Thanks so much for this comparison. I currently have the z6iii and love everything about the camera besides the high noise especially in shadows. The flickering noise is also a problem for me. Coming from canon c70 I’m not used to the super noisy shadows. This test definitely confirms that my copy isn’t the only one with lots of noise. At some points it’s almost unusable in my opinion. I wish Nikon would fix this, not sure if it’s a sensor issue or a log profile issue.
Yes, that's the biggest downside of Z6 III. And it's not the profile, because Z9/Z8 don't have the same issue. I'm not sure if it's possible as a firmware fix. If you're working in Davinci Resolve, you can remove the flickering by using Deflicker ofx. It's quite resource heavy but it's pretty good at eliminating it.
@@comment_below it's worse than other cameras in this category but we haven't had any issues in real-world situations. We usually keep ISO at 800, 1600, and 6400 and overexpose the sensor by at least one stop. I doubt that it can be fixed via firmware.
@@cinematools thanks for the response... i dont know what that means when people say its bad but good in real world -how is there a difference? .... hmm, i dont see why not -could literally be solved by updating the noise reduction software in camera etc....
wow, they are awfully close. Sony def has the edge at higher iso. When I shoot my Z8 and A7SIII side by side, the Z8 easily beats it with better color and sharpness. Def. no problem shooting these and being able to match them in post. The killer is no dual slot recording on the Nikons.
Overall I liked the nikon colors and resolution better but sony has better low light DR, specially in the -5 EV though that's an extreme test but still Sony's better there
Sony a6700 user here. Nikon color was more pleasing to my eyes. But without side by side comparison with Nikon cameras, I think I'm fine with Sony color.
I think if you shoot in standard mode, sony is not good, but if you shoot s-cinestone or log sony is great now. Also as Sony have more DR in log, you have more flexibility to color grade grade as tou like
You did not mention the most important thing that affects Sharpness and color fringing: The lenses that you used to test the camera. Otherwise, a good comparison, overall...!!!
Awesome test, I have been wondering which one would have better slowmotion for a while. I would be curious to know more about the differences in the 240fps mode
While I don't think the lattitude of the Nikon is quite as good as the Sony in general, I do think it's important to note that the Sony is doing much more noise reduction in camera, so seeing a bit more range in the shadows makes sense if comparing them directly.
True but we set Nikon to H265 for a fair comparison, which also applies noise reduction. It can be cleaned up in post but it doesn't hold up shadow details as well as the FX3.
@@cinematools yea. I def think the Sony is better in that regard. Just saying in my experience to get the most shadow detail out of this specific cam, you really need to use nraw and expose as bright as you can without clipping…def currently a camera that requires a healthy dose of ettr and some post noise reduction at times, but with those both combined it’s pretty good. Hoping they work on it some. You should be able to stretch the range a bit like on Z8 without problems and without having to worry about flashing shadows
We haven't tested them side by side but Nikon Z8 has better noise performance than Z6 III. FX3 is likely better but there aren't that many cameras on the market with same low light capabilities.
Thank you for the comparison. I think that in h265 compression, the fx3 is better because of s-log3, more internal noise reduction (= less noise) and 422 10bits (vs 420 10 bits for he nikon)…but if you shoot nraw, you will have more latitude, more control of the noise and more « cinema feeling » on nikon cameras But otherwise the two cameras seem quite close to me in what we can produce as a final product (provided we work in raw with Nikon)
Thank you for watching. It makes sense for N-Raw to have better DR, but we didn't see any difference in our initial test. We will get back to it in a future video.
The noise pattern looks much better in N-RAW or ProRes and can be cleaned up a bit with noise-reduction but shadow recovery seems the same. We're currently testing all internal codecs, including ProRes RAW, to see if they differ in dynamic range.
Unfortunately this test carries little relevance, as cameras use different lenses. If you have time to redo it, make sure you use the same exact lens across the two cameras. Maybe some older adapted lens.
@@madsonit it does but does it matter in real life? Will you use the same lens on both Sony and Nikon bodies? So when you compare the colorv, it’s not just the color profile of each camera body but the whole system (aka body and lens).
@@withoutpassid of course it matters. The test is about Nikon Z6III vs Sony FX3. Not Nikon system vs Sony system. In every research out there, to be relevant, you need stable data and equivalency. Each lens has different color rendering, different bokeh rendering, different sharpness etc. If someone has their channel containing “cinema” in its name, one would expect it’s cinema related, and no proper cinema professional uses sony of Nikon autofocus photographic glass. Yes, some commercials that want the clean look might, when they do a scene that needs autofocus, but most times they use actual cinema glass. And none of it is made by Nikon or Sony. But to come back to your question, in real world what matters more is that Nikon z6iii can record raw while the fx3 can’t. And that for starters is a huge difference and advantage for Nikon when it comes to grading and pushing your footage.
More competition means better options. Having internal RAW at this price point will push other companies to implement it, or at least give us better codecs.
Don’t forger that Nikon released the z9 3 years ago and already offered internal raw in video, while sony in 2024, does not offer it yet... just to say that no Nikon is not late, maybe even ahead...
@@peterra2532 I just hope that they get their act together. My last Nikon was the D800. If I had waited 10 years for them to launch the z9, then I would have gone completely bonkers. Sony saved everyone in between. I agree with the competition part and I hope everybody wins. :)
@@Just-Nico Because it's a 12mp sensor so less lines of data to read out, it's close to the speed of the Z6 III sensor. Also it depends on the speed of the panning, it slower at first in the FX3 shot but then speeds up thus rolling shutter looks worse towards end.
Oh man… you compared 2 cameras that placed in a different classes… it’s better to compare with z8 which is still 30% cheaper and will beat created for a top video fx3 just easily. Try to compare with a7 iv -v and there’ll be a result.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Graded with
www.cinematools.co/nikon-nlog
Thanks so much for this comparison. I currently have the z6iii and love everything about the camera besides the high noise especially in shadows. The flickering noise is also a problem for me. Coming from canon c70 I’m not used to the super noisy shadows. This test definitely confirms that my copy isn’t the only one with lots of noise. At some points it’s almost unusable in my opinion. I wish Nikon would fix this, not sure if it’s a sensor issue or a log profile issue.
Yes, that's the biggest downside of Z6 III. And it's not the profile, because Z9/Z8 don't have the same issue. I'm not sure if it's possible as a firmware fix.
If you're working in Davinci Resolve, you can remove the flickering by using Deflicker ofx. It's quite resource heavy but it's pretty good at eliminating it.
The Nikon Z8 doesn't have the same issue. I think the Z6 III sensor has less dynamic range but hopefully they can fix the flickering.
i second this -pretty disappointing ... think they can fix it with an update???
@@comment_below it's worse than other cameras in this category but we haven't had any issues in real-world situations. We usually keep ISO at 800, 1600, and 6400 and overexpose the sensor by at least one stop.
I doubt that it can be fixed via firmware.
@@cinematools thanks for the response... i dont know what that means when people say its bad but good in real world -how is there a difference? .... hmm, i dont see why not -could literally be solved by updating the noise reduction software in camera etc....
Really well compared...! I'm subscribing 💯
I'll get for sure the nikon Z6III.
For the dynamic range test would the Nikon perform better if using N-raw and N-log vs using h.265 10bit?
There's no difference. We tested all available codecs on the Nikon and the DR is the same across all of them. We will write a blog post about it.
wow, they are awfully close. Sony def has the edge at higher iso. When I shoot my Z8 and A7SIII side by side, the Z8 easily beats it with better color and sharpness. Def. no problem shooting these and being able to match them in post. The killer is no dual slot recording on the Nikons.
I also like Nikon colors a little more but Sony improved significantly over the years.
Yes.. all Nikon have no dual slots Video recording features 😔
Overall I liked the nikon colors and resolution better but sony has better low light DR, specially in the -5 EV though that's an extreme test but still Sony's better there
Sony a6700 user here. Nikon color was more pleasing to my eyes. But without side by side comparison with Nikon cameras, I think I'm fine with Sony color.
The color on Sony cameras has improved a lot over the years. And with LOG filming it's easy to match it to another camera.
I think if you shoot in standard mode, sony is not good, but if you shoot s-cinestone or log sony is great now. Also as Sony have more DR in log, you have more flexibility to color grade grade as tou like
such an amazing comparison, thank you.
Thanks!
You did not mention the most important thing that affects Sharpness and color fringing: The lenses that you used to test the camera.
Otherwise, a good comparison, overall...!!!
Thanks.
The sharpness tests are filmed at f5.6-f8 with modern lenses, which have the same MFT when stopped down.
I like the comparison video. What lenses were used for both Nikon and Sony?
Thanks for watching.
On Nikon - Nikon Z 28-75 2.8, Nikon 28 2.8, Nikon 50 1.8.
On Sony - Sigma 28-70 2.8, Sony 28 F2, Sony 50 1.4.
@@cinematools thank you for this! Keep up the good work!
Awesome test, I have been wondering which one would have better slowmotion for a while. I would be curious to know more about the differences in the 240fps mode
Thanks.
We haven't tested 240p but 120p is better on FX3.
it would be awesome if you can provide test footage link to viewers, great comparison as always
While I don't think the lattitude of the Nikon is quite as good as the Sony in general, I do think it's important to note that the Sony is doing much more noise reduction in camera, so seeing a bit more range in the shadows makes sense if comparing them directly.
True but we set Nikon to H265 for a fair comparison, which also applies noise reduction. It can be cleaned up in post but it doesn't hold up shadow details as well as the FX3.
@@cinematools yea. I def think the Sony is better in that regard. Just saying in my experience to get the most shadow detail out of this specific cam, you really need to use nraw and expose as bright as you can without clipping…def currently a camera that requires a healthy dose of ettr and some post noise reduction at times, but with those both combined it’s pretty good. Hoping they work on it some. You should be able to stretch the range a bit like on Z8 without problems and without having to worry about flashing shadows
@@joshkiddfilms1295 Yeah, I haven't experienced issues in real-world filming with Z6 III. No such thing as a perfect camera but it's pretty close.
If you watch CineD latitude test, the Nikon Z9 is higher than any Sony camera bar the Burano.
@@cinematools Thanks for the Test, would have been nice to test in NRAW as Nikon Log is notoriously more contrasty than other logs format.
The noise issue highlighted in the z6iii in the dynamic range test is the same even in the z8 or the performance in z8 is closer to sony’s?
We haven't tested them side by side but Nikon Z8 has better noise performance than Z6 III. FX3 is likely better but there aren't that many cameras on the market with same low light capabilities.
Z8 is very close to the Sony's but not quite as good in dynamic range
The noise looks more detailed on the Z6iii than the FX3's mushy looking noise.
It's hard to show on youtube but the noise in N-RAW looks very organic.
thanks for the vid! wish I would have seen it before i bought my 6iii lol -the low light performance really is disappointing
Thank you for the comparison. I think that in h265 compression, the fx3 is better because of s-log3, more internal noise reduction (= less noise) and 422 10bits (vs 420 10 bits for he nikon)…but if you shoot nraw, you will have more latitude, more control of the noise and more « cinema feeling » on nikon cameras
But otherwise the two cameras seem quite close to me in what we can produce as a final product (provided we work in raw with Nikon)
Thank you for watching.
It makes sense for N-Raw to have better DR, but we didn't see any difference in our initial test. We will get back to it in a future video.
@@cinematoolsSo which one would you prefer if you need to choose one?
@@peterra2532 Nikon because I also shoot stills. If I only needed video, I would choose Sony.
What codec was used in ISO and dynamic range test?
It's in the video. H265 ISO 800
Actually the H.265 10 bits of the Nikon is 4:2:0 and not 4:2:2 like the FX3 maybe can it affect the shadow recovery ?
The noise pattern looks much better in N-RAW or ProRes and can be cleaned up a bit with noise-reduction but shadow recovery seems the same.
We're currently testing all internal codecs, including ProRes RAW, to see if they differ in dynamic range.
Unfortunately this test carries little relevance, as cameras use different lenses. If you have time to redo it, make sure you use the same exact lens across the two cameras. Maybe some older adapted lens.
no
Nonsense.
@@withoutpassidnonsense is believing lenses don’t matter.
@@madsonit it does but does it matter in real life? Will you use the same lens on both Sony and Nikon bodies? So when you compare the colorv, it’s not just the color profile of each camera body but the whole system (aka body and lens).
@@withoutpassid of course it matters. The test is about Nikon Z6III vs Sony FX3. Not Nikon system vs Sony system. In every research out there, to be relevant, you need stable data and equivalency. Each lens has different color rendering, different bokeh rendering, different sharpness etc. If someone has their channel containing “cinema” in its name, one would expect it’s cinema related, and no proper cinema professional uses sony of Nikon autofocus photographic glass. Yes, some commercials that want the clean look might, when they do a scene that needs autofocus, but most times they use actual cinema glass. And none of it is made by Nikon or Sony. But to come back to your question, in real world what matters more is that Nikon z6iii can record raw while the fx3 can’t. And that for starters is a huge difference and advantage for Nikon when it comes to grading and pushing your footage.
Nikon Better colors but "Video" Image; Sony better dinamic range and "cinematic" image. Sony wins for me
come no ........
Define the word "cinematic".
It took so many years for Nikon to produce a camera that Sony launched 3 years ago....
More competition means better options. Having internal RAW at this price point will push other companies to implement it, or at least give us better codecs.
Don’t forger that Nikon released the z9 3 years ago and already offered internal raw in video, while sony in 2024, does not offer it yet... just to say that no Nikon is not late, maybe even ahead...
@@peterra2532 I just hope that they get their act together. My last Nikon was the D800. If I had waited 10 years for them to launch the z9, then I would have gone completely bonkers. Sony saved everyone in between. I agree with the competition part and I hope everybody wins. :)
@@peterra2532 Right!
why a stacked sensor has more rolling shutter than fx3?
To my eye, they appear the same.
Its half stacked,not fully.
@@Just-Nico still, the fx3 is not stacked at all
@@mdenjoyer831 I know,maybe Sony's sensor is better at the rolling shutter
@@Just-Nico Because it's a 12mp sensor so less lines of data to read out, it's close to the speed of the Z6 III sensor. Also it depends on the speed of the panning, it slower at first in the FX3 shot but then speeds up thus rolling shutter looks worse towards end.
I would rather go buy 2 Nikon z6 iii cameras than pay that ridiculous amount for the Sony
NIKON Z6III dual iso Log 800 and 4000
800 and 6400
nikon can take good raw photos, fx3 cant be usable like a photo camera. good hybrid camera. just for video fx3 is better.
at twice the price Id go for the Nikon
FX3 still better
There's no perfect camera, each one has its strengths and weaknesses. FX3 has an amazing IQ, no doubts about that.
It costs 1 thousand dollars more, so the Nikon is a better Bang for the Buck.
@@rafaeladauto4760 true. It's also great as a stills camera.
Oh man… you compared 2 cameras that placed in a different classes… it’s better to compare with z8 which is still 30% cheaper and will beat created for a top video fx3 just easily. Try to compare with a7 iv -v and there’ll be a result.
@@tasselears Z6III is video-oriented hybrid, so it makes sense to compare it to other video-oriented mirrorless cameras.
SONYはRAWもjpgも色が駄目
レンズの性能もイマイチです
12年使ってきましたがNIKONに乗り換えて「今まで何だったんだー」と後悔しています
z8또는 z9에는 비교할 수 없는 fx3
infatti, sia la Z8, sia la Z6 III, se la mangiano a colazione la FX3