Sony FX3 vs Nikon ZR: Which Camera Should You Choose in 2025?
TLDR : If you’re already invested in the Sony ecosystem, there’s no reason to panic - don’t feel like you need to ditch the FX3 for the Nikon ZR. While the ZR is impressive, a lot of its appeal is built on headline specs that look flashy but won’t matter for 99% of working filmmakers. Things like “internal RAW recording” or “32-bit float audio” sound amazing, but most people reading this blog aren’t using them — and probably had to look up what they even mean.
That’s because Nikon essentially took features you’d expect on a RED camera and packaged them into something affordable for creators who don’t really need them.
Now, if you’re buying your very first camera, the ZR’s lower price and larger monitor might be tempting. But for me, it always comes back to real-world use. The FX3’s high native ISO of 12,800 is something I rely on every single shoot, and it’s the reason I wouldn’t trade it for the ZR. Specs are cool - but dependability in low light is what wins jobs.
For the full, here’s the rest!
The Sony FX3 has been the go-to workhorse for independent filmmakers and production companies for years. It’s compact, reliable, and firmly planted in Sony’s Cinema Line. But in 2025, Nikon shook things up with the launch of the ZR — a $2,199 camera that promises 6K RAW recording, incredible stabilization, and a bigger, brighter monitor.
On paper, the ZR looks like a “game-changer.” In practice? The decision between these two cameras comes down to what kind of shooter you are, what your workflow looks like, and how much you value reliability versus cutting-edge specs.
Let’s break it down.
Price and Positioning
The first thing to notice is the gap in cost.
Sony FX3: ~$4,100. You’re paying for Sony’s proven Cinema Line ecosystem, reliability, and the fact it’s still trusted on professional sets worldwide.
Nikon ZR: $2,199. At nearly half the cost, it’s an aggressive play by Nikon. Reviewers have praised it as a disruptor for filmmakers, since you can skip buying expensive accessories like external recorders thanks to internal RAW and potentially even a monitor.
For creators or small businesses, the ZR’s pricing is incredibly appealing. For established production companies, the FX3 still feels like the safer investment.
Sensor and Image Quality
Sony FX3: 12MP full-frame stacked sensor, optimized for video. Lower resolution but excellent low-light performance and ~14–15 stops of dynamic range. It’s built for clean images and reliability.
Nikon ZR: 24MP partially stacked sensor (shared with the Z6 III). Higher resolution means sharper detail and more flexibility for cropping. Dynamic range comes in closer to ~11 stops in 4K.
So if you’re prioritizing low-light shooting and dynamic range, the FX3 wins. If you want resolution and detail for post flexibility, the ZR takes the lead. I should note that if you don’t show in the RAW resolution you’re really looking at a very similar image to the FX3. I’m not too sure how many of you reading this are shooting in RAW but I know I’m not so this kind of is a wash IMO.
Recording Options
This is where Nikon flexes…kind of. Again, this is impressive but I am not going to be shooting in RAW anytime soon.
Nikon ZR: Internal 6K/60p RAW (R3D, Nikon RAW, ProRes RAW) - a first at this price point. You also get 4K/120p, though it comes with a 1.5x crop. The catch? RAW files are massive, and for many production companies, they’re overkill. At Bunker Hill Media, for example, we’ve never had a client ask for RAW delivery - compressed 10-bit files are more than enough. RAW makes sense for feature films or heavy VFX pipelines, but for corporate videos, testimonials, and branded content, it just slows down the workflow.
Sony FX3: Internal 4K/120p with only a minor 1.1x crop, no RAW internally (though you can record externally over HDMI). Footage is clean, easy to handle, and light enough for fast turnaround editing.
Bottom line: the ZR has the headline-grabbing spec, but for many working videographers, the FX3’s balance of quality and efficiency is the smarter choice.
Cooling and Reliability
This is a big one.
Sony FX3: Active cooling fan = all-day reliability. You can shoot interviews, events, or long takes without ever worrying about overheating.
Nikon ZR: No fan, passive cooling only. Early reviewers say it holds up fine in tests, but for long shoots in warm environments, it’s a question mark.
On professional sets, peace of mind matters as much as image quality. This is one reason the FX3 is still trusted more widely.
Ergonomics and Handling
Sony FX3: Cage-like body with a proper hand grip, full-size HDMI, dual card slots, and plenty of mounting points. It feels like a camera you can hold all day and trust.
Nikon ZR: Compact and lightweight, but with fewer buttons and no real grip. Personally, it feels a bit like holding a disposable camera - I’d want to cage or rig it before relying on it.
For handheld shooters, that grip alone makes a difference in how confident you feel on set.
LCD Monitor
Here’s where the Nikon ZR shines.
Nikon ZR: 4-inch, 1,000-nit screen - a full inch bigger than the FX3. It’s bright, detailed, and for many shooters, eliminates the need for an external monitor.
Sony FX3: 3-inch flip screen. Gets the job done, but most shooters end up pairing it with an external monitor for confidence.
In my opinion, this is one of the few areas where Nikon genuinely leapfrogs Sony.
Autofocus and Stabilization
Sony FX3: Sony’s Real-time Tracking autofocus is legendary. Sticky, reliable, and perfect for interviews or run-and-gun. IBIS gives ~5 stops of stabilization.
Nikon ZR: Hybrid AF with eye/animal/object detection is surprisingly strong - reviewers call it a first for RED-collab cameras. Its 5-axis IBIS goes further with ~7.5 stops of stabilization, making it excellent for handheld and documentary-style work.
If you shoot handheld a lot, the ZR has the advantage but to be honest I don’t think you’re really going to be able to tell the difference between the two - they’re both great.
Audio
On paper, the Nikon ZR has a killer spec: 32-bit float audio. But let’s be real.
Anyone serious about audio knows the bottleneck isn’t bit depth - it’s preamps. No mirrorless camera has truly good preamps, and at the end of the day, if sound matters, you’re running an external recorder or hiring a sound recordist.
The FX3’s 24-bit audio with XLR handle option is more than enough for most jobs. The ZR’s 32-bit float is impressive on a spec sheet, but in practice, unnecessary. Just do it right with the FX3.
Final Thoughts
The Nikon ZR is an exciting entry - it’s aggressively priced, packed with specs, and has features that really do make life easier for indie shooters (that bigger monitor and internal RAW are no joke).
But the Sony FX3 still feels like the more reliable choice for professional productions. Its fan-cooled design, low-light dominance, intuitive ergonomics, and long-proven workflow make it the camera I’d trust on set with clients.
If you’re just getting into video production in Boston and want maximum bang for your buck, the Nikon ZR is a tempting choice. But if you’re delivering polished client work day in and day out, the FX3 still earns its place as the workhorse.
At Bunker Hill Media, we care about more than specs - we care about reliability, workflow, and results. That’s why the FX3 continues to anchor our productions.
