Bill Ferris wrote:ericbowles wrote:chambeshi wrote:The Z6 and Z7 presented no obstacles to landscape and event photographers. The major gap in the Z System was and remains Sport and Wildlife photographers, until late 2021, butonlyif they do not want a Z9 for its higher price, Z9-is-too-big criticisms.Leave the Z5 II with affordable Z6 technology and add the EXPEED6 etc. The gapsunderscore the Z90 and "Z6 III" as the 3rd Generation Priorities.Both these cameras are overdue to clinch the support of Hobbyists and Pro's (switchers inclusive), who will invest and meet Nikon's strategic objective [5 year plan refers] of selling average of 2 Z lenses per camera:Almost all the Z lenses have been released4th GenerationBill Ferris wrote:This is really pretty simple. Four years ago at the time of introduction, Z-cosystem customersshould have beencurrent Nikon DSLR owners. Unfortunately Nikon released ham-fisted Z6 and Z7 bodies that were objectively inferior to the DSLRs those potential customers already owned.I agree - the Z6/Z6ii and Z7/Z7ii are very capable cameras. Even within fast moving nature and wildlife, they are very capable cameras if you know how to use the technology. My keeper rates are higher with the Z cameras than with the D850 and D500, but my technique changed. You can't fight the camera and try to use it without changes in technique.Unfortunately, the publicly accessible data on the number of Z6 and Z7 bodies sold doesn't support a narrative that the Z6/Z7 are considered upgrades or even competent lateral moves by many existing Nikon customers.For this existing Nikon customer at least, the Z6 and Z7 were a practical sideways move from a D5 and D850.  Better in some ways, a little worse in others.  I successfully undertake all the same types of assignment with no serious issues.The serial number ranges documented athttp://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/camera.htmlsuggest roughly 105,000 Z6/Z6II bodies have been sold in the US. That's compared to roughly 224,000 D750s sold in the same market.But the D750 has been on the market for twice as long - from 2014 compared with 2018 for the Z6.Approximately 33,000 Z7 bodies have been sold in the US compared to 109,000 D850s. The site shows only a starting serial number for Z7II units shipped to the US.While not terrible numbers, the first and second generation Zs contributed to a continuation of Nikon's declining market share in the digital ILC segment. This trend has at least been slowed by the Z9.Nikon has sold about 33,000 Z9 units in the US in its first year. Roughly 15,000 D5 & D6 bodies have sold here since 2016.That doesn't surprise me.  The Z9 (which I now use alongside the Z6/Z7) is an amazingly versatile camera.

chambeshi wrote:ericbowles wrote:chambeshi wrote:The Z6 and Z7 presented no obstacles to landscape and event photographers. The major gap in the Z System was and remains Sport and Wildlife photographers, until late 2021, butonlyif they do not want a Z9 for its higher price, Z9-is-too-big criticisms.Leave the Z5 II with affordable Z6 technology and add the EXPEED6 etc. The gapsunderscore the Z90 and "Z6 III" as the 3rd Generation Priorities.Both these cameras are overdue to clinch the support of Hobbyists and Pro's (switchers inclusive), who will invest and meet Nikon's strategic objective [5 year plan refers] of selling average of 2 Z lenses per camera:Almost all the Z lenses have been releasedClarification #1:DX 26mp BSI stacked in Z90.Stacked is obviously essential to meet high speed specificationsClarification #2: no new sensor is needed, obviously. Persist selling Z6 inventory components in updated Z5Clarification #3: NewFX 30mp BSI stacked, redeploy EXPEED7 in Z6 III4th GenerationThe 4th Generation Zed is likely planned for late 2024 at the earliest, if it's going to happen that soonNikon emphasizes in its Investors Report (2022) they are going to extending Z9 technology into more affordable cameras. The questions are then if this involves different sensors, for which the answer is likely Yes.I agree these sensors must be stacked to attain blackout free EVF, effective Autofocus, and high data output. It is logical to use the 45mp Z9 sensor but carefully not to undercut/eclipse Z9 sales. So will the Z9 sensor only be built into a different camera once the Z9 itself has been upgraded ?Or it can go into the Z9ii. I see the Z9ii as an incremental update. Sensor being the same but with next gen EXPEED8. Maybe very slight tweaks to the hardware, if any. And it being an incremental update means it can come out sooner rather than later, since it's more fine-tuning than re-tooling.

Chrissi_82 wrote:So I would argue that the camera companies got it mostly right.Yep. Their mistake was not concentrating on the younger crowds and letting phone manufacturers run with "sharing by smartphone is cool" idea, which implies vertical video (ugh), saturated colores, pixelated faces, etc.This was a huge culture shift circa 2010 that camera companies ignored.¡Poof! There goes 90% of your target buyers. Photography had been a democratic hobby in the sense that practically everyone could get into it with a small investment. There were always snobs, of course, but cheap cameras were there. Now you're paying US$1,000 for an entry level cam, about the same price for a new iPhone.Contrary to popular thinking, camera companies should undercut Apple, Samsung et al by flooding the market with cheap gear and re-used sensors, since most of them are still light-years better than the ones found in the average phone. And I mean cheap as in US$300, lens included.Unless they all want to become a boutique brand a la Leica five years down the line.

I don’t really get the resistance to what you’re saying here at all.It’s pretty clear that the Z6 and 7 series are at best a sideways step from their DSLR predecessors, and aren’t really competitive with other brand offerings.Am I completely off the mark here? Where are the wildlife photographers waxing lyrical about the Z7 and it’s usefulness for BIF? Hang about, that’s the R5.You can’t even assign a second AF mode to a button or not have a slideshow, and somehow all of this equates to capable.

NikonBiologist wrote:TheWillRogers wrote:Nikon has let many of those become Fujifilm and Sony customers due to neglect.This is something I don't understand. I bought the Z50 because of its price point, and at the time I bought it, there was nothing that competed. Fuji cameras at the price point of the Z50 lacked weather sealing, shot slower, has slower AF, did not have modern ergonomics, fewer customizability options, had poorer performing lenses, higher quality lenses cost similar to FX Nikon lenses, and were similarly sized. Fuji cameras' price per density unit (g/cm^3 or w/e you want to use) is not efficient when compared to full frame cameras they compete against. Fuji cameras definitely competed poorly against the Z50 kit at the same price point.I kinda understand Sony, though I found the ergo of their APS-C line to be quite bad, particularly the EVF and grip. Also at the price point of the Z50, the Sony offerings lack weather sealing. The thing Sony has going for it is the significantly better AF and glut of affordable lenses. But the body itself is simply worse.I had a Z50 and moved over to the XT3 which was superior in almost every way. Same price used vs the Z50 at the time (since it was new; probably too much of a difference now). The XT3 has far better AF and FPS, better ergonomics, customization, EVF, less blackout, weather sealing, and far more lenses than Nikon dx z could offer. Not sure which Fuji lenses you used compared to Nikon's 3 DX lenses, but Fuji has a lot of great lenses. The only thing better the Z50 did was offer a nice grip, smaller size, and access to z glass (though FX glass on it often was rather large).For the record, I also have the Z6 and it definitely has its place in my gear selection, plus several Nikon lenses (F and Z mount), which are excellent. But Nikon DX is very weak; it's why I got an X-H2S for wildlife/sports.Comparing a new product's price to a used product's price is a bit silly. Also, the xt3 competes with the Z6, so if you're in the real to spend that much just get the Z6, Sony, or Canon offering. The Z50 is competing with the Fuji X-T200 and X-T30. Though, the value prop of the Z50 dual kit sinks any offering by Fuji.If you compare Fuji lenses to their Nikon FX counterpart, the perceived benefits of Fuji become more diminished.The Fuji costs $200 more and is slightly shorter and slightly lighter.Again, the Fuji costs about $200 more and is slightly smaller and slightly lighter.These lenses are basically the same size, weight, and cost.People keep trying to mismatch companies' offerings based on sensor size which is ridiculous. The only products that compete with each other are those at the same or similar price point. The X-H2S competes with the Z7ii, A7 IV, and the R6. The Z50 competes with the R10, A6100, X-T30, (maybe the X-S10, this is really pushing the price though), and OM-D E-M10 Mark IV.

Withdrawn to re-post with correct reply focus.

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:Bill Ferris wrote:This is really pretty simple. Four years ago at the time of introduction, Z-cosystem customersshould have beencurrent Nikon DSLR owners. Unfortunately Nikon released ham-fisted Z6 and Z7 bodies that were objectively inferior to the DSLRs those potential customers already owned.Agreed. For me, shooting a D800e, then D810, then D850, I was looking for a next camera that would either equal or improve on all aspects of performance (that I use, which mostly means not video).Offering me a new camera (Z7) that was inferior to the D850 i was using was a non-starter.My progression to the Z7 exactly parallels your experience.I do not think the Z7 was inferior to the D850. It was different, and it required some reading, experimentation and practise to have the Z7 work to my expectation and requirement. The Z7 became an even better camera following major firmware upgrades.I have a Z7 II and a Z9 but still use the Z7 a lot.

Monty71 wrote:I'm likely in the minority. I drug a D700 around everywhere I went for years. I recently bought a Z6II and ended up selling it. Even though it was lighter, the basic 24-70f/4 was still a pretty hefty setup for my purposes. I bought a Zfc and it's been a breath of fresh air. Most importantly, it's been a really fun camera to take out. I can't say that for many cameras I've owned. I hope Nikon keeps the crop system rolling along.I'm not so sure you're in the minority. Certainly very discerning photographers in other international markets would not see you as in the minority. I think there is a blind spot here at DPR about the market that exists for small, light, high-IQ cameras and small, light, high-IQ lenses, premium quality in terms of IQ and IBIS, but not needing to be equipped with cutting-edge super-powers used for shooting fast motion or long telephoto subjects.I love my Z5 and will probably acquire Z7 or Z7ii at some point, but I will never purchase a camera larger or heavier than the Z5/6/7 models with any sensor smaller than Medium Format. I'm un-enthused about the bulk of the Z lenses and am using my Z5 essentially along the old Leica film model--carrying it around with a Z prime, and not a huge one. I won't buy any Z zoom larger/heavier than the 24-70mm F4 and am not sure I'll even go for that because the 50mmf1.8S and the muffins are what feels right.I saw a mean comment on one review thread, probly by some fan of a rival brand, saying the Z lenses look like giant beer cans or mason jars sticking out of your camera. And I hate to say it, but that's how it feels and looks to me, too. My Z FF experience is 50mm f1.8S, the two muffins, and perhaps the 35mm f1.8S. I love these lenses, but due to the size/weight factor I'm really not motivated to acquire anything bigger.Being mobile with a couple of light m43s or APSC cameras has not lost its appeal, and yes, I'm watching for holiday sales on the Z50 and kit zooms. APSC and m43 are so much fun to roll with, and at minimum easily satisfy what used to be the old standard from 35mm film days for gorgeous prints sizes--8X10, 11X14 and16X20. (Yes, I know devotees insist you can print much bigger from these sensors, but I'm saying--even "only" up through 16X20 is a fabulous return for these lightweight small cameras.)My point is, I'm not alone. Yes, I get it that the big-rig, high-fps/mondo-processor/stacked-sensor, sports/wildlife/BIF super-powers crowd is a crucial niche in today's shrinking camera market. But I am convinced it's fatal to ignore the niche out there of serious or potential serious photographers who want premium-IQ cameras and lenses in light, compact format.The cutting edge in future will not be only the big-rig super-power cameras. It will be, FF in light, compact high-IIQ cameras,with light, compact, premium-quality glass. That is the frontier as much as super-stacked-sensor processing. Sony is already knocking on that door. If they don't kick it open, APSC and m43 are not going anywhere. If they do kick it open, some of the other FF makers are in trouble.

UsherFellig wrote:Monty71 wrote:I'm likely in the minority. I drug a D700 around everywhere I went for years. I recently bought a Z6II and ended up selling it. Even though it was lighter, the basic 24-70f/4 was still a pretty hefty setup for my purposes. I bought a Zfc and it's been a breath of fresh air. Most importantly, it's been a really fun camera to take out. I can't say that for many cameras I've owned. I hope Nikon keeps the crop system rolling along.I'm not so sure you're in the minority. Certainly very discerning photographers in other international markets would not see you as in the minority. I think there is a blind spot here at DPR about the market that exists for small, light, high-IQ cameras and small, light, high-IQ lenses, premium quality in terms of IQ and IBIS, but not needing to be equipped with cutting-edge super-powers used for shooting fast motion or long telephoto subjects.I love my Z5 and will probably acquire Z7 or Z7ii at some point, but I will never purchase a camera larger or heavier than the Z5/6/7 models with any sensor smaller than Medium Format. I'm un-enthused about the bulk of the Z lenses and am using my Z5 essentially along the old Leica film model--carrying it around with a Z prime, and not a huge one. I won't buy any Z zoom larger/heavier than the 24-70mm F4 and am not sure I'll even go for that because the 50mmf1.8S and the muffins are what feels right.I saw a mean comment on one review thread, probly by some fan of a rival brand, saying the Z lenses look like giant beer cans or mason jars sticking out of your camera. And I hate to say it, but that's how it feels and looks to me, too. My Z FF experience is 50mm f1.8S, the two muffins, and perhaps the 35mm f1.8S. I love these lenses, but due to the size/weight factor I'm really not motivated to acquire anything bigger.Being mobile with a couple of light m43s or APSC cameras has not lost its appeal, and yes, I'm watching for holiday sales on the Z50 and kit zooms. APSC and m43 are so much fun to roll with, and at minimum easily satisfy what used to be the old standard from 35mm film days for gorgeous prints sizes--8X10, 11X14 and16X20. (Yes, I know devotees insist you can print much bigger from these sensors, but I'm saying--even "only" up through 16X20 is a fabulous return for these lightweight small cameras.)My point is, I'm not alone. Yes, I get it that the big-rig, high-fps/mondo-processor/stacked-sensor, sports/wildlife/BIF super-powers crowd is a crucial niche in today's shrinking camera market. But I am convinced it's fatal to ignore the niche out there of serious or potential serious photographers who want premium-IQ cameras and lenses in light, compact format.The cutting edge in future will not be only the big-rig super-power cameras. It will be, FF in light, compact high-IIQ cameras,with light, compact, premium-quality glass. That is the frontier as much as super-stacked-sensor processing. Sony is already knocking on that door. If they don't kick it open, APSC and m43 are not going anywhere. If they do kick it open, some of the other FF makers are in trouble.I heavily disagree. Ff by its nature is much harder to make compact or light, and the tradeoffs when you do are slower lenses, or worse iq than a larger lens. The z mount is fantastic for what you get, even with the lower end lenses, but that's never going to be a target market. You can't beat physics.You're in the vast minority. The market for that type of shooting is going away to mobile phones, and isn't ever going to come back to what it was 15 years ago.

]]]]I heavily disagree. Ff by its nature is much harder to make compact or light, and the tradeoffs when you do are slower lenses, or worse iq than a larger lens. The z mount is fantastic for what you get, even with the lower end lenses, but that's never going to be a target market. You can't beat physics.You're in the vast minority. The market for that type of shooting is going away to mobile phones, and isn't ever going to come back to what it was 15 years ago.[[[[[As far as the niche for compact/light premium-IQ cameras and lenses, and what's possible or impossible in terms of glass engineering . . . time will tell. We are seeing developments in photo tech undreamed of not so far in the past. We are all armchair-prognosticating, Hogan not least. It will be fascinating to see how it all shakes out.

UsherFellig wrote:]]]]I heavily disagree. Ff by its nature is much harder to make compact or light, and the tradeoffs when you do are slower lenses, or worse iq than a larger lens. The z mount is fantastic for what you get, even with the lower end lenses, but that's never going to be a target market. You can't beat physics.You're in the vast minority. The market for that type of shooting is going away to mobile phones, and isn't ever going to come back to what it was 15 years ago.[[[As far as the niche for compact/light premium-IQ cameras and lenses, and what's possible or impossible in terms of glass engineering . . . time will tell. We are seeing developments in photo tech undreamed of not so far in the past. We are all armchair-prognosticating, Hogan not least. It will be fascinating to see how it all shakes out.The issue is you're going to have the same problem in 10 years with tech advances. Phones are going to be that much better, and so will the AI tricks. I've accepted ILCs are a niche market (even more than it used to be), and everyone else should too, regardless of how much you don't want to. Modern phones are good enough for the vast majority of people, and the end result of where we're going is just like how film has been dying (though I'd say it died once already and hipsters resurrected it, but I digress). Change happens, and we need to go with it, or just be cranky like the people who still want nikon to make an FTZ with a screw drive because they want their 40 year old lens to work.

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:Bill Ferris wrote:Nikon should be putting original Z6 and Z7 tech in the rearview. They need a Z...whatever that offers Z9 tech or performance in a downmarket body. It's that simple. Without that product - and more like it in other downmarket systems - their mirrorless lineup is doomed to forever be distant afterthoughts to Sony and Canon."doomed to forever' seems a bit pessimistic.And admittedly hyperbolic. I just think the technology developed for the Z9 puts Nikon on the brink of being able to bring a significant number of former customers along with converts from other brands over to the Z-cosystem. But they have to start delivering product. If we don't see at least one downmarket product introduction in the next 3 to 6 months, the momentum created by the Z9 will start fading and the door of opportunity that opened with that camera's release is going to start closing.

justmeMN wrote:NickZ2016 wrote:Calendar still claims 2022. The entry level camera is the smartphone. It's not a standalone camera.I don't know about the rest of the world, but in Japan (BCN) entry level cameras dominate camera unit sales.I think this is true in the U.S. as well. Nikon sold many more D3500s or D5XXX than D850s. Consumers who are okay with smartphone images are not going to spend in excess of $3,000 on a new camera and one lens. They will, however, spend less than $500 on the D3500 kit they used to see at Costco and the big box stores.My guess is that the profit margins are much lower on entry level cameras, so Nikon, which needed to increase revenue and profit, decided to concentrate on high end products.That strategy, in my opinion, will work for a while but the problem is that all of the high end buyers will eventually die off, which is why I think they need a low end, low priced camera to get people into the Nikon ecosystem.

HeavyDuty wrote:cosmicnode wrote:The market is much bigger than BIF, try going to a motor race and see the thousands of people who turn up with crop sensor DSLR bodies, who have not yet moved over to FF mirrorless with the disadvantage of requiring larger heavier more expensive FF glass with a longer focal length to get the same shot.I think many people haven’t fully realized that a 45 MP camera run in DX mode pretty much equates what most DX bodies can do. The biggest issue here is cost, which is why I believe Nikon needs a Z D500 replacement.Yes I agree Z7 45.7mp in dx mode around 20mp at £3099. Z50 probably currently the equivalent of a Z9 in terms of frame rate and AF accuracy  £899. There is a lot of room between the two for a Z D500 higher MP better focusing replacement that outperforms both these bodies at a reasonable cost, around the £2000 mark would sell well to sports and wildlife enthusiasts. With features on the body that exist on a D500/D850 but are missing on the current Z versions

Ramon767 wrote:It’s pretty clear that the Z6 and 7 series are at best a sideways step from their DSLR predecessors,I disagree - without hesitation I found the Z7 overall distinctly better than the D850- which is why I no longer own a D850.and aren’t really competitive with other brand offerings.That as yet Nikon has to get fully up to speed with the latest AI is probably what you are referring to as - as in those who want more than a normal ML body with good face, animal and eye AF.

No, EVF lag and decent AF.Actually had an opportunity to buy a Z9 this afternoon and instead decided that it’s probably just easier to sell up and move on at this point.

Nikon's too busy at the moment getting that easy money from retired boomers. Can you blame them? With the overwhelming success of internet shilling, it's shooting fish in a barrel.

Leonard Shepherd wrote:Ramon767 wrote:It’s pretty clear that the Z6 and 7 series are at best a sideways step from their DSLR predecessors,I disagree - without hesitation I found the Z7 overall distinctly better than the D850- which is why I no longer own a D850.Speaking of shilling! Still trying to push Nikon's Z failures, huh Leonard?

Awesome.

X Ray wrote:Nikon's too busy at the moment getting that easy money from retired boomers. Can you blame them? With the overwhelming success of internet shilling, it's shooting fish in a barrel.What does this mean? Define "internet shilling". You have no Z hardware yet you comment on the Z forum. Useless. But Thanks...