Thom Hogan

We're now six years into the Z System, and a number of cameras have had updates. One thing that gets mentioned almost as a throwaway after each update are statements such as "not much of an upgrade" versus "upgrade makes a big difference." 

It's worth taking a moment to consider what Nikon has done in moving the Z System forward, and being more specific about the different progress that has been made for each model. Let's take it camera by camera, starting with DX:

• Z50 to Z50II — This was a massive change, and deserves more respect. The Z50 went from being a somewhat likable, feature limited camera with a lot of small annoyances, to being the most well-rounded and performance-capable camera anywhere near its price point. Customization and controllability got better, focus got way better, video got better, frame rates got better, features got better and extended, plus even the small tweaks to what's shown in the EVF help the camera, too. When Nikon does a job like this, they should be applauded at the standing ovation level, not just a bunch "yeah, buts..." Big win.
• Zfc — No changes yet.
• Z30 — No changes yet. One could say that the Z30 was a Z50 with a very modest update and an EVF removal. Now that we have the Z50II you can see just how modest the Z30 update really was: extremely. No applause necessary ;~). 

Up until the Z50II it seemed that Nikon wasn't all that serious about DX. The Z50 was a low-end placeholder, the Zfc was a way to disguise almost no upgrade work being done by putting that in a legacy-design body and creating an update that catered to nostalgia. The Z30 was really a way of disguising that same modest update as something that would instead appeal to "creators." The Z50II seems to put that to an end, unless by creator you mean someone who never uses an EVF and just wants a smaller camera (and is willing to suffer considerable consequences in doing so). 

Personally, I don't think the Zfc needs an update, but a Z30II incorporating the Z50II changes would be a very useful product, particularly at the price point. The problem for DX now is starting to be the one we've had since 2007: it needs more lens support. I don't care whether that comes from Nikon or third parties, but particularly with zoom lenses we have a number of missing lens components now. 

Moving to FX we see:

• Z5 — No changes yet, though pretty clear indications that it is next for the EXPEED7 makeover (see next article). Will Nikon do what they did with the Z50II? Let's hope so. But given that the Z5 lives at the bottom of the FX price chain and really needs to sell at US$1000 at times, the temptation for Nikon to strip something down will be high. 
• Z6 to Z6II — While the list of changes was actually fairly long in this update—I identified over two dozen in my review—most of these had minimal impact on how good a camera it was. Quite a few seemed to be just addressing something that didn't get done in the original model, as opposed to truly extending performance or feature set. This led to a lot of grumbling and dissatisfaction among the Zsumers, though most eventually came to the conclusion that the Z6II was indeed preferred over the Z6; it just wasn't a dollar-worthy upgrade.
• Z6II to Z6III — A substantive change that improves virtually all the questionable aspects of the II model. That's "marred" by one small thing: some modest reduction of dynamic range at the lower ISO levels. Some might also include a bit of rolling shutter in electronic shutter mode, but both of these things are not likely to be a detriment to someone who understands the camera well. The Z9-level features really do improve the overall operability of this model to the point where it's probably all the camera that most people really need. Major win.
• Z7 to Z7II — Same thing as with the Z6: no performance or feature set extension that made a clear difference, but a lot of small things that made for a slightly better camera. Not worth paying for the upgrade, but it did make those coming into the system for the first time to a Z7II feel a little better about it.
• Z8 — Surprisingly, firmware 2.00 made changes that were well worth getting, and it did it for free. (I'll deal with that more in the Z9 section, next.) Significant win.
• Z9 — Nikon's biggest surprise of all. When you think about it, the Z9 basically "fixed" all the Z7/Z7II complaints in spades with its initial iteration. I took a preproduction Z9 and a Z7II to Africa and almost never picked up the Z7II, as it was such a downgrade. So some might say the Z9 was a pro-level, massive upgrade of the Z7II. But wait, there's more. As in firmware 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and eventually 5.0. Every one of those major number upgrades simply made an already excellent camera clearly better. What became evident over time is that the Z9 was actually rushed to market (yet still beat the competition up), even though the engineering team still had significant work left to do on it, which they eventually completed. Funny thing is, I don't think they're done, though I now expect firmware 6.0 will more likely be the Z9II. Big win.
• Zf — A substantive update to the Zfc ;~). One reason why I don't have strong hopes for a ZfcII any time soon is that the Zf was really the update. Not only did the Zf get the Z9-initiated EXPEED7 goodies, but there are small differences to how Nikon tackled the legacy body ideas, too. Coupled with a better FX sensor and EVF and all that entails, the Zf became the ultimate retro-style camera, and I don't think Nikon needs two of those. Significant win.

Looking back at Nikon's whole mirrorless history, it now seems clear that there were three turning points: (1) Nikon 1 pioneering on-sensor PDAF and WYSIWIG EVF; (2) Z6/Z7 generation maturing the Nikon 1 technologies into the mainstream ILC market; and (3) EXPEED7 then pushing Nikon's in-camera capabilities to new abilities and extremes. No fourth turning point is on the radar at the moment, but given that there are usually long periods before each major shift, that's not surprising. That actually describes Nikon engineering's modus operandi over many decades: every four or eight years deploy clearly new technology at the top, then work it down through the lineup. 

Some are predicting EXPEED8 is on the near horizon (because EXPEED7 is four years old). I'm not so sure about that as it would be a huge R&D investment right on the heels of EXPEED7, and that's not very Nikon-like. My expectations would instead be that they instead turn to a helper chip, not a new base processor. We've already seen that idea from Sony with their AI processing unit. Moreover, the split data stream Z8/Z9 cameras should be well suited to multi-chip upgrades. Which has me predicting an add-on chip for the Z8/Z9 updates when we get them, and then EXPEED8 integrating that and more for the eventual other model updates. But I could be wrong; maybe Nikon saw a need to push EXPEED updates faster. The reason why I doubt this, though, is that they haven't yet taken full advantage of EXPEED7's capabilities.

As I write this, the "un-upgraded" models are: Zfc, Z30, Z5, and Z7II. I expect the Z5II shortly, leaving Nikon with only three un-upgraded models (the Z8 and Z9 were upgraded via firmware). And to my overall point, we've gotten three substantive upgrades this round already: Z50 to Z50II, Zfc to Zf, and Z6II to Z6III. Nikon's current lineup is pretty strong at the moment, and only going to get stronger.

Nikon today introduced Z8 firmware 2.10 and Z6III firmware 1.10. While some are calling these "major updates," note the numbering. Nikon's true major updates are a change to the number on the left of the dot. So before we deal with what's in these updates, let's make sure to correctly identify Nikon engineering's pattern of numbering:

• X.## — When X to the left of the dot changes, that's a truly major update, generally introducing significant high level features.
• #.X# — When the X immediately to the right of the dot changes, that indicates that there are feature additions and changes. Often this has to do with an existing feature, where something is added or changed. Sometimes it has to do with a new accessory (in this case power zoom lenses). 
• #.#X — If the X that changes at the end of the number, that generally indicates bug and performance fixes.

Note that each level of update can also contain things in the lower levels.

While Nikon hasn't been 100% perfect with the above, I know from interviews that the above is their internally stated goal.

Okay, now on to the Z8 2.10 firmware. The feature additions and changes here have to do with video and controls for it:

• Hi-Res Zoom is now available when Imaging area is set to DX.
• #G10 was added to include Power/Hi-Res Zoom collaboration. This allows for a continuous zoom that starts with a power zoom lens optically zooming and continues seamlessly with Hi-Res Zoom when the maximum optical focal length is reached. This feature first appeared on the Z50II.
• #G13 added Shutter mode to the list of options.
• #G15 added Zebra pattern color to the list of options.
• #G18 added options for Brightness information display.
• PHOTO SHOOTING and VIDEO RECORDING modes can be set individually in the bank system. (I don't like the way this option was done; it basically is a kludge until they do it right ;~)
• #F2 and #G2 add an option for Save and load power zoom position.
• #F10 adds Zoom ring control (PZ lens).
• #F11 and #G9 is now Assign power zoom (two consolidated power zoom features).
• Power zoom speed (zoom buttons) can be added to #F1 and #G1.

A number of bugs and performance issues were addressed, including buffer capacity changes that shouldn't happen, a lockup that happened during burst photography, a problem with Auto capture not starting properly, an ATOMOS AirGlu BT connectivity bug, and the fact that sometimes the camera could create images that wouldn't respond to i > Retouch. 

The Z6III 1.10 firmware basically provides the same feature additions and changes, though Custom Setting numbering is different than for the Z8 as the two cameras each have some features the other doesn't. The big news in the Z6III firmware update has to do with bug/performance fixes:

• The noise jitter described by Horshack on dpreview has been addressed. It isn't 100% gone, but in terms of visibility, it is. One thing I had noticed is that the jitter was really in the Green/Magenta levels, and high ISO video on the Z6III with the new firmware seems to not run to a slight green tint as did the earlier version. Whatever Nikon did seems to have also addressed color shift at high ISO.
• A number of "video stopped prematurely" problems were identified and addressed. One big one was sometimes an N-RAW video would end abruptly and not record to the card.
• Audio noise for non-powered microphones set manually was addressed.
• When using a Micro-Nikkor lens on a tripod with Electronic VR active, the image would jitter. Now fixed.
• Other more esoteric or minor problems were addressed.

Curiously, the Z8 firmware does not include support for Flexible Picture Controls or Nikon Imaging Cloud. Frankly, that's a big miss by Nikon, and needs to be addressed. 

Today I've posted my complete review of the Nikon Z50II camera. In a few words: it's the best camera you can buy at its price point. Indeed, I've given it my Highly Recommended rating, which puts in the minority in Nikon's lineup.

In a few more words targeted to embarrass my friends at dpreview who need better copy editors: it is a baby Z9 generation camera. To be clear, babies have some limitations compared to adults, and that's exactly where the Z50II isn't a Z9: the Z50II has limitations the Z8 and Z9 don't, and even some that the Z6III doesn't. The real question you have to answer is whether you can live with those limitations. I hope my review helps you answer that question.

Meanwhile, today I've also published my Complete Guide to the Nikon Z50II. Because the Z50II is a complex camera, this book is several hundred pages longer than the one for the original Z50. It takes me a bit of time to work through new cameras and get my guides right because Nikon has this silly habit of making idiotic small changes that make no sense. For instance, why does the Z50II have Cycle AF-area mode assignable to a button when the Z6III doesn't? Finding and documenting all the little things that Nikon keeps fiddling with and tweaking is a time-consuming and exhausting process. And 100% unpredictable, too, as Nikon's small changes always seem random to me.

It appears that site after site is using the phrase "Nikon's first Cine lens" to describe the just introduced 28-135mm f/4 PZ lens. My Hollywood friends are saying Nyet to that. I agree. I'd call the new lens a sophisticated Video lens.

Lens for still cameras can skip a number of attributes that videographers and cinematographers value, and even among those latter two groups there are differences in opinion about what's necessary in a lens. So let me explain:

Beyond the attributes we'd associate with a still lens, here's how I see the differences:

• Video lens adds:
  • little or no focus breathing
  • power zoom capabilities, including speeds
• Cine lens adds to the Video lens attributes:
  • T-stop aperture specificity
  • parfocal (focus stays the same during zoom)
  • Does not change size in any way during zoom or focus (internal zoom, internal focus)
  • clear focus marking
  • 0.8 MOD gearing on all rings

The 28-135mm f/4 PZ fits into those things this way:

• Has little or no focus breathing
• Has power zoom, including speed control
• Does not have t/stop specification, so harder to integrate with other lens use on set
• Is only partially parfocal (from 55-135mm)
• Doesn't change size during zoom or focus
• Has no focus markings
• Does not have 0.8 MOD gear rings (though Nikon has shown someone's slip on addition to provide this)

Hollywood isn't going to see the 28-135mm f/4 PZ as a "Cine lens," therefore. If Nikon really wants to move RED (and themselves) forward in the high-end world, Nikon will eventually need to either supply or associate itself with a set of real Cine lenses. 

Another thing to note in all the discussion is that the Raptor-X is an 8K video camera that plays more to the cine crowd, while the Komodo-X is a 6K video crowd that is more attractive to the run-and-gun video crowd. However, note that the Komodo-X is a Super35 sensor camera, which is essentially APS-C or DX, so on the Komodo-X the new lens is effectively something closer to a 42-210mm f/4 lens. 

The way I look at all this is "it's a start." Nikon and RED still have a great deal to work out before the full synergy of their products will be demonstrated. 

I'll say this: from the standpoint of a wildlife photographer who goes deep into the wilds, the Komodo-X would be an excellent option now, as I could standardize lenses between both my still and video gear. If I were still supplying footage to the big animal shows, I'd be 100% on top of both the new Komodo-X and the new lens.

Not only a new option, but an option from Nikon themselves. Okay, not exactly Nikon, but RED (owned by Nikon). 

REDCINE-X PRO is an intermediary software product that is tasked with handling RED RAW, and now Nikon N-RAW, files. Up to this point, really only Blackmagic Design's DaVinci Resolve could handle files such as the 8K N-RAW the Z8/Z9 produces. DaVinci Resolve is a bit of a kitchen sink though, in that it has ingest, codec, grading, editing, and a host of other features all thrown into it. It's a big learning sink if you haven't been using it before. When the Z9 came out with 8K N-RAW, those that were using Final Cut Pro or Premiere found themselves without any N-RAW support initially, and eventually ended up using DaVinci Resolve, with all the hassles of trying to understand one of the world's most complex software products.

Ironically, RED had the same issue that Nikon faced: if you created RED RAW files, how did you edit them? REDCINE-X PRO was the answer: it allows you to grade and transcode RED RAW (and now Nikon N-RAW) files before sending them to your video editor of choice in a format they understand. That's why I used the term "intermediary" above: REDCINE-X PRO gets added to the workflow process between your ingest and your editing. 

What doesn't still seem to be enabled for N-RAW in REDCINE-X PRO is the ability to offload/transfer files from camera to computer directly (i.e. ingest). However, once you have a clip in REDCINE-X PRO there's a lot you can do with it, including frame rate overrides, pixel masking, syncing of audio, and much more than just basic image grading. Typically you'd export your work in Apple ProRes to your video editor of choice afterwards.

Bottom line, Nikon users now have a second free way of dealing with the N-RAW video that they create. If you're interested in more, go to the REDCINE-X PRO documentation page.

Speaking of .NEV files, I've added a new page on this site listing the file extensions for files you can find on your card after using them in a Z System camera.

It's a constant question, and particularly for me since I teach wildlife photography workshops: what Z-mount long telephoto lens should I get?

Buried in that question are three factors that need to be considered: (1) budget; (2) quality; and (3) handling (size/weight). I constantly get the "yeah I'd get that except for X" response to my suggestions, and X tends to always be #1, #2, or #3.

So let me try a different approach. You need something that gets you to 400mm, 500mm, or 600mm. We'll look at just those options. Why? Because if you don't need at least 400mm, you're not playing the game (;~), and if you need more than 600mm, then you don't currently have many choices that don't involve a teleconverter.

I'm going to tackle this by splitting the lenses into three budget groups: inexpensive, moderately priced, and expensive. I'll use list prices, even though we have some fairly hefty discounts in play at the moment. I'll also put the lenses in price order.

Here goes:

Inexpensive

• Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 VC — US$1200. On the large side, a little slower than most Nikkor options, optically very good (review coming). 
• Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 VC — US$1300. More compact travel size, optically excellent, focuses close (review coming).
• Nikon 28-400mm f/4-8 VR — US$1300. Smallest of the bunch for travel, but slowest of the lenses; surprisingly good optics, though you border on diffraction impacts and have to watch shutter speeds/camera handling at 400mm. 
• Nikon 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR — US$1900. On the large side, no real extra controls, with arguably best in class optics at 400mm.
• Nikon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S — US$2700. Now you see why I down-graded my recommendation from Highly Recommended to just Recommended: Nice size, with good extra controls, but doesn't provide better optics for the extra money. Does focus close, though. 

Moderately Priced

• 400mm f/4.5 VR S — US$3300. If you can live with the fixed focal length, this lens has almost everything: compact and light, excellent controls, reasonably fast aperture, and excellent optics. 
• 600mm f/6.3 VR S — US$4800. Compact and light for the focal length, excellent controls, and excellent optics. 

Expensive

• 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S — US$14000. Big and heavy (in comparison to above), but top-of-the-line at everything else. Best optical choice, and clearly so. Built-in teleconverter is a huge sweetener.
• 600mm f/4 TC VR S — US$15500. Big and heavy (in comparison to above), but top-of-the-line at everything else. Best optical choice, and clearly so.  Built-in teleconverter is a huge sweetener.

So here's my advice:

1. Choose in the highest budget class you can afford. 
2. Within that class, consider only the focal length you truly need.
3. Pick the best lens optically, or pick the smallest/lightest lens; there is no "both." 

Here's where I'll get pushback: "but Thom, I need a zoom." Great, then you've picked the Inexpensive class of lenses, so just pick the best one for you. Right now that's likely to be the Tamron 50-400mm, Nikon 180-600mm, or Nikon 100-400mm. 

"But Thom, how does it handle teleconverters?" Oh, you picked the Moderately Priced group, then, as the Inexpensive lenses either don't support a teleconverter or don't do so well with them. Good news: Both the 400mm f/4.5 and 600mm f/6.3 work really nicely with the Nikon 1.4x teleconverter. 

"But Thom, I can't afford the expensive TC lenses and I seek the best." You once again picked the Moderately Priced group ;~). You'd be surprised at how well those two moderately priced lenses do. Yes, you've lost some light gathering and background separation. If you need more of those things than the 400mm f/4.5 and 600mm f/6.3 provide, well, by definition you've put yourself in the "price of a decent used car" territory. Rent the lens if you don't need it all the time. Or start saving up for it.

Now, with that said, I can say I've used every one of the above options at one time or another, and I've been pleased with the results. As I've noted before, the Tamron 50-400mm or the Nikon 28-400mm are excellent long telephoto choices with a Z50II. Surprisingly excellent.

You can get yourself all tied in knots by trying to analyze every last nuance and come up with the "best" solution. I'd defy you to tell me which lens I used on any image I've taken with all the above. We live in a world of Very Good Choices. Choose wisely.

________________

So, did you figure out what lens I used on the above image? Hint: it wasn't my usual 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S.

__________________

Bonus: Just before I posted this article I noticed a couple of comparisons in Internet fora that try to get to "what looks best" between some long telephoto lens choices. This is far trickier than you might think. For instance:

• Between best case (f/2.8) and worst case (f/8), there's a potential for three stops slower shutter speed (or higher ISO). Longer shutter speeds will tend to alias edges compared to higher ones. Higher ISO values will put noise into the mix, and noise reduction may not produce strong edges.
• Likewise, body can make a difference: a Z50II doesn't have sensor VR and thus also doesn't have Synchro VR. Like the previous item, this can begin aliasing edges if you haven't nailed handling and shutter speed.
• Comparing the same final cropped size of an animal between 400mm and 600mm will tend to always make the 400mm lens look worse.
• At 20mp DX and 45mp FX, f/8 is right at the diffraction impact start. While I don't generally call that "diffraction limited" I almost always measure a lower overall MTF at f/8 than I do at f/6.3 with these telephoto lenses. Note that even a 1.4x teleconverter puts you beyond f/8 with f/6.3 lenses. 
• The inexpensive lenses all have a tendency to lose some overall contrast maxed out (aperture, focal length) compared to the more expensive ones. Careful post processing can help make an inexpensive lens perform visually better.

In case you haven't figured it out, Step #1 is a critical one. If all you can afford is the inexpensive class, you're going to be compromising in some way.

In answering a question this weekend—sadly to someone who lost their home and cameras to the LA fires and now needs to replace gear—I realized that I haven't capsulized the way the Z9 generation cameras really differ where it might matter. Here's a quick table to try to fix that problem:

I've left the Zf out, as it's just a completely different kind of design and at the moment stands alone in its differences. For most things in the table, the Zf slots between the Z50II and the Z6III, as you might expect from the price.

What's remarkable in the four cameras shown above, though, is how close they come in both features and customization, which means that each is a fine stand-in (backup) for the next higher level. I find it relatively easy to move between these four cameras, as the menus, features, and customizations all are (surprisingly for once) consistent. Where a feature or customization isn't available on one of these four, it often is because it's not supported by hardware (e.g. multiple slot configuration is not something you find on a Z50II, 8K video can't be done on the 24mp Z6III). There are a couple of oddities that aren't included in one model or another, but these are rare and often have workarounds. 

One thing not in the above table is the Rear LCD. The bottom two models (Z50II, Z6III) have fully articulating (swinging) screens, the top two models (Z8, Z9) have dual-axis tilting screens. As you might guess from price, the Z50II has a lower dot count and brightness than the other three.

For what it's worth, this is the first time since the D1h, D1x, and D100 that we've had reasonably consistent UI and closely matching feature sets in the primary bodies from bottom to top. Once we got to the D2 generation, Nikon started making bigger and bigger deviations as they expanded the consumer and prosumer lines, though we did get some higher end "pairings" that were relatively consistent (e.g. D300, D3, D700, or the later D500, D850, D5). 

So what's missing? The Z5 and Z7 joining this Z9 generation consistency. I fully expect the Z5 to do that at some point, but I'm less sure about a Z7III, as it just becomes a lower cost Z8. It seems to me that the Z8II has to appear (with new abilities/features) before a Z7III makes sense.