have the right to find Gerald's testing dubious. The accuracy of the testing was not my point.

Theo2482 said:

Sorry to open a whole new thread on -i think- a very common discussion topic. But I would like to hear advanced Nikon users' opinions here and to express my thoughts, as a "proud" Z6III owner...

1. Given that hardware-wise, ZR is about identical to the Z6III, what's that factor that makes ZR better for videography? I mean, what are those features on ZR that makes Z6III incapable of getting the same results?

2. Is DR improved on the ZR compared to Z6III? If so, how is that? Exact same sensor for both of them!

3. What about the flickering issue of Z6III, is it solved in the ZR? Nikon will always say that they have already fixed the flickering issue with an older firmware update but we all know, the problem is still there...

4. Why all that hype on ZR reviews, compared to a lot of disappointing reviews on the Z6III a year ago?

Closing question: does it make sense for someone to suspect that the "flickering" and less than optimal DR issues of Z6III have been an intentional "feature" by Nikon to make commercial room for the ZR later on?

Click to expand...

"Run and gun" video/cinema camera vs allrounder may explain many things about all the aspects you've listed.

I'm not a video guy, but to my understanding, ZR internally allows the usage of raw video formats that allows more DR in video processing than the video formats managed internally by the Z6III, and that's likely the whole thing (and that's probably a good thing for video/cinema shooters).

For the rest, same sensor may simply mean same "hardware" DR - or, if you prefer "photographic raw" DR.

Also, Nikon has been a long subject of bashing since years for video influencers. And even so, many are happy to use Z6III for video, it's just more of a clickbait thing to complain .

I recommend this video about the subject (and this specific 647s time), where the guy explains that, even while Film Maker Z6/II packs were already top performers, many were still bashing Nikon, and he also likely gives the only reason why :


I find his explanation quite accurate. But, that was before Nikon+Red and this new ZR... so, maybe it could change by now.

Mr Bolton said:

I have some concerns about how a flash would work,

Click to expand...

Nikon says 1/60 max flash sync. I assume this to mean that this has been tested using Nikon Speedlights. Signal timing with non-Nikon (or Nissin or Profoto) flash units can be enough variable with other units that 1/60 could be outside the edge of usable.

JustSomeone said:

Is it not with R3D NE? 15 stops vs 13?

Click to expand...

You have to be really careful with DR claims, as they're always dependent upon what is being measured and how. Undone uses a test a bit different than I do, but his results are about what I expect: the realistic, usable DR is not what the manufacturers claim. That's been true for some time.

In terms of Z6III versus ZR, the Z6III claims Nikon has made tend to be done the way Nikon has always done them (and closer to actual usable reality), while the ZR claims seem to be done in a way that makes them more directly comparable to the RED claims. The ZR has less DR under that testing standard than the Komodo-X or V-Raptor-X.

Andre Yew said:

I think the main reason to get a ZR is to shoot R3D NE raw video. If you're doing anything else, the Z6III will be better. Yes, there's 32-bit audio and the XLR hot shoe accessories, but those are relatively minor and solvable in other practical ways. It also sounds like, but not confirmed, that the h.265 codec is softer due to increased noise reduction, but no one's done a direct comparison to past cameras yet.

Click to expand...

While it’s not at the same level of utility as the R3D RAW for serious videographers, I wouldn’t underestimate the value of the integrated 32-bit audio with the CLR hotshoe.

Right now, to achieve the same 32-audio sync on my Z8, I have to use a powerful but unwieldy (and power hungry) $400 Tascam Portacapture X8 (which has XLR jacks) + a $70 Tascam AT-BK1 Bluetooth Adapter to connect to the Z8 via an $180 Atomos Ultrasync Blue Bluetooth timecode generator (with a cryptic UI). A system fraught with multiple points of failure. Not to mention that I lose Bluetooth sync from my smartphone to the Z8, so I can no longer remotely control it with SnapBridge.

And that’s because the Z8 has a built in timecode *and* can sync with the Atomos Ultrasync (as does the Z6III).

For my Z6, which doesn’t have timecode, I also have to add a $280 Atomos Ultrasync One (with an even more cryptic UI) + a $ (forgot what it cost me) specialized cable to complete the timecode sync chain. A couple more points of failure.

It cost me almost half the price of a ZR to get timecode-synced 32-bit audio into my Z6 video. And the whole experience was so unwieldy that I only tried it a few times.

I’m plotting to get me a ZR, primarily for the 32-bit integrated audio!

Bill