Thom Hogan

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.

As many of you know I've been working on a book about Nikon JPEG use (it’s going to be well into 2025 before it appears, so please don't pepper me with questions of "when?"). 

One thing that's come up in my research with users about JPEG use is that many prefer Fujifilm if JPEG files are what they are always creating. When I press these users on this, it turns out that this is partly because Fujifilm uses film names for their JPEG looks: e.g. Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, etc. Nikon's naming is a much more generic Auto, Standard, Neutral, Landscape, etc.

Moreover, Fujifilm's current cameras can display a full page of information about each look as you scroll through them:

Setting aside for the moment that I don't find any of Fujifilm's film simulations accurate to the way the named films depict a scene, doing things by using film names has two positive impacts for users: (1) it reaffirms the reason why they might want to use a simulation; and (2) for those who used film in the past, it matches the way they used to pick what they were using.

You might think this is a subtle difference, but consider Nikon's Picture Control naming for a moment, specifically Standard, Neutral, Landscape, Portrait, and Vivid. What if you're not photographing a landscape or a portrait, which Picture Control do you use and why? You seem to be left with the names Standard, Neutral, and Vivid to choose from, and no additional information to help you! 

Things get worse with the twenty Nikon Creative Picture Controls (Dream, Morning, Pop, Sunday, etc.). Basically you're on your own, and I hope you read the manual or my book on your camera and paid careful attention to the words we used in describing those Picture Controls (tip: I use more words than Nikon, and I display the same scene with each Picture Control in my books to give you an accurate visual reference). 

What I've found with a number of Nikon users is a form of analysis paralysis: the words don't give them enough information to make a useful decision, so they punt and just set Auto hoping it will do the "right thing." 

Let me cut to the cheat sheet: most of the film simulations and Picture Controls differ mostly in two specific things: contrast and saturation. So let me offer you some crude not-quite-equivalents (these do the same basic things, but not by exactly the same amounts):

• Baseline: Fujifilm Provia, Nikon Standard
• Turn it up to 11: Fujifilm Velvia, Nikon Vivid
• Dial it down: Fujifilm Eterna, Nikon Neutral

The problem with both Fujifilm and Nikon is that their other choices fall in between the above in some not-always consistent or easy to describe way. The Fujifilm Pro Neg and Astia choices all take out contrast, and the Pro Neg choices also takes out saturation. There's also nothing between Provia and Velvia in the Fujifilm Contrast/Saturation chart. With Nikon, we've got Landscape in between Standard and Vivid. 

Nikon unfortunately removed the function in their cameras that used to tell us how each Picture Control plotted in terms of contrast and saturation, including how far you could vary it with the sub-parameters. Now they've gone the opposite direction and, with the new Flexible Picture Controls you can create using your computer, give Z50II and Z6III users an overwhelming array of control in this regard. (If you want to see what the strange Recipes—pre-made Flexible Picture Controls by an odd assortment of creators—provides, scroll all the way to the bottom of the Nikon Japan page for Flexible Picture Controls where it says Picture Control Simulator, and click on one of the circular buttons below the sample pictures. Way to bury information, Nikon. But thanks for helping prove my point. ;~)

If you look carefully, you can see engineers trying to do the right thing, but the product marketing folk completely at a loss for how to describe and promote it, plus then removing the thing that allowed us to begin understanding what is happening. Thus, it all comes back to words, and we don't have many, so it's unclear what you do when the word doesn't match what you're photographing. For travel photography, for instance, should you use Standard, Neutral, Landscape, or Vivid? If there's a person in the image do we absolutely need to use Portrait? And what does Rich Tone Portrait do? 

So what's happening with my upcoming book on using JPEGs is this: part of it is turning into a dissertation on matching Picture Controls to intent. 

Fortunately, there's a practical workaround, and of all things, the best version of this just appeared on the Nikon Z50II via its Picture Control button: (1) tap the button, (2) now looking at your scene use the dial to select which Picture Control looks best (you can also use the Front Command dial or Direction pad to select sub-parameters, all while still viewing the scene you're trying to capture). 

If you don't have a Z50II, you can do something similar: (1) tap the I button, (2) navigate to Set Picture Control and select it (OK button), (3) use the Direction pad to select a Picture Control and other adjustments as you view the scene. One difference compared to the Z50II besides the extra steps: you see less of the scene this way, as the on-screen control structure takes up a more significant portion of the display.

Tip: In my presentation on Black Friday I did a very brief demonstration of how Flexible Picture Controls are useful to the wildlife photographer (for when they use pre-release capture). What I didn’t say is this: on that Z50II I can disable Picture Controls I’m not interested in. Meaning that I can more quickly navigate to one of my predefined ones using that Picture Control button. Hopefully Nikon sees how useful this is and adds this small change (ability to remove Picture Controls from choices) to the other cameras.  

Now that all the camera body gifts have been unwrapped and unboxed—including the ones you gave yourself—what follows next is the inevitable "which lenses should I get?" question. 

When I'm asked the question (or see it in forum posts) the most popular variant is not just which lens to get, but which of several, sometimes many, lens sets should they get. My response to that is usually "keep it simple, silly" (KISS). 

The proper starting out travel/versatility "kit" is simply the 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 VR for the DX bodies (Zfc, Z30, Z50II), or the 24-120mm f/4 S for the FX bodies (Zf, Z5, Z6III, Z7II, Z8, Z9). Why? Because they're both excellent mid-range zooms (and on DX you get some image stabilization that's not in the bodies). They both go from pretty wide to moderately telephoto, which is where you should probably start if you're thinking all-around usage.

KISS DX

DX is probably simpler to discuss than FX, because (buzz, buzz) the choices are few. The KISS principle says:

1. 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 VR
2. 12-28mm f/3.5-5.6 VR and 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 VR
3. 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 VR and 50-250mm f/4.5-6.3 VR
4. 12-28mm f/3.5-5.6 VR and 28-400mm f/4-8 VR

That's exactly the order I'd suggest you consider your basic lens options. It's also the order of increasing capabilities. 

Low cost, fast aperture primes are proliferating in DX, but none have VR, so they lose some versatility (you start substituting faster aperture to get shutter speed). If you're getting lost in selecting a prime for a DX camera, you're really lost and should stick to the zooms until you really understand what's truly missing from your basic lens set (typically portrait isolation, which suggests 56mm f/1.4 or f/1.8). 

KISS FX

With FX it is far more easy to get lost in lens choices, as there are simply many more choices and the lens VR need is rendered mostly moot by sensor VR. Here’s my suggestions to consider (again in the order I’d suggest you consider them):

1. 24-120mm f/4 S
2. Any pair (or trio) of the Tamrikon f/2.8 zooms (17-28mm, 28-75mm, 70-180mm)
3. Any 24-70mm zoom paired with the 70-180mm f/2.8 zoom
4. The f/4 set: 14-30mm f/4 S, 24-120mm f/4 S, and I'm going to surprise you here: 400mm f/4.5 VR S
5. The f/2.8 trio: 14-24mm f/2.8 S, 24-70mm f/2.8 S, and 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S

Again in the order you should consider, and (mostly) in the order of increasing capabilities.

Primes have also proliferated for FX, and since the FX cameras have sensor-based VR, you don't lose the extra versatility as you do with DX. But again, if you're getting lost in selecting a prime for an FX camera, you're really lost and should stick to the zooms until you really understand what's truly missing from your basic lens set (typically portrait isolation, which suggests 85mm f/1.4 or f/1.8). 

KISS Summary

If you're veering outside one of the base sets I noted above, then you apparently have specific needs or likes, and you probably already know what you're going to get. 

You need to be honest with yourself: are the photo opportunities you usually have ones where you want to carry your gear all the time with it being svelte and accessible, or do you really carry that 40-pound backpack stuffed with extra gear all the time, and have the time to pull out and set up exactly the right tool for the job? 90% of you are in the former category, I'll bet. More than two lenses just gets to be travel unfriendly, plus most of your photography is likely to happen as you travel (street photography, travel photography, landscapes on vacation, and so on). 

"Wait a second," you're going to argue, "if I'm going to photograph X today then I need a lens for X. Tomorrow may be different." Sure, but in so arguing you're also telling me you already know what lenses you need for all the photography "jobs" you are going to undertake. Perhaps you meant to ask "is the 20mm f/1.8 S or 24mm f/1.8 S the right lens for astrophotography?" ;~). 

What I'm talking about here is for the "got a new body, need a new basic lens set" crowd. These folk are going to have a hard time suggesting something better than the sets I outlined above. 

______________

Bonus: I'm always amused when someone does a deep analytical focal length dive on all the photos they've ever taken and comes back with the "I only use my zooms at the two extremes, so maybe I should just get two primes." Probably not. Yes, your lens is effectively equivalent to two primes, but you also don't have to be changing lenses with the zoom or carry an extra lens around with you. You also need to check whether or not you were using perspective properly at those two focal lengths, or just zooming from the same position.

This, by the way, is one of the reasons why Nikon needs its own version of the Sony 28-70mm f/2GM: that lens is what I'd call a top level 50mm f/2 prime, as well as a 28mm f/2, 35mm f/2, and 70mm f/2 prime that are all very near top level. Four excellent primes in one lens. Of course, I'm not sure anyone who has one is disciplined enough to use it that way; I'll bet they use zooming rather than controlling perspective most of the time ;~). 

Updated: note at end

Nikon has now been delivering Z System products for a bit over six years. We’ve also now cycled from the top to the bottom of the lineup with a second generation of cameras. Finally, 2025 should be the year when Nikon reaches its 50 Z-mount lenses proclamation. So where does the Z System really stand? What’s still missing?

Cameras

• We have four cameras that are still stuck in the first generation: Zfc, Z30, Z5, and Z7II. The first two are easy, as they’d simply be a Z50II in different skins with different simplifications. Is there a rush to get those to market? I don’t think so, but the Internet Amplification Effect will probably slowly build up the pressure to do so. The Z5 is tricky, as it’s the entry camera to full frame, so you don’t want to be putting more expensive parts into it (e.g. EXPEED7, newer 24mp sensor). My thought is that we won’t see this camera iterate to Z5II until there’s a Z4 (or Z3). Also, as I’ve explained many times, the bracket of Z6III and Z8 makes just putting EXPEED7 into the Z7 to create a Z7III produces a bit of a conundrum, as you’d slice sales from both the adjacent cameras, particularly the Z8. 
• We have video to consider now: with the acquisition of RED, we’re all now expecting Z-mount video cameras to show up. I’m sure we all don’t want that to be as simple as “just swap out the RF mount for the Z mount” for the Raptor and Komodo. Nikon and RED need to figure out how to integrate what each does best for the acquisition to fully pay off, and I’d hope that the first take on the RED side is more than just a mount swap. My understanding is that RED is targeting end of 2025 for new models, but that doesn’t foreclose a mount swap happening earlier. Moreover, we need a bridge between the two lineups; call it the ZR.
• It’s easy to define “missing” cameras: Just look around at what Nikon needs to compete with (currently over 50 models from others) and you can find niche holes everywhere. Just start with the mirrorless adjacent Ricoh GR and Fujifilm X100VI compacts: Nikon has nothing even close to that space, but a redesign of the Z5 into a fixed lens compact would be easy enough to do. Meanwhile, a full frame camera Z3 akin to the Z30 could take on products such as the Panasonic S9 and some of the Sony models. Flipping to the top of lineups, Nikon doesn’t have a ~24mp fast pro camera, but Canon and Sony do. The list goes on and on. So the question about adding anything to the lineup—Nikon currently has nine models available—almost immediately drives to figuring out whether Nikon should even attempt any additional niche. That’s because six of Nikon’s current models define very broad use cases from the Z50II all the way up to the Z9. 
• "Two a year” forces tough decisions: Nikon’s camera introductions in the last four years have gone 2, 1, 2, and 2. Even if you pull all the way back to the start of the Z’s you only add 3, 1, 2, so the average is still essentially 2. That seems to strongly say that the R&D forces are centered around producing a couple of new cameras a year. I can define perhaps a dozen cameras Nikon could make. That’s on top of continuing to iterate the models they already have. Thus, someone at Nikon is going to be making some really tough decisions of what to proceed with and what to cut. The overall mirrorless camera market is only at about 5m units a year right now, so you can’t proliferate ad naseum. Even Sony seems to now understand that. 

Overall, I’m not anticipating Nikon steering away from what they’ve been doing. That’s been successful and profitable, and it doesn’t require them reinventing how they do things. (That last bit is always a bit of warning sign to me, though. Nothing stays the same for all that long in tech. You have to be constantly evolving yourself as well as your products to stay a winner.)

Bonus: There's been rumors for at least two years now of a "very different" Z camera being fiddled with and in prototype form. Not DSLR-like, not vlogger/creator, not legacy. The way I hear it defined is true entry automation. In other words, a simplified user experience that brings more point-and-shoot thinking to mirrorless. 

Lenses

Lenses are a much wider playing field than cameras. Not a single lens maker, ever, has managed to produce everything that could and should be produced for a mount. Moreover, the volume of some of the non-mainstream lens ideas—for example, tilt/shift—is really quite limited, so you may only produce those for a short period until the small demand is filled. 

What's missing in the Z-mount right now is:

• Tilt-shift. The demand comes from two specialties: landscape and product photography. Best case, that means you need three lenses (wide angle, normal view, telephoto macro), which is pretty much what both Canon and Nikon did in their DSLR mounts. Here’s the dilemma: you need to automate those lenses, particularly focus. So this type of lens needs R&D and technology that’s deeper than has occurred in the past. And then you won't sell a lot of them. So how high a priority would you place on this?
• Wide angle. In both DX and FX, Nikon is deficient in truly wide angle options. Sure, we’ve got some zooms that go there, but we not only don’t have all the zooms we’d want in the truly wide angle realm, but we’re missing any prime. To me, this is the biggest Z-mount hole that needs addressing, and I don’t believe Nikon should just let the Chinese come in and fill the void. 
• Lens line completion. Are two f/1.2 primes it? The 35mm f/1.2 is still MIA, and if it arrives, are we then done? And are two f/1.4 primes all we get? I hope not. That set needs at least an 85mm f/1.4 and many would welcome a 24mm f/1.4, as well. Missing in the f/1.8 S line are 14mm, 18mm, and 28mm. I’d also suggest that we’re missing a couple of f/2.8 primes, as well. At f/4 we’re missing a telephoto zoom option (e.g. 70-200mm, but also 100-300mm, which is what I’d prefer at this point). The NOCT sits alone. The good news is that we’re not missing much in the telephoto realm. Basically 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8 in some form, and I don’t see a ton of photographers demanding those. But just in this bullet I’ve defined a dozen lenses that are missing from established lines. 
• Buzz Buzz. Really? Five DX Nikkors for three cameras? Particularly now that one of those cameras is a remarkably capable all-rounder. It doesn’t take a lot of effort here. Two or three well considered VR-enabled lenses could dull most of the complaints, and then the Chinese can fill in the rest. 
• New frontiers. Nikon has well over 50 years of finding new optics ideas and being first to produce them. A few of those have been abandoned for unknown reasons (the macro zoom is a good example). It would be nice to see Nikon taking a few more stabs at things people aren’t specifically asking for, as it would extend the whole Nikkor brand innovation into the future. 

Bonus: Nikon is completely reworking their lens plant in Japan. Beyond just the ability to create more (and perhaps different) glass, this is the location where most of the more esoteric offerings have been put together, and it will be interesting to see if that happens again once the new facility is done, or whether Nikon continues to do most of their lens manufacturing in China and Thailand instead.

Other

• Flash. What happened to the new flash system Nikon tested a couple of years ago? The SB-500 is back on the discontinued list, leaving only the Medicare-eligible SB-700 and the approaching-retirement SB-5000 as the only units you can find new. Zero innovations in flash in eight years. Heck, zero iterations in flash in eight years. It’s almost as if Nikon doesn’t think that light is important to photography. At a minimum Nikon needs a new small flash (SB-3000), and a new full high-end and multiple flash system (SB-9000). Either that or they need to get a third party to do it and embrace them 100%, not just with a press release that said almost nothing and doesn't seem to have produced anything of interest.
• Software. Here we have a littered field of we-licensed-this things that aren’t state-of-the-art (e.g. NX Studio), coupled with a host of proof-of-concept level products that all need attention (e.g. SnapBridge, NX Mobile Air, NX Tether, etc.). It seems clear to me that Nikon doesn’t want to invest very much in this area, but somehow feels strongly that they need to play on those fields. That’s sort of the worst possible way to approach software. Nikon needs to get all-in or all-out here. Straddling is not a viable option. But let’s talk about the new big problem we have: SnapBridge and NX Mobile Air overlap, Nikon Imaging Cloud and Nikon Image Space overlap. What we’re getting is a bunch of “does something” bits and pieces when we need a “does everything” approach. The deeper we get into the 21st Century, the more Nikon’s mid 20th Century ideas don’t fly. 

Bonus: Here's the thing, Nikon has been mostly a "hardware maker" in all of their endeavors. Hardware in the 21st century is an enabler for software, and software is what is really driving products forward. The reason why Flash and Software are loitering in the abandoned wings of the buildings in Tokyo is because they really are software problems, and require software solutions (that live on hardware). Meanwhile, the Z9 has proved my point here, as more attention to software has improved that product at least five times without changing a single screw in hardware. And I think it could still be improved more. 

_______________________

Update: Since I posted the above, there’s been quite a bit of discussion about the lens section. What people are missing is that the focal lengths that we used for so long were mostly defined for DX (actually, they were defined for film, but the standards were different then; for instance, we could roam the entire sidelines of a football game, and weren’t stuck in or near the end zones, thus a 300mm lens was enough). When the D3 came along we lost pixel density. When the D500 appeared, we got it back. The sports/wildlife crowd tended to prefer the D500 over the D5 because it gave them pixel density from challenging positions.

Nikon wanted to sell Z FX. Thus, the first exotic telephoto lenses for the Z system got a TC-like boost in focal length: 300mm became 400mm, 500mm became 600mm. 

Those still arguing for the missing 500mm are barking up a tree that has no bear in it. We don’t really have a DX camera that would benefit from 500mm (750mm effective), though the Z50II now has come close. The FX user is going to pick 600mm (the built-in TC on the f/4 also nets you 840mm) or more likely 800mm. 

Despite all my complaints about things Nikon has and hasn’t done, I must say that I’m impressed that there does seem to be a pretty consistent logic to everything they’ve done so far. Someone designed the Z System with a level of logical completeness; there are very few random shots that have been taken in building it out so far. 

I’d also point out that “desired focal lengths” change over time. When Galen started using an old 20mm f/4 MF lens to get his incredible landscape photos that showed you could get your Muench on with a smaller system, demand started to shift away from the 24mm optics. At the other end, it’s really easy to put 800mm on 20mp and get closer to subjects that previously you had to either more loosely frame or crop your image on. I remember when 400-500mm was the longest lens I saw at wildlife workshops, but now 400-500mm is considered a bit on the short side by most. 

Bottom line: I’ll stick by what I wrote. There aren’t really any long telephoto lenses that I’d argue are currently missing (they would be at the point when the line is fully built out and we’re just in iteration mode). We’re not there yet.

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.