ZR vs Z6III

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.
Thanks. It sounds like the Zr's sensor is slightly different from the one in the Z6iii.
I don't think we can say that, because all signs so far point to it being the exact same, a Sony IMX820, which is the front part of an IMX410 with a new ADC backplane.

The new RAW video format is pretty much the old format with a different name.
 
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.
On heat dissipation - in one of the launch videos (possible Ricci's long one) - the comment is made that the ZR can only be used with the rear monitor open - increasing heat dissipation via the ZR rear body surface.

Many (including me) often use the Z6 III (and Z8 and Z9) though the viewfinder - with the rear monitor closed.

A rear monitor closed acts "the wrong way round" - similar to a heat insulator :-(

I speculate, but do not know as I have not done half hour and longer video shoots, that heat dissipation will improve with my Z6 III and similar cameras when rigged up for video with the rear monitor open.

How well the ZR dissipates heat will become clearer after the launch at the end of next month.

My speculation is it will work well in "ideal conditions" in view of the long continuous video shooting time mentioned in the specification.

On and off topic, I am considering going more seriously into video with the ZR as a stepping stone.

I appreciate going more seriously into video involves buying many supplementary items including professional video editing software, an advanced microphone and at least a video cage - before even considering video specific lenses.
 
most of this stuff seems esoteric until its all that you do.

sure I would have liked a small corner EVF or an addable one , but its only going to be a video camera for me, and as such, the codecs and even tally lamp are a big deal for me.
 
Don't forget a good video head too. I tried ballheads but they are woefully inadequate for smooth pans and tilts. Plus you can attach the Nikon MC-N10 remote grip on the head's handle, that way you can control the camera at the same time you pan and tilt.
 
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.
I agree with you that the audio features of the ZR are really nice, especially the upcoming Tascam module that lets you use phantom-powered XLR mics. 32-bit audio is nice too, but I think having proper audio inputs is more important.

If you were to redo your system, I'd recommend using Tentacle Sync Es rather than any kind of wireless timecode sync, and Atomos stuff in the past has been buggy so it's like a double whammy of unreliability. Yes, with the Tentacles, you lose your on-camera audio track since Nikon doesn't have a timecode input, but in return you get rock solid sync.

I'd also get a Tascam FR-AV2 instead of a Portacapture which cannot be jam-synced. The FR-AV2 has a temperature-compensated oscillator that can be jam-synced with the Tentacle, and then the Tentacle can be disconnected because the Tascam's oscillator will maintain a low level of drift over a long time. I've seen a test where it maintains sync to the frame for 24 hours.

A cheaper recorder option which has 32-bit audio, phantom powered XLRs, and can be jam synced is Zoom's M4 Mictrak. It's not clear how good its onboard oscillator is, but the preamps are claimed to be from their F series, so they're probably very good.

BTW, a big advantage of running your own recorder is that you are untethered from the camera and can place your mics anywhere, so the audio features in a ZR are not necessarily a clear win over an external, synced audio recorder.

My own setup has a Sync E with a Track E. At the beginning, I jam sync the Track E to the Sync E which consists of connecting both units with a cable, and waiting for a few seconds, after which they are synced and I can disconnect the cable.

The Track E has an on-board 1-channel 48 kHz 32-bit float recorder along with a 5V plug-in power so it can use the widest range of lavs and embeds its timecode in the audio metadata for later syncing. I then use the Track E as a body pack on my talent with a Sennheiser MKE2 Gold lav for really high quality sound. The Track E can literally run all day with its built-in battery and storage, so you can start it recording, and forget about it until the end of the day.

The syncing in post is trivial with Tentacle's utility which makes XML files that sync up all of your video and audio tracks that you can import into an editor. You just dump all of your files into it, and it sorts it all out. So even if the Track-E is continuously recording, and I start and stop the video on the camera, it will still pair up all the video fragments correctly. It's even easier if you use a camera that can embed timecode in video metadata since the video editor can directly sync those files.

BTW, an ironic thing is that on the same day that the ZR was announced, Blackmagic also announced the Camera Pro Dock which gives an iPhone far more professional video I/O than the ZR and only for $300:

- genlock input on BNC

- timecode input on BNC

- locking dedicated power input

- full size HDMI (to the extent that HDMI is a pro standard)

- locking USB-C ports

It really shows the paucity of options on the ZR, which was ostensibly designed for video work.

--
https://www.instagram.com/lolcar/
 
Last edited:
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.
I agree with you that the audio features of the ZR are really nice, especially the upcoming Tascam module that lets you use phantom-powered XLR mics. 32-bit audio is nice too, but I think having proper audio inputs is more important.

If you were to redo your system, I'd recommend using Tentacle Sync Es rather than any kind of wireless timecode sync, and Atomos stuff in the past has been buggy so it's like a double whammy of unreliability. Yes, with the Tentacles, you lose your on-camera audio track since Nikon doesn't have a timecode input, but in return you get rock solid sync.

I'd also get a Tascam FR-AV2 instead of a Portacapture which cannot be jam-synced. The FR-AV2 has a temperature-compensated oscillator that can be jam-synced with the Tentacle, and then the Tentacle can be disconnected because the Tascam's oscillator will maintain a low level of drift over a long time. I've seen a test where it maintains sync to the frame for 24 hours.

A cheaper recorder option which has 32-bit audio, phantom powered XLRs, and can be jam synced is Zoom's M4 Mictrak. It's not clear how good its onboard oscillator is, but the preamps are claimed to be from their F series, so they're probably very good.

BTW, a big advantage of running your own recorder is that you are untethered from the camera and can place your mics anywhere, so the audio features in a ZR are not necessarily a clear win over an external, synced audio recorder.

My own setup has a Sync E with a Track E. At the beginning, I jam sync the Track E to the Sync E which consists of connecting both units with a cable, and waiting for a few seconds, after which they are synced and I can disconnect the cable.

The Track E has an on-board 1-channel 48 kHz 32-bit float recorder along with a 5V plug-in power so it can use the widest range of lavs and embeds its timecode in the audio metadata for later syncing. I then use the Track E as a body pack on my talent with a Sennheiser MKE2 Gold lav for really high quality sound. The Track E can literally run all day with its built-in battery and storage, so you can start it recording, and forget about it until the end of the day.

The syncing in post is trivial with Tentacle's utility which makes XML files that sync up all of your video and audio tracks that you can import into an editor. You just dump all of your files into it, and it sorts it all out. So even if the Track-E is continuously recording, and I start and stop the video on the camera, it will still pair up all the video fragments correctly. It's even easier if you use a camera that can embed timecode in video metadata since the video editor can directly sync those files.

BTW, an ironic thing is that on the same day that the ZR was announced, Blackmagic also announced the Camera Pro Dock which gives an iPhone far more professional video I/O than the ZR and only for $300:

- genlock input on BNC

- timecode input on BNC

- locking dedicated power input

- full size HDMI (to the extent that HDMI is a pro standard)

- locking USB-C ports

It really shows the paucity of options on the ZR, which was ostensibly designed for video work.
To be fair, the iPhone is an almost two decades old iterative product, whereas the ZR is the first of its kind from Nikon, brand new, and has been out for almost a week now. Maybe give it a little time.
 
(snipped) It really shows the paucity of options on the ZR, which was ostensibly designed for video work.
To be fair, the iPhone is an almost two decades old iterative product, whereas the ZR is the first of its kind from Nikon, brand new,
The iPhone does not have a very wide range of lenses :-)
and has been out for almost a week now.
Announced and in the hands of several video specialists - yes.

On sale - no.

Firmware updates for the ZR are likely. Does Apple do this?
 
(snipped) It really shows the paucity of options on the ZR, which was ostensibly designed for video work.
To be fair, the iPhone is an almost two decades old iterative product, whereas the ZR is the first of its kind from Nikon, brand new,
The iPhone does not have a very wide range of lenses :-)
and has been out for almost a week now.
Announced and in the hands of several video specialists - yes.

On sale - no.

Firmware updates for the ZR are likely. Does Apple do this?
No, not generally for the cameras. They have to update the phone part for security patches, etc.

I was just trying to say that I don't think it's time yet to judge the ZR based on the availability of aftermarket products made specifically to work with it.

I'd like to rent one though, because if the built in mics are as good as reviews say they are, then that might be good enough for me in terms of video capture at concerts I attend. I'm not a pro, but would enjoy better sound than is typically available from camera built in mics. If I can achieve that without having a tribble on top of my camera, then so much the better :-)
 
To be fair, the iPhone is an almost two decades old iterative product, whereas the ZR is the first of its kind from Nikon, brand new, and has been out for almost a week now. Maybe give it a little time.
I think that's fair, but it's also fair to say that Nikon should have the last mover advantage which is that they can see what everyone else has done, and make something with the best parts of what's out there already.
 
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...
IMO, the flickering isn't a real-world problem and was largely corrected in firmware updates. I think it was a pretty overdramatized issue. I wouldn't let that scare you off.
 
Last edited:
The flickering is a real world problem, and if you aren't careful you can end up with low light footage that looks terrible. And if you shoot log then doubly so, you need to be extra aware to overexpose. It was really not resolved with firmware.
 
That’s a wealth of information - thank you!!

The Tascam FR-AV2 scratches most of my itches … but it arrived 2 years too late for me! It’s still in my Amazon wishlist, but the ZR (perhaps with the inevitable add-ons may be good enough for me. And yes, the on-board mics restrict my flexibility to place the audio recorder anywhere, but for my current use cases ( choir concerts), that has not been a major impediment.
 
I was just trying to say that I don't think it's time yet to judge the ZR based on the availability of aftermarket products made specifically to work with it.
I would go further – and suggest it is difficult to judge the ZR until it has been on sale for a few weeks – so near the end of this year.

Video I consider in part similar to a studio flash – you often need extras other than lenses to get a professional finished result - except more extras are generally needed for a professional result with video than for studio flash.
 
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).
You cannot imagine the power of 32bit audio in a video camera. I know the main hype of the camera is being able to shoot R3D, but the 32 bit is big. This is the reason why it will become my A cam, because during sit down interviews, the high quality 32 bit float audio is next level for me, to be my master track. This will change from the crappy audio we have had on most mirrorless cameras.
 
4. Why all that hype on ZR reviews, compared to a lot of disappointing reviews on the Z6III a year ago?
You mean when the Z6iii was named camera of the year? And Peoples choice? Like every camera, the youtubers will want to find that one thing they can scream about, but overall, the Z6iii is very highly regarded.
 
The flickering is a real world problem, and if you aren't careful you can end up with low light footage that looks terrible. And if you shoot log then doubly so, you need to be extra aware to overexpose. It was really not resolved with firmware.
That's my point. If you correctly expose and watch what you are doing, it's not an issue. Just like any other camera. At some point, the person behind the camera needs to be accountable for mistakes instead of blaming gear. That's just me though. I tend to see things differently than the majority concensus here.
 
Last edited:
I would argue that it's not "correct" exposure to have to overexpose an image by a few stops - that's a workaround, not intended operation, and besides it's not always possible. Ditto with having to go deep on dual-gain ISO structure.

But yes, I agree, the skill of the individual is at play - most other systems don't require the operator to have such in-depth knowledge. If it can be fixed (and it can be fixed, look at the Panasonic S1 II using the exact same sensor, it doesn't have quite these issues) then it should be fixed.

I'm not sure if you shoot RAW video at all, but it becomes a real problem there. Even when overexposing, doing everything right, because the base black level and tint are unstable, 1 frame every 4 or so will be a completely different color.
 
Last edited:
I would argue that it's not "correct" exposure to have to overexpose an image by a few stops - that's a workaround, not intended operation
I disagree. This falls under "learn your gear's quirks". I think the problem here is that Nikon, at least to my knowledge, didn't bring the Z6III to market with sufficient info on how to properly handle exposure. The fact that "dual native ISO" seemed more of an accidental "discovery" and less a feature discussed forthright is indicative of this problem. For an end to end Nraw/Nlog workflow, "proper exposure" simply changes, relative to other workflows. I'm not sure why the phrase "intended operation" even enters the conversation - there's best results workflow, and everything else. I would guess people designing cameras intend you to operate them for best results.
 
the Panasonic S1 II using the exact same sensor,
Does it?

Similar yes - some laboratory tests indicate the Panasonic noise control is exceptional - leading to higher resolution at medium and high ISO's than 2 other comparable cameras as well as the Z6 III.

The about six months difference in launch dates compared to the Z6 III can be significant.
 
I would argue that it's not "correct" exposure to have to overexpose an image by a few stops - that's a workaround, not intended operation, and besides it's not always possible. Ditto with having to go deep on dual-gain ISO structure.
The problem is that the idea of a "correct" exposure is nebulous and arguably doesn't really exist. Depending on your scene and how you meter it, there are many valid ways to expose for the scene, cf. Nikon's highlight weighted metering. The only constant thing is that whatever area you meter in the camera, it will try to render that as 18% grey. The rest is up to you.

This is just learning how to deal with a sensor's quirks: just like in the film days, it's learning how a particular film works so you know to give it say extra exposure (eg. TriX) or maybe darken it by a 1/3 of a stop, as was popular with Kodachrome.
I'm not sure if you shoot RAW video at all, but it becomes a real problem there. Even when overexposing, doing everything right, because the base black level and tint are unstable, 1 frame every 4 or so will be a completely different color.
The flickering problem happens with h.265 as well.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top