Thom Hogan

The background When Nikon introduced the Z System, they also introduced an FTZ adapter so that DSLR users could use their existing lenses with the new mirrorless system. The problem with the FTZ adapter was simple: it didn't autofocus with all DSLR autofocus lenses; you could mount a screw-drive lens, but it wouldn't autofocus on a Z System camera. 

Screw-drive lenses are ones which don't have a motor built into the lens (AF-I, AF-S, and AF-P lenses do have such a motor). Instead, they require the camera to have a lens focus motor, and it is engaged via a shaft that extends through the camera's lens mount into the lens (the screw-drive). 

A number of significant lenses were left in the cold by the lack of screw-drive support: 17-35mm f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 28-70mm f/2.8, 35-70mm f/2.8, 80-200mm f/2.8, 105mm f/2 DC, 135mm f/2 DC, 180mm f/2.8, and the 200mm f/4 Micro-Nikkor. One DX lens also needs to be added to that "significant" list: the 10.5mm f/2.8. I use "significant" to describe these lenses as they don't exist in AF-S (F-mount) or Z-mount form, and were in use by a large number of DSLR owners. 

Complaints about no screw-drive support were instantaneous, and not really addressed by Nikon subsidiaries or executives, despite being asked repeatedly about whether such support would ever appear.

This wasn't the first time this lack of support has happened. Back when the D40 was introduced in 2006, Nikon took out the screw-drive mechanism, and that was true for pretty much all subsequent truly consumer DSLRs made afterwards; only the prosumer and pro DSLRs had in-camera focus motors and the necessary screw-drive mechanism. The complaints about the FTZ were basically the same as they were with the D40 and subsequent consumer DSLRs, and Nikon's lack of real response to those complaints was the same, as well.

The rumor About 10 days ago, a post in China resurfaced the rumor that Nikon is preparing an FTZ adapter that supports lenses that require a camera motor, the so-called screw-drive lenses that were typical in the early D era. This was quickly followed with a more specific post that said "Nikon [will] announce a Z-mount adapter for [screw-drive] lenses next year." As usual, this was picked up first in Japan by sites such a Digicame-info, and then onto other sites such as Nikon Rumors. From there, threads on the usual fora started appearing about the rumor, often with the same participants who've been asking for such an adapter for six years.

The discussion Nikon has long been the top interchangeable lens camera brand with deep legacy support (Pentax would be the other, but didn't have the market share Nikon had in the digital age). But that legacy support has not been complete. A number of dead ends exist in Nikon's technology over their history, but I'd say that getting rid of screw-drive is probably the most important and most contentious. 

People buy lenses to specific purpose. A good case in point are the two DC lenses or the 200mm f/4 Micro-Nikkor. These provide unique abilities that have not resurfaced in an AF-I, AF-S, AF-P, or Z-mount lens. Not being able to use these lenses to full potential with your latest camera is problematic, and in essence violates the whole notion of interchangeable lens mount. People want the lens look they paid for, but they also want to move with the times and get current technology cameras.

The "easy pickings" for Nikon are over at this point. In my surveys of long-time DSLR owners I find three groups: (1) convinced they'll stay DSLR and forego mirrorless; (2) want to give up DSLR but won't until the products they use are in the mirrorless world; and (3) those that have either already dipped a toe into the Z System or embraced it fully. #3 was the easy pickings. The next easiest picking is finding a new customer entirely, which Nikon's marketing isn't always up to the challenge of doing, though it's had a few modest successes at that recently. 

That #2 group is hung up with something that wasn't brought over from the film/DSLR legacy. The number one and number two answers about what that is are: (a) no D7500 or D500; and (b) no screw-drive lens support. That list used to include (c) no D5/D6, (d) no D850, (e) no Df, and a few other things, but Nikon has picked most of those off and transitioned those folk to mirrorless pretty successfully. I know that Nikon does surveys similar to mine, so they must know all this (though they survey the full spectrum of customers and I mostly survey what would be called prosumer users).

So the question becomes is Nikon really going to go after (a) and (b) now? To some degree, the Z50II is poking into (a) territory (I'll have much more to say on that when my review of the camera is done). Now we once again have the resurfacing of a rumor about (b). 

Here's my problem (and Nikon's): Nikon is no longer selling those screw-drive lenses. Yes, you can still get some of them new via hanging inventory, but I'm pretty sure that manufacturing is done for them. Thus, Nikon doesn't get as big a bang for their buck by producing an FTZ-screw-drive adapter today as they would have six years ago. Putting such an adapter on the market in 2025 really only lets a few folk pull a lens they already own off their shelf to use, and an even fewer number of folk would buy new Z System bodies because they could now transition properly. 

Thus, there has to be a discussion of whether an FTZ-screw-drive adapter is still a "viable product." By that I mean, once you account for all R&D and move-into-production costs, do you get enough return on investment (ROI) back to justify it? If you believe you can get a higher ROI doing something else with that same money and assets, a company the size of Nikon* is should do that, instead. 

True, there's the buzz-worthiness of such a product to account for (e.g. "Nikon still treats its legacy customers well."), but Nikon has turned into a company that's exceptionally efficient at generating profit on investment. The company is no longer chasing market share, bragging rights, or completeness; instead it's creating product lines everywhere that are efficient at driving financial return.

So do we believe the rumors, or not? 

I believe that Nikon has had a working version of an FTZ-screw-drive adapter for some time. I once heard a credible story out of Tokyo about a photographer I won't name having tested it. It's not engineering that's keeping such an adapter off the market. It really all drives back to ROI. How many would Nikon sell, and what's the GPM? I don't know the latter number, but my surveys say that the first number isn't as high as some seem to think. 

My conclusion is simple: Nikon could come out with such a product. Only the bean counters in Tokyo know whether or not they should, or not. On the impossible-to-certain continuum**, an FTZ-screw-drive adapter comes in at "possible." 

__________________

* I knew that description would get a rise out of you. For the current year Nikon Imaging is forecasting total sales of US$2b with a 15.4% profit return. A US$150 product doesn't move the bar much unless it sells in high quantity. Create too many lower cost, low volume products and you start having problems keeping that profit margin up, as you spread a lot of your existing production, inventory, sales, and marketing efforts over products that are not bringing the same level of gain. 

** Impossible, improbable, possible, probable, certain.

The number one question on the charts this week has to do with how good the Z50II or Z6III is relative to the Z8. A subset also mention the Zf or Z9 when framing their version of the question.

I’m surprised at how effectively Nikon has made an effective continuum here. The goodness of the EXPEED7 processor is truly present on all the cameras using it. Currently that’s Z50II, Zf, Z6III, Z8, and Z9 in order of price. As you work your way up that price chain, you’ll find that limitations and liabilities get removed, at least up to the Z8 level (the Z8 and Z9 are effectively the same camera in different bodies). 

So what are those limitations and liabilities?

Let’s work backwards:

• Z8 (and Z9)
  1. 45mp. Full frame (FX).
  2. An electronic shutter that’s as good as any mechanical shutter we had in the DSLR era. (1/270 effective)
  3. A very natural looking viewfinder that doesn’t black out and displays continuous live frames unless you’re pushing down into really low light and long shutter speeds. 
  4. A buffer that is infinite until the card fills (at least for JPEG and High efficiency raw files.
• Z6III
  1. 24mp, with a slight loss of dynamic range at base ISO up to the gain reset. Full frame (FX).
  2. An electronic shutter that is rolling enough to become visible at high motion speeds. (1/70 effective)
  3. An even better nature looking viewfinder, but is no longer displaying live frames above 8 fps mechanical, 15 fps electronic.
  4. A buffer that is 200 images (unless you’re using electronic shutter, where it can be infinite until the card fills).
• Zf
  1. 24mp. Full frame (FX).
  2. An electronic shutter that has a high degree of rolling. (1/20 effective)
  3. A very natural looking viewfinder, but which is no longer displaying live frames above about 8 fps.
  4. A maximum 200 image buffer.
• Z50II
  1. 20mp. APS-C frame (DX).
  2. An electronic shutter with visible rolling shutter. (1/41 effective)
  3. A slightly rougher viewfinder, and one that is no longer live starting about 6 fps.
  4. A buffer that is 200 images (both minimum and maximum)

The Zf introduces the oddity of a completely different set of controls (dials, and no user settings available), but other than that you have a pretty natural progression from top to bottom of the EXPEED7 camera line. 

Many buy solely on point #1 (they want pixels and sensor size). Well, they'll pay the Pixel Tax to do so. 

Personally, from a functional standpoint, I find that point #3 is the one that dictates which camera I use when. In other words, I prefer to use a Z8 (or Z9). The reason I’d use a Z6III or Z50II—I don’t like the dials-oriented Zf design—tends to have to do with packing/carrying size. I’ll give up #2 and #3 to make for a smaller, lighter kit at times. In fact, that’s the only reasons why I’d pick up my Z6III or Z50II over a Z8: I need to go smaller and/or lighter. 

Some folk ask their version of the question I’m answering a different way, usually something like “is the Z50II autofocus system really as good as the Z9’s?” Yes, within the context of #1, #2, and #3. 

Wait, what?

The Z50II autofocus suffers a bit by being DX: the photosites being looked at get less light because they’re a smaller area. While the Z50II photosites are effectively the same size as the Z8’s and Z9’s, the same size focus box in the viewfinder incorporates more such sites on a Z8 and Z9, thus has better discrimination. That information is delivered to the EXPEED7 chip more consistently in the Z8/Z9, too (#3).

The Zf, Z6III, and Z50II all suffer a bit in autofocus performance as you push frame rates way up, partly because of rolling shutter, partly because you’re no longer see a live view of the scene, but rather a slightly lagged slide show. Which means you can’t keep the camera as steady on a moving subject. The Z50II and Zf suffer the most, the Z6III is relatively good right up to the point where you try to extract every last frame out of its Release mode settings.

Ironically, the Z8/Z9 are the best camera for the amateur that wants “everything auto” but wants to push the boundaries of performance in frame rate. The Z50II is the camera that the highly disciplined pro will get more out of than most users. To give an analogy, the Z8/Z9 is like giving the amateur a big block V8 with automatic transmission, while the Z50II is more like a straight 4 with manual transmission. A professional driver in the straight 4 will likely still beat the amateur with the V8 on a tough road course. To put that one more way: if you know nothing about the Nikon system and I hand you a Z8 set to Auto-area AF with subject detection, I’ll get more keepers than you with a Z50II that I’m near frantically controlling. 

Nikon’s progression here from Z50II up through Z9 is very impressive. And much more compelling than the more hodge-podge model progressions I see in the other mounts. While you might be able to find a feature here and there that is different between the Nikon models—where’s HEIF in the Z9, for instance, or sensor VR in the Z50II?—it’s pretty amazing how consistently deep and wide the feature set of all EXPEED7 generation cameras is. It appears that Nikon heard my (and your) complaints about limitations that were paternally imposed on the original Z6 and Z7.

So, how good is a Z50II compared to a Z6III? Or a Z6III compared to a Z8? Really good. However, in the key areas I outlined above, you will find clear differences, and those differences may be of importance to you. The Goldilocks solution is sort of the Z6III. But I’m impressed with what the US$910 Z50II does; I don’t know any other similarly priced camera that can match it when set and handled correctly. 

Nikon gave you choices. Nikon’s not very good at marketing the differences between those choices, but I find them to be pretty clear choices that align very correctly to price, as the differences come primarily in key performance categories centered around frame rate and viewfinder. 

Moreover, you can now scale that body performance with lens performance. For wildlife photography, for instance:

• Z50II with 28-400mm f/4-8 VR.
• Z6III with 180-600mm f/4.5-6.3 VR.
• Z8 with any of the exotics (e.g. from 400mm f/4.5 VR S to 800mm f/6.3 VR S). 

Nicely done, Nikon. (Yes, I do praise them sometimes ;~)

“Hit rate.” That’s been long a topic on the Internet fora, and probably the most contentious of all the autofocus discussions you’ll encounter. It came up as a question on my bird walks in LA on Black Friday, too.

Way back in the early days of DSLRs we started hearing this term. At the time we also had one good source of repeatable focus testing across early pro bodies: Rob Galbraith. He tested sprinters running directly at the camera, and he was consistent in both his setup and his analysis of the resulting frames. But even then, if he reported 70% accuracy from one camera (hit rate) and 75% from another, looking at the raw data might tell you that things probably shouldn’t be reduced to simple numbers like that. 

Why? Because in some cases, the missed images are far out of focus, in others they’re nearly in focus. That’s the difference between a perhaps salvageable image and one that’s going to be binned by everyone.

You can see this in action today with dpreview's biker images. While not perfectly repeatable, it does tend to show something that Galbraith, myself, and others have all noticed over the years: variability. I often have problems when dpreview states something like “10 of 11 images were in focus” when, in actuality, the focus plane was not where it should be (eye of the biker) on all 11 frames. It was just “close.” 

Which leads us back to “hit rate” claims. 

From a working professional’s standpoint there are two aspects to this: (1) did I get usable, salable images? and (2) did I get “the moment” captured in perfect focus? We all aspire to #2, but we get paid for consistently delivering #1. 

I would argue that any of the top pro cameras—Canon R1/R3, Nikon Z8/Z9, Sony A1/A9—and even many of the prosumer models under them could allow any pro who takes the time to learn and master their gear to attain #1 consistently and often get #2. Your mileage may differ.

This last bit leads me to one of my oft-stated points: autofocus performance is what you make of it, not what the camera does via AI algorithms. Every one of the top pro cameras I’ve used benefits from some user control of the focus system. Every one. Set the camera to all automatic and just point it hither and yon, and you maybe randomly get #1 and it’ll be rare you get #2. Understand and take control of the focus system and you should consistently get #1, and how often you attain #2 will improve dramatically. 

Do I track my “hit rate”? No. I can tell you this, though: when I’m on my game and actively controlling my camera, it’s insanely high. If either of those things don’t apply, then it’s dramatically lower. The first day on safari in Botswana it is usually lower than it is a couple of days later when I’m fully engaged in just getting great animal photos. 

Thus, asking someone what their autofocus hit rate is actually tells you almost nothing about the camera they’re using. Curiously, that seems to be the reason why everyone asks the question; they believe that some cameras are better than others and that is automatically transferred to the user. But it’s really how good the photographer understands and controls the focus system and how well they handle the camera while doing it that’s important. 

Which brings me to a question that came up several times during my LA appearances: is the Z50II autofocus system really as good as the Z9’s? We’re talking about a US$910 camera versus a US$5500 one, so there has to be a difference, right? My answer doesn’t always get accepted, at least until I demonstrate. For instance, I was using my Z50II next to a Z9 user while photographing a hawk in a branchy tree. Why was I getting focus on the eye and he wasn’t? ;~) Let’s walk through the possibilities: EXPEED? Nope, both cameras have the same EXPEED7 chip and the same autofocus capabilities. Image sensor? No, not really. I’m convinced at this point that Nikon has demonstrated that their AF algorithms work on all the image sensors they’ve deployed it on, and if I were judging the very small difference in performance, the Zf would be the worst, the Z50II and Z6III remarkably close one slight step up, and the Z8 and Z9 just a wee step further. Even after my first session with the Z50II I was convinced that its autofocus system was pretty much matching my pro cameras, and nothing has changed my mind on that.

That’s not to say that you just take these cameras out of the box and get the same results. This is where it gets subtle, and you pay a lot of money to get some subtle advantages. The thing you really have to get around on the Z50II isn’t the focus system, but rather the EVF and the shutter interactions. These make the Z50II a more difficult camera to control focus on with a rapidly moving subject at high frame rates. For that hawk sitting in the tree, no difference. 

I’m going to have to write quite a bit more about the above when I provide my review of the Z50II, as it’s the most important thing to understand about the camera. But again, it’s a US$910 camera, and I’m getting a level of focus out of it that matches my Z9 most of the time. It’s just that there are situations where I have to accept something less than what the Z9 can provide (typically anything over 8 fps or any shutter speed over 1/4000). 

I think it’s time for another of my strongly worded straw men: if you’re not getting consistently good autofocus out of any current full frame mirrorless camera, it’s not the camera that’s the problem. 

___________

Bonus: I should probably talk about “salvageable.” With today’s post processing capabilities, near-missed focus is “fixable,” though you need to be careful to avoid telltale artifacts created by your sharpening tools. I’ve “corrected” missed focus by as much as 3 or 4” on 400mm images at times, but to do this usually requires Photoshop, the right additional tools, and a lot of selection and masking. Missing focus by an inch or less can sometimes be “fixed” via a global operation, though if you’re using a product such as TopazLabs Sharpen AI, you need to watch closely for unwanted artifacts (hint: don’t use their standard method, but try the other ones instead). 

Salvageable also interacts with output size. For social media, Web, newspaper, and other uses that don’t need a lot of pixels, even just the act of downsizing from 45mp to 2mp (FullHD and social media size) can often make slightly missed focus not at all obvious. It’s when you’re trying to print big or an organization asks for a 4K-sized image (8-12mp) that you have to pay more attention. 

Hmm. This just triggered another article idea. I work with pros who have very different standards. I’m upset if I haven’t squeezed every bit of acutance out of my gear that they’re capable of. I know one pro who’s satisfaction level is simply “my photo editor used my image.” There’s a lot of "in between" we can talk about. 

With the release of SnapBridge 2.12.0 this week, you're going to see a prompt when it updates that is raising eyebrows: you're asked to agree to the use of Adobe Analytics. 

It appears that Nikon is now using Adobe Analytics to understand its users and what they're doing in SnapBridge. However, as in most cases of collecting data, there are privacy issues you need to be aware of. While the data is not individually identified, SnapBridge is now collecting location data, browsing data, device data, IP address, and information about what you're doing in SnapBridge.

While the statement "These data are collected in a form that does not allow identification of individual users," those of us who've been around the net since the beginning know that by correlating this kind of data set against other databases we might have access to we may actually be able to identify individuals. 

Nikon claims that this new function will enable them to make improvements on an ongoing basis. Perhaps. I should note that I was able to leave that dialog box unchecked and still have a functioning SnapBridge, so despite the appearances that this is required, it probably is optional.

Most software companies do indeed want to monitor usage statistics in some way. That's not the issue here. Many use third party services to do so, which is what has apparently changed in the new SnapBridge release (I don't remember this coming up in the past).

Adobe privacy policy

Nikon Imaging Cloud apparently isn't going as well as Nikon thought it would. Yep, Thom is about to get out his poison pen again...

First up, of course, is that there is really only one camera that serves up Nikon Imaging Cloud (NIC), and that's the Z6III. Sales of that model have been decent, but they're not causing an avalanche of users storming the service. So of course NIC isn't getting much usage. That Z6III purchaser also has a few other things to deal with before moving on to considering NIC, such as learning a whole new focus system and dealing with new image formats (HEIF, High efficiency raw, etc.) and a bunch of other important things that you want your camera to do. Nikon's marketing certainly hasn't promoted NIC well enough that it would be the first thing that a user starts trying. 

We have three bits to discuss: getting connected, sending images, and grabbing recipes.

Getting Connected
The issues start here, as you might expect. I understand that Nikon is trying to provide security (both for you and them), but the sign-up and connection process is fraught with "we do it different and you'd better dot all i's and cross all t's even when we aren't clear about whether there are i's and t's". It's actually much more difficult to get NIC configured than it is connecting to SnapBridge the first time, if you can believe that. 

And then this: once I had an account, I didn't use it for awhile. When I finally went back to get my Z6III reconnected I had to once again jump through a lot of setup hoops, some of which led to URL errors at NIC. Oops. Apple's ease at connecting things makes Nikon look like a true beginner. I guess they are.

As one reader pointed out, there's another bit here: you can't be using SnapBridge at the same time as Nikon Imaging Cloud, so you can't take GPS-tagged photos that immediately head to the cloud. 

Sending Images
Surprisingly the most direct bit of NIC. Well, direct if you manage to go through the painful steps of getting your destination configured properly (do this now, and once; don't wait until you're on vacation). It's not completely transparent as to the steps you go through to, say, to allow images from your Z6III to get to Microsoft OneDrive. During the setup OneDrive will step in and ask for sign-in and permissions, and Nikon's wording isn't always clear as to what to do next (hint: follow the arrows). Once you do manage the connection setup, things do become relatively seamless. The only problem is that there doesn't seem to be a way to configure folders that images should go to, so you're going to end up with a pile of images all in one spot over on your cloud if you photograph prolifically.

Recipes
We have a short list of available Picture Control Recipes so far. Thirteen creators most of which have only one or two choices. But right up front we have the problem: Nikon shows you the creators first. I'm pretty sure you've never heard of them. Moreover, you're probably not interested in personality first, you're interested in what the actual Recipe does. 

So click on a creator and you...get more about the creator, often in flowery and exaggerated prose. Look closer and you'll see what Recipes names they've created. I clicked on one at random: +100 Contrast, +54 Highlight, +33 Shadow! You might have guessed that from (terrible) sample image NIC shows, as it is blown out and way laden with excessive contrast. But can you see what the scene would have looked like with the Standard Picture Control by comparison? Nope. Apparently it's more important to tell you when the photo was taken and at what focal length with which Nikon lens. 

In some Recipes, the Flexible Color changes are all simply listed as Custom Curve, which provides you no real information about what is being changed. So coupled with not being able to see the before/after comparison, and you're basically shooting in the dark (literally in the case of one Recipe). Thus, to make any meaningful decision, you have to download the Recipe to your camera and do your own before/after comparison. Yeah, like the folk that this feature was intended for really have the time to do lab work.

That's especially true—your having to do the lab work—because some details about the Flexible Color changes are missing. The Bleach Blue Recipe, for instance, is manipulating color, but Nikon's details for the Picture Control do not document or show any of the color manipulation (other than Saturation -43, which I guess is part of the bleach.

Apparently Nikon's engineers came up with this geeky thing (Recipes) and then got an intern to go out, find some "influencers", and provide a few simplistic examples. I find the results pretty much 100% unprofessional and nearly 100% unusable. 

Then there's the process of getting the Recipes to the camera. You'd think you could do that directly as you browse the Recipes—if you can call the process Nikon provides browsing, which I think is being overly generous—but no, there are once again intermediary steps. 

Thing is, the process will work, once you understand that n-step procedure. That makes everything even more frustrating. If I were to provide a Recipe or two to Nikon, for instance, you could get it to your camera through your Wi-Fi connection just fine, but I'd have to have a full page step-by-step handholding page to help you do that. I could email it to you easier. Ugh.

Detail is in the Execution
So once again we have Nikon basically doing the right thing, but doing it the wrong way(s). There's a ton of friction that the potential NIC user needs to fight through to get a few simple things working. Fortunately, the basic passthrough to a cloud service does function, though that's really all that's happening that's probably of interest to most. 

Which brings me to this: like SnapBridge, Nikon Imaging Cloud is a baby that's taking first steps (and teeters at times). The problem is that SnapBridge didn't grow up, and now we probably have to face the same thing with Nikon Imaging Cloud. Meanwhile, we have NX MobileAir and Nikon Image Service, also babies that haven't grown up (and want our money!). I feel like I'm running a nursery, not a photo business. 

To say today that Nikon is poor at mobile and Web software is to say that the Pope is still Catholic. Whoever is in charge of this mess in Tokyo needs to be promoted to an office with a window. I can find college students that can do better.

Most Western photography sites scrape news from Japanese sites. In re-reporting this "news" sometimes we see exaggerations or misleading statements being made. 

What happened on November 12th was that Nikon Direct in Japan was receiving more orders than expected, so told its customers that "it might take some time for your order to be delivered." A 10% off coupon was offered to those in Japan wanting to still order. That led to headlines such as "Nikon Japan already warns about Z50II camera supply shortages," which many would interpret as the overall company warning everyone about short supply everywhere. 

Nikon Direct is the online presence of Nikon Imaging Japan. 

One thing I've noted but haven't been able to get any specifics about is that with each new camera release—and even with subsequent shipments—Nikon is carefully allocating units by region. Based on currency valuations and local economy health, Nikon prioritizes putting units where they feel they'll make the most money. Curiously, the home market of Japan has been the one region that seems to be getting short shrift in the past several years. 

This kind of logistical micromanagement has long been in place at Nikon, but in recent years it's become very obvious where the most units tend to go (typically China and North America, sometimes Europe). 

The brick and mortar retailers in Tokyo are not yet reporting shortages (though I suspect some will soon if the Z50II turns out to be truly popular). That said, the only known shortage at the moment is if you want to buy directly from Nikon in Japan. 

It doesn't always show in the News/Views or reviews sections, so I thought it would be a good time to remind you that this entire site is a living organism, and in constant change and flux. Besides the 75 News/Views articles and 7 reviews I posted in 2024, the following is also true:

• In Z Camera Articles this year, I added:
  • Common Camera Problems
  • Sensor Read-Out Speeds
  • updated several of the articles
  • updated a few things in reviews
• In Z Lens Articles this year, I added:
  • Common Lens Problems
  • Clearing Up Aperture Confusion
  • Nikkor Lens Filter Sizes
  • updated several of the articles
• In Accessories:
  • Updated all the battery/brackets/plates/card/et.al. sections
  • Added Underwater Housings

The goal of this site is to provide the most complete, accurate, and up-to-date information for any Nikon Z System user. If you find something that needs fixing or updating, don't hesitate to drop me a line. 

Also: since Nikon has finally realized that Z [space] Model [space] Version doesn't work well with search engines and causes bad line breaks, they've changed their style sheet so that it's now ZModelVersion all bunched together, I've been making that change to this site, as well. Not sure yet what I'm going to do with the books, though books moving forward will use their new styling.