Thom Hogan

Nikon today announced two lenses for DX users: the US$450 35mm f/1.7 DX, and the US$900 16-50mm f/2.8 VR DX. So we get a fast normal internal focus prime that's nearly macro (1:1.49), plus the fast mid-range zoom that everyone's wanted since day one (though it's a 24-75mm equivalent, not 24-120mm equivalent as some would have hoped). Just in time for the holidays, and small enough to fit under any tree.

It's interesting that Nikon stepped on no Chinese toes with these specific formulations. Couple Nikon's now seven DX options with the nine Viltrox APS-C (DX) options, and there's solid DX-appropriate-size lens coverage now from 9mm to 75mm (14 to 105mm equivalent), plus two lenses that bridge into telephoto, where the FX options also would be highly viable. Add in the other Chinese vendors and Sigma, and there's plenty of lens choice now for DX users. I'll have more to say about this as some new lens reviews start hitting.

It's also interesting to look at the Z system product release progression. October is certainly a common Nikon target date. Widen that a little bit and you get 7 cameras and 19 lenses launched in the "fall window" of September to November. The other 8 cameras and 25 lenses seem to be in a strange scatter that appears to be skewing earlier and earlier each year outside of a decided February Lens launch proclivity. 

Is Nikon done for 2025? I don't think so. I believe we'll get another lens drop (or two) before the end of the year. Announcing these specific DX lenses is leading some to now tell me they expect a new DX body soon (those folk weren't saying this prior to this DX lens launch). I'm not so sure about that, though both the Zfc and Z30 haven't made it to the Z9 generation. I'd say that these two lenses strengthen the likelihood of Z50II selling well through the upcoming holiday buying period; the Z50II suddenly looks like an even more capable, serious, and up-to-date camera when you put the 16-50mm f/2.8 VR DX on it instead of the older kit lens. 

---------------------

Bonus: Yesterday's NX Studio update (1.10.0) introduced two new functions: Film grain and Dehaze. Hmm, I thought Film grain was supposed to be part of a Picture Control update to the Zf firmware. Instead, Film grain is outside the Picture Control settings in NX Studio, which implies YAMI (Yet Another Menu Item). At least we now know the parameters: a 1 to 6 Intensity and a Small, Medium, or Large size. 

tl;dr answer: no, not for most of us.

We're at an interesting juncture for Nikon: the Z9 generation lineup is nearly complete (Z30II, ZfcII, Z7III are the only models that could be said to be missing). Nikon is nothing if not predictable: introduce new technology high on approximately four year boundaries, deploy into other lower models over time. In film, it was eight year boundaries, but with digital we've had a pretty clear four year cycle, really only distorted a bit by unplanned events (e.g earthquake/tsunami, pandemic).  

The Z9 was announced in late 2021, so it's natural that the Nikon crowd thinks that maybe a replacement is right around the corner.

I have two problems with that. 

My first, of course, is that the Z9 itself was left to languish in features and function as the lower models introduced new things or improved Z9 functions. That a Z8 is now arguably a better camera than a Z9 (outside of body/battery/GPS) seems wrong to me. It's not that the Z9 isn't still selling, either. Dealers I talk to say they still regularly sell Z9's at pretty good rates for a top-end camera (which is never going to be the best seller). 

If a Z9II is mostly firmware changes, then this is doing a disservice to Nikon's best customers, which is something you really don't want to do. As a pro who uses their camera hard, I want to know that I'm using the best product right up to the day where I submerge/drop/crush my current camera into oblivion. At which time I want to buy the best camera again (which today would be a Z8). 

Which brings us to my second problem: if a Z9II is real hardware changes, what would those be that might truly appeal to me? Let's consider the known possibilities:

1. Better EVF — The Z6III shows us what is possible there, and I'd definitely want that.
2. Better Rear LCD — The ZR shows us what is possible there, and again, it's something I'd find useful.
3. CFe 4.0 — Being able to truly use the 4.0 write speeds would have useful buffer impacts.
4. New image sensor — Some will claim they want global shutter here, and it's a possibility given Nikon's recent patents on a dual shutter approach. The second most talked about gain would be more dynamic range, and that, too is possible using current dual/tri gain techniques. Finally, there's the question of how many pixels? Fewer? More? Same?
5. EXPEED8 — Here's where the new technology tends to really live. Faster performance, better exposure, AI additions, and much more. 

To those add UX improvements. In particular settings files/banks, but better menu structuring, additional/better help, and more viewfinder/LCD customizations. 

I can come up with several variations for the Z9II, and this is where we'll get to the "is it necessary" question:

• Complete Z9 Overhaul — All the Z9 generation additions plus the UX improvements, as well as #1 through #5, above. That, my friends, would be a Z9II that makes waves. So much to market. Add in things like R3D video, and Nikon would simply have the top top camera again.
• Modest Z9 Overhaul — The Z9 generation additions and some UX changes, R3D video, and #1 and #2 in the above list. Frankly, I'd probably write "what took so long" as this isn't a huge engineering ask. 
• Minimal Z9 Overhaul — Just the Z9 generation additions and perhaps some UX changes. Maybe #1 in the above list. 

Okay, I think you can see where I'm going now: "Minimal" would be an insult to current Z9 owners if no Z9 firmware update addressed the missing bits. But it wouldn't appeal new purchases, because it doesn't add/change enough. 

"Modest" doesn't do much better, as it only adds a bit more, none of which would likely be deemed essential to the current Z9-using crowd. 

So it's really only the "Complete" change that is of interest. But here's the rub with that: I'm having a difficult time coming up with anything in #4 and #5 that is necessary to my work, or will clearly improve it. Perhaps some focus system improvements, but extended dynamic range as DRO would add isn't going to provide much useful change, and I'm leery of AI sneaking too much into the data capture. Sure, a global shutter might be useful in a few cases, though I'm not really having any issues with the current rolling shutter. Perhaps if I use flash more it would give me a broader shutter speed range to work with. 

Personally, I'd rather that Nikon update the Z9 firmware and spend more time making sure that the post-Z9 generation has more "oomph" that is truly useful. I suspect that is mostly going to come in #4 and particularly #5, and those are expensive parts that need to be 100% right. The fact that Nikon hasn't asked me (or any other Z9-using pro I know) about things we'd value in a next generation worries me. It's quite possible to engineer changes and improvements that don't resonate with users, and remember, any Z9II really has to set the stage for all Z-system users for the next four years or more. Engineering for engineering sake doesn't sell cameras. 

So, yes, I'm a bit pessimistic about exactly what a Z9II might be and how it might help me. The good news, however, is that I'm always pessimistic, and Nikon has managed to surprise me about 50% of the time ;~). Let's hope this is one of those times.

-----------

Bonus: I briefly mentioned flash. Photos are made great by proper composition, excellent technique, and control of light. Composition can be helped in a camera by UX (simple examples: horizon lines, grid lines). Technique is where most of a camera's design is centered these days (particularly exposure and focus). However, it seems that Nikon's forgotten about light. We haven't had any changes or additions to flash capabilities since the DSLR days—okay, technically we've regressed some—and finding a Speedlight in stock currently seems to be only SB-700 (outdated) and SB-5000. The latter is only in stock probably because everyone is buying third-party flashes these days. 

Light is one of the places that a disconnect between Tokyo-centric engineering and photographers is most visible. Every pro photographer I know is controlling, adding, and modifying light. None of the currently available cameras really help much with that any more, so what I see more than anything else is "manual control of light via trial and error." 

A camera is a tool that lets us photographers adjust and balance all the things we need to do to get our desired image (or raw capture). Cameras are currently out-of-balance.

Meanwhile, the "just add video" craze is at its height and about to hit a brick wall. That brick wall is post production. Way back in the late 70's and early 80's I had a (very big) machine that did just what I needed to do for fast turn broadcast quality work. AB roll. Broadcast grading. Voiceover. Titling. Which camera company has produced software that does that? Where do they end up pointing you when you need it? Brick wall (actually: Learning Cliff). 

The still photography side of the Z System now looks like the above illustration. For the moment I leave the ZR off this illustration, as it is a bridge to the RED video cameras and it's unclear how Z Cinema will progress. 

The cameras in the green-shaded area are the ones Nikon wants to sell you. Frankly, that's a pretty compelling lineup, with five cameras sitting in a very nice progression of performance (Z50II > Z5II > Z6III > Z8 > Z9, with the option of a Zf user interface instead of the Z5II). If Nikon would only update the Z9 firmware, this would be a lineup not at all matched by any other camera maker. 

So who's being left out? I'm sure Z30, Zfc, Z7 and Z7II owners are raising their hands. But I'd tend to say that all of those have a fairly clear upgrade path:

• Z30 --> ZR (bet you weren't expecting that!)
• Zfc --> Zf
• Z7/Z7II --> Z6III (use pixel shift for static high resolution) or Z8

Yes, those are all "cost" upgrades as well as clear performative and functional ones. But I'd still argue that this is the correct path for most of those users. Expecting EXPEED7 in a Z30II at the current pricing, for instance, is probably out-of-the-question, at least until EXPEED7 is nearer the end of its lifespan. As I've noted before, a Z7III with EXPEED7 hurts Z8 sales, and with the Z8 selling at US$3999, just how much do you think you'd be saving on a Z7III brought up to the same standards? (Hint: a Z7III would be over US$3000 for sure.) Will we eventually get a Z7II replacement? I think so, but it might not be in a Z6III body.

What do I mean by that? 

A Z7III in the Z6III body is effectively a Z8 with a sensor that can't handle 8K video as well nor the pre-release capture and high frame rate duties nearly as well. The latter means it keeps the mechanical shutter. But the Z7III defined this way also gains the higher resolution EVF, which the Z8 users would actually covet more. Yes, I could see Nikon making a Z7III that's EXPEED7 in a Z6III body in 2026, but only if Nikon sees a clear path for an eventual Z8II in 2027 that pushes new boundaries. 

Nikon has clearly been juggling full frame camera announcements in a way that optimizes volume and dollars. Reminder, that order was Z9, Z8, Zf, Z6III, Z5II. I'm not sure the Z5II did as well as Nikon expected, but it's probably as much camera as most people need, so definitely couldn't have come before the Zf and Z6III. 

One thing I keep hearing from Z7/Z7II users about upgrades is that they want a "small" camera, and see the Z6III/Z8 as "bigger than they desire." Thus, the most interesting Z7III option for Nikon would be to go the Sony A7CR route: something akin to the ZR body, but with a basic EVF in the upper left side of the back. That's not easy to create using the existing ZR as a base: there's not a lot of space on that side for an EVF, and it means the Rear LCD has to be shifted and not articulating (or else the camera has to grow upwards in size). Give up on the EVF and Nikon could make a Z7III tomorrow and it would fit into the lineup without hurting the Z6III/Z8. I doubt this would appeal all that much to the Z7/Z7II user, though. 

Getting back to the headline, we have three models that didn't make the transition so far: Zfc, Z30, and Z7II. I'd be surprised if all of them did. It might be more useful to hold those updates until the next generation starts proliferating. Again, Nikon currently has a five model sweep that has almost the same level of function and features, but differs in performance. That "performance" comes in pixel count (20, 24, 45), frame size (DX, FX), frame rate (10 fps to 120 fps max), rolling shutter (1/20 to 1/268). top video (4K to 8K), and a host of other small bits and pieces (e.g. battery, EN-EL15 versus EN-EL18). 

As I can set them the same, I personally use my Z6III, Z8, and Z9 nearly interchangeably now, really balancing size against performance needed. The Z50II and Z5II work sort of the same way for me as convenience cameras, again with size (both body and sensor) being the determinate. 

If I were Nikon, I'd update the Z9 firmware to better match the Z8's, and move on to the next generation of cameras to start this progression all over again.

We're still nearly three weeks away from final cameras being shipped to customers, but it's been interesting to listen to the chatter behind the scenes. The short version: Nikon seems to feel like the ZR is going to begin selling at lower demand levels than they expected.

If you talk to dealers, they'll tell you that there's definitely demand for the camera, though it's coming from a subset of the customer base. Indeed, a subset that most camera dealers don't tend to be very directly involved with: videographers. Those same dealers are being asked to order more ZRs to match what they did with other Z releases, but are resistant to doing that.

Nikon has been insistent about marketing the ZR solely as a Baby RED. In particular, they keep targeting two groups: creators/influencers doing video, and RED and RED adjacent users. They've trained their reps to talk about and seek conversions from the Canon C and Sony FX crowd, even though those reps have no experience with that market. Nikon itself has no recent history with marketing to their target groups for video only, so it's all new to those doing all the marketing in the Nikon subsidiaries. Moreover, there seems to be a Build It and They Will Come attitude going on, and that ignores one big thing: lenses.

Nikon simply doesn't have the lens set the ZR demands. They Haven't Built It, Some Might not Come.

I can point to examples where the current lens set works, true. For instance, I want a ZR for wildlife video. Lenses such as the 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S have a wealth of controls that the ZR firmware can all take full advantage of, and the result should be better (at least up to 6K) than I can get using a RED. (Why? Because the RED autofocus isn't state of the art but the ZR's is, and the RED bodies don't have some of the manual focus assist bits, such as MF subject detection, that the ZR does.)

But given the creator/influencer group that Nikon is targeting, the lens choice is...Bueller?...Bueller? 

About the only lens that I could come up with that might appeal to this group is the 14-30mm f/4 S. That and a 50mm f/1.4 would be an okay basic set. But remember, Nikon is trying to pry loose Sony FX users, and just look at the lens choices an FX3 user has and it's no contest, Sony wins.

However, the real marketing failure here is one I mentioned in my ZR introduction talk at Creative Photo Academy: Nikon doesn't want anyone talking about whether the ZR is a good camera for still photography. Yet they seem to be expecting the usual hybrid (stills/video) level of sales for this new model! 

Every time I've asked about or mentioned still use of the ZR, Nikon has basically said "we don't want to talk about that, and we don't want you to talk about that, either." In other words, Nikon appears to be all-in on the video aspect of the camera. It's a Baby RED and nothing more.

And boy is Nikon wrong. Having watched so many of those same creators/influencers they target ignore the built-in viewfinder of their camera (e.g. X100VI) and just compose from the rear LCD, you'd think a bigger, brighter, HDR capable LCD might be of interest to that group, even when they take still images (and they all take stills as well as videos). But no, Nikon doesn't want to talk about that, despite the fact that the full PHOTO SHOOTING menu and options are present on a ZR. You can even see it in Nikon's product design: the camera displays a big RED confirmation when you move the switch to video! 

Moreover, there's this size thing Nikon doesn't really mention. With a 26mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2, 24-50mm f/4-6.3, 50mm f/2.8 MC, and even that 14-30mm f/4 S, what you're carrying in ZR+lens is an incredibly capable full frame camera in a remarkably compact camera like size. You really have to hold and use these combos to appreciate this. I'm not alone in thinking that the ZR with the right lens will be an awesome street and travel photography camera. But Nikon doesn't want me or others mentioning that.

It's not just lenses but product marketing decisions that are tripping up Nikon. Consider this: I'm a creator. I take stills and now lots of videos. I bought a ZR and Nikon is push, push, pushing me to use the RED LUTs. Great. Now, on the still side, where are the Nikon Imaging Cloud Recipes for the RED LUTs so that I can match my stills against my video? They don't exist, because Nikon doesn't believe the ZR should be used for still photography. 

Here's my contention: Nikon won't sell as many ZR's initially as they hoped because: (1) they're marketing for the first time only to video users they haven't marketed to before; and (2) they're ignoring the still user that would 100% appreciate the camera.

Here's my prediction: the ZR will be in stock quickly—especially given that the kit is likely to ship first—and not seem like a volume winner initially. But it's going to be a "sleeper camera" that picks up users over time. With the right marketing and lens availability the ZR could have been the hottest camera on the market. Instead, the heat management built into it seems to have also cooled Nikon's marketing team.

Nikon today announced the ZR camera just prior to IBC, the big European broadcasting trade show. 

To understand the ZR you have to first understand that Nikon had two elephants at different ends of a room: the DSLR-replacement Z models, and the RED-designed video models. Those are very distinctly different elephants, though, almost different species. Nikon needed a way to begin to bridge between them. 

The other problem is that Canon and Sony, especially, have been actively bridging their elephants. Sony’s FX line started at true Hollywood level, and has now bridged right down to the C-type Alphas in the mirrorless still camera lineup. Yesterday, Canon announced their C50, which also puts Canon’s Cinema line much closer to their mirrorless models.

To create the ZR, Nikon basically fused parts of its two elephants: the ZR is mostly Z6III electronics, with some RED-infused logic and design and a couple of new things. Losses from the Z6III side include no built-in EVF, a different card slot set (CFexpress/microSD), and a really trimmed down body (in all dimensions; it’s quite small). Gains from the RED side include a high resolution 4” articulating Rear LCD that is 1000 nits bright and DCI-P3 compatible, more use of RED IP (3D LUTs built in) in the setting choices and monitoring options (including 12-bit RED raw),  32-bit floating audio, and more. One of the “more’s” is a new hot shoe with additional electrical contacts.

The result is a soap bar style camera—no forward extending hand grip—that’s physically smaller than the Z6III body, and with a more video-centric UX. Buttons are labeled the “video way” with numbers (and stenciled defaults), a rocker switch for power zoom, and much more. Yes, you can still take still images with it, but the primary interface is tilted to video (e.g. the opposite of the previous Nikon Z models). Oh, and the MENU button is now a mobile style hamburger icon.

As a reminder, the RED elephant the ZR bridges to is the RED Komodo-X. The Komodo-X is a Super35 (near DX) global shutter, while the ZR is a full frame partially stacked shutter. While both top out at 6K video, the Komodo-X does that at a Hollywood DCI (17:9) aspect ratio, while the ZR does so at consumer 16:9. 

Price for body only is US$2200.

Last week I pointed out Nikon’s successful growth in mirrorless since introduction. But hidden in those numbers are a potential problem. Let’s first recap what those (rounded) numbers were:

• 2018 — 190,000 units
• 2019 — 320,000, gain of 130,000
• 2020 — 222,914 (pandemic year)
• 2021 — 290,000 (supply chain issues out of the pandemic)
• 2022 — 530,000, gain of 240,000
• 2023 — 630,000, gain of 100,000
• 2024 — 760,000, gain of 130,000

Those “gain of” numbers in that list are Nikon’s new problem: exactly what can they do to sell an additional 100,000+ units in 2025 (and again in 2026, 2027, et.al.)? From early results, it looks like 2025 should be close to another six figure unit gain, though the tariff situation in the US is eroding that potential now. The two pieces generating the 2025 gain will probably be the Z5II launch, another late year launch, plus firmware updates making cameras better and more desirable. 

Nikon’s not likely to keep the firmware furnace fired up in 2026, as that should be a new technology launch year for them. So the question is whether or not a Z9II launch vehicle could generate the six-figure gain they desire by itself, or what needs to be launched with or after it in 2026 to meet their expectations? 

Prior to the pandemic I was writing that the “bottom” of the ILC market was probably 6m units, but that it could end up as low as 4m. The actual “bottom” turned out to be 5.3m units. For the last five years the actual mirrorless units shipped out of Japan have been:

• 2.9m
• 3.1m
• 4.1m
• 4.8m
• 5.6m

However, the DSLR units have been plummeting during this same period (now less than 1m), meaning that the overall ILC growth from market bottom to the end of 2024 is about 25% across the last three years. Canon and Nikon have been basically giving up DSLR volume for mirrorless volume, which has made the mirrorless gains look great, but effectively, the combined ILC unit market volume isn’t changing all that much.

For the Z System to continue to grow faster than the mirrorless market, Nikon needs 100,000+ additional units a year, probably substantially more. That implies more cameras or a faster upgrade cycle. 

Nikon today announced a new version of the Zf camera, the Zf Silver. This is a “panda-style” where the top plate is a silver metallic texture and the bottom is the usual leatherette panels and black. List price is US$2200. In addition to a Zf Silver, you can now get the Zf in three new colors for US$2300. Those new colors are Cognac Brown, Teal Blue, and Mauve Pink. This is in addition to the already available Moss Green, Stone Gray, and Sepia Brown.

But wait, if you order today…

Nikon pre-announced a firmware update for the Zf, which will add three sizes and strengths of grain that can be added to Picture Controls (and yes, this works with videos that use Picture Controls). Apparently this is also going to be a function that can be added to Flexible Picture Controls, as well as regular ones.