Thom Hogan

The Z9II was delayed. It’s unclear whether the delay is due to a new image sensor or a new EXPEED chip, but I thought I’d take a moment to explain what needs to be addressed with EXPEED.

Short version: processing pipeline bandwidth.

If you’re at all familiar with the progression of semiconductors, you know that each completely new generation is still following Moore’s law, which means transistors get smaller (smaller process size). Smaller can mean more, faster, or lower power. Engineers have to make a choice about how much of each benefit they choose. Once Apple got to some guaranteed battery charge level on their devices, they started balancing their Apple Silicon changes due process size reduction more towards faster, for instance.  

EXPEED7 was a large step downward in process size from EXPEED6. A very dramatic change as it turns out, and most of that appears to have been gone towards faster. Much of the Z9 generation benefits derived from that. 

However, it’s important to understand the internal structure of EXPEED, much like it is to understand how Apple Silicon’s internal structure is enabling things you don’t see on the Windows side yet. 

EXPEED7 uses Arm processors and standard GPUs for its computational power. In that respect, EXPEED7 was close to but a bit behind an average smartphone’s processing power at the time it was introduced. However, EXPEED is more than just a set of processing cores. It also contains three specific additional known components. One is supplied by Socionext, which mostly resolves around external data transport (including CFexpress support). A second is supplied by Nikon, and centers mostly around Picture Controls and everything that ties into them (which includes raw processing). And the third is supplied by intoPIX, which is where most of the video processing is done as well as the High Efficiency raw capabilities. 

From what I’ve seen in how Nikon has been able to update Z9 generation cameras, I’d say that the most likely issue that needs to be solved by EXPEED8 is internal processing pipeline bandwidth between the different IP modules. We know that the external bandwidth is high (e.g. recording to CFexpress reaches at least 800Mb/s). We know that the internal bandwidth for Picture Controls is high because the cameras have no problems generating 45mp files at 30 fps (essentially infinite buffer is possible). 

When people talk about things they want in a Z9II, almost all of them probably aren’t possible with EXPEED7 because of internal bandwidth limitations. For instance, pre-capture raw: the issue here isn’t the data transfer into the intoPIX portion of the EXPEED7 chip, it’s the fact that you also need to touch the Picture Control portion of the chip, as well (JPEG previews need to be written into the file). I’m pretty sure it’s the pass-back-and-forth nature of what the data would need to do that’s made things like pre-capture raw and even proxy recording for raw video that’s put a limit on what Nikon can do with the Z9 generation. 

When you add in things like examining the viewing stream for focus information and directing the lens and updating the viewfinder rendering, EXPEED7 is juggling a lot of balls that are using different parts of the internal components, and juggling is the right word here: you can’t control many balls simultaneously with one hand.  

No doubt this will be addressed in EXPEED8: smaller process, more cores, better communication and bandwidth between cores, and so on. 

Most of the user requests for something to change in the Z9II basically devolve into something that EXPEED7 would get overwhelmed by but EXPEED8 will likely address. In fact, outside of dynamic range, rolling shutter, and straight UI changes (e.g. changes to Save Menu Settings), almost every user request I’ve seen requires some work on the plumbing within EXPEED8 to accomplish correctly. Even things like applying user LUTs to video rendering in real time seem to fall into this category. So adding RED-things into EXPEED also comes into play for our next generation EXPEED.

I’m pretty sure that Nikon knows all the above (and more) and these items would have gone into the task list for creating EXPEED8. EXPEED, however, is at present a three-player dance (Nikon, Socionext, and intoPIX), which doesn’t play out as fast as a single player one, but Nikon’s done this dance before, so I’m confident that they’ll get things aligned again. 

I believe that the current seeming delay is probably mostly outside of Nikon’s full control: everyone’s having difficulties getting new chips onto fabs and produced in quantity at the moment. The supply chain involved with semiconductors is still not fully recovered—and now is getting another hit from the Iran war—so the Really Big Players (Apple, Nvidia, etc.) are getting the highest priority, and they are paying for that priviledge.

We’ll see what Nikon was up to at some point, but at the moment I’m guessing that Nikon won’t have a production-level supply of EXPEED8 until very late this year. (If I’m wrong, and they already have EXPEED8 in hand—again, I don’t think they do—then it’s a delay with image sensor that’s slowed the Z9II release.)

As for the wait, I’ll remind you of 2011. Nikon had been gearing up to release some key products when the earthquake and tsunami hit Sendei and then later that year floods shut down the Thailand plant. This was an externally imposed set of delays that forced them to cancel at least one key product and gave them time to change another significantly before it was introduced. Nikon engineering doesn’t sit on their hands when they’re waiting for something to resolve that’s outside their control. It’s entirely possible that a delay in getting EXPEED8 production to volume might have also given Nikon the opportunity to change image sensor, too (or vice versa). So I wouldn’t get too worried about an extra year before the expected Z9 update is released.

Meanwhile, the current Z8 and Z9 are still near state-of-the-art cameras in almost every aspect. Personally, I’m feeling no need to jump to Canon or Sony while waiting, as for everything I might want changed on a Z9 I have an equal-sized list for the Canon R1 or Sony A1. Indeed, I still feel like the bigger issue for Nikon right now is that there some lens gaps that still need filling. 

—————————

So what are the big user requests for Z9II generation? The following isn’t a complete list, but the ones I commonly see, ordered from most requested to less requested.

• Raw capture for pre-release.
• Improved autofocus, more modes, better subject recognition, better background rejection.
• More dynamic range.
• Better viewfinder. Sometimes coupled with better real-time viewfinder LUT/white balance rendering.
• Better settings saving capabilities. 
• Proxy recording (record video to both slots).
• Higher frame rates (e.g. >20 fps).
• Higher flash sync. Related to better (or no) rolling shutter.

The remainder of requests tend to be isolated to a very specific use case or preference. A few of those are likely to come but have little true use impact (e.g. support CFe 4.0 directly for stills).  

Since I’m writing about lenses this week, let me address the lens question that keeps coming up over and over:

"I’ve read all your reviews and writing about the various Z-mount telephoto options, and I just don’t know how to choose. Can you help?"

Wait, what? You read everything I wrote and you didn’t come to a conclusion, and now you want me to make a conclusion for you? Yeah, that’ll work…

Seriously, here’s the thing that everyone gets hung up on: not knowing what they’re going to photograph. If you know what you’re photographing, you should know what focal length you need, and then you simply pick the least expensive lens (because that’s all you can afford) or the best performing lens (because you want optimal results).

Sports photographers know this, for sure. Every sport that we pros photograph has a different lens focal length requirement to get top notch photos to deliver to your client. We all have our basketball/ice hockey lenses, our football lenses, our soccer/lacrosse lenses, and others for each sport we cover. 

To put that into context, in a basketball or ice hockey arena, we’re in a fairly fixed position typically at one end of the action. We need wide angle (and preferably zoom) for the near action, and we will usually bring something to photograph action at the far end or through the transition area, which tends to be something more like a 70-200mm. 

With football, while it’s a wider field of play, it used to be that we could move fairly far up the sidelines and move with the line of scrimmage, so 300mm was about right. These days, we’re usually pushed to a smaller area near or around the end zone, and I find that I need a longer lens than I used to, as in 400mm, 500mm, or even 600mm (the latter is what one pro I know who works for one of the big agencies uses). But for teams where I still have full sideline access, a 120-300mm is a great lens with the right range. 

Soccer and Lacrosse use big fields and action is often far from you, so I always drag a 500/600mm lens to those events.

The bottom line is that I know what focal length I need for each of the events I cover, and I have the budget to own multiple lenses. 

The problem most readers face is that they want the most flexibility possible because they want something that works for virtually every telephoto use they can imagine. 

Well, if that last sentence describes you, then I have only three lenses for you need to choose from: the Nikon's 28-400mm f/4-8 VR, 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 VR S, or 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR (and on a Z8/Z9 you always have the DX crop to give you a faux 1.5x boost). Okay, I’ll name two more: the Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 VC and 150-500mm f/5-6.7 VC. You probably choose between these five lenses by resolving the conflict of your budget versus your likelihood to actually carry the lens. Lenses that stay in your closet, backpack, or other bag are not useful, and I have no idea why you’d even let yourself get in a tizzy over choosing one.

If you do know exactly the common relationship between you and subject (auto/motorcycle racing, individual sport, full access to positioning a safari vehicle, walking safari, etc.), then you should buy the best lens at that focal length you can afford. For me in Africa (I control position of my vehicle), that’s the 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S. I simply am never worried about my images with that lens. It’s magical at 400mm and f/2.8, it’s really good at 540mm (TC engaged), and I still get a very usable image if I have to stretch to DX (faux 810mm).

If you don’t have the budget to get the 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S, but 400mm is the focal length you need, then you get the quite excellent 400mm f/4.5 VR S instead. 

However, the lens you need may require more flexibility because you want it work for differing situations than that fixed safari example I just gave, and we’re back to my 28-400mm, 100-400mm, and 180-600mm answer. 

Typically coupled with the telephoto questions I get is “what if I used a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter?” 

You won’t like me answer: don’t. Actually, it’s more like “you won’t.” In most situations where you’d decide to use that teleconverter you either (1) brought the wrong lens (e.g. 70-200mm instead of 100-400mm), or (2) you really don’t have time and don’t want to be mounting/unmounting a teleconverter. Unless the teleconverter is built-into the lens and can be engaged by a switch, you probably shouldn’t be relying on one. 

All that said, it’s difficult to select a “bad” telephoto lens in the current Z System choices. The worst you can usually do is select the “wrong” telephoto lens (e.g. not the focal length you really needed). This is a really, really important thing to understand right now. There are no “bad” telephoto lenses in Nikon’s or Tamron’s lineup. Yes, they have some differences, but you start your pick by figuring out focal length, then looking at things like weight, size, maximum aperture, closest focus distance, and cost.

Which brings me to this: Why don’t I use the 400mm f/4.5 VR S I suggested you try? It’s a really good lens, probably all that most of you really need at the long end. However, I put up with the weight difference because I value that faster f/2.8 aperture plus the built-in teleconverter, which gives me a more flexible lens. Note that I didn’t write “because the 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S is optically better.” It is, but only by a bit in terms of sharpness. The standout characteristic is the out of focus areas at f/2.8 for the more expensive lens versus the same for the less expensive f/4.5. I actually think that most amateurs probably would prefer the lighter weight and easier handling of the f/4.5 lens, and not really miss the things that I value on the f/2.8 one. And, of course, there’s the price difference, which is considerable.

Most people I consult with on telephoto lenses are overthinking things. They’re too worried about missing out on a small gain and not paying enough attention to how (and whether) they’ll use the lens. 

I know I write about “optimal data capture” all the time, and I put that into practice as often as possible for my own work. However, I also need to point out that there’s sub-optimal—which none of the current Nikon/Tamron telephoto options really are—near optimal, and optimal. You get maybe 90% of the way to “optimal” with almost any currently available telephoto choice in the Z System. (I put optimal in quotes in the last sentence because aperture and focal length, if not what you need, would make your choice less-than-optimal.) This wasn’t really the case with the old F-mount, where we had a number of sub-optimal and mediocre choices to wade through.

Finally, note that there are some real “value” choices in the telephoto lineup for the Z-mount. In particular, the surprising 28-400mm f/4-8 whose big “sin” is basically just its small maximum aperture. But also the 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR, which is flexible and gives quite reasonable performance at 600mm. Also, the two Tamron zooms and the Nikon 100-400mm do quite well optically. Notice something about all five I just mentioned? They’re flexible lenses in some way, too. 

So I guess my final bit of advice is this: start by pickup up one of these five flexible options. Master your use of it. Then, and only then, would you need to start getting obsessive about whether there might be a better option for you, but by then you’ll know what it really is you need both in focal length and probably in aperture.

This week Nikon introduced Zf firmware version 3.01, Z9 firmware version 5.32, and Nikon Z50II version 1.04. All are small bug fix updates, and each fixes two small issues (only one is the same on both updates).

Update: the 24-50mm f/4-6.3 also got a small firmware fix, and now is on version 1.02.

I'll answer the headline question up front: not really. Not at this time (but read through the entire article).

I'll posit an answer for Nikon, too: I don't believe that Nikon thinks that they're so much a threat, but rather they are disturbed that others are benefiting from Nikon's intellectual property and what that implies for the future.

The headline question comes from a reader, who also wonders what the real story is behind Nikon's sudden legal effort. As they pointed out, the vast majority of the lenses sold by the camera makers are zooms, not primes. The "rule of thumb" at dealers is that most customers buy two lenses and that's it. Both tend to be zooms, because convenience and extensive capability are their two top goals. 

Those of you reading this are likely to have ten or more lenses in your gear closet (I know this from site reader surveys). Yes, you bought some zooms, but you're supplementing them with a variety of primes, and now some of those primes might be of Chinese origin. This is one reason why I wrote my piece the other day: Nikon's legal action could seriously erode support from Nikon's very best customers, and those customers do Nikon's best marketing. You can see that on the Internet by just how much discussion is going on about this topic in the various fora, which in turn are being fed by headlines in the news sections, and some of those are absolutely clickbait (e.g. "Nikon in Revenge Mode: Third-Party Z-Mount Lenses Vanish from Shelves"). 

Thing is, we've been through this before, though with little legal action (other than Nikon suing Sigma over violation of a VR patent). During the late SLR and DSLR eras, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina were constantly reverse engineering lens mount communications and providing third-party lens options. And every now and then an update to an existing camera or an entirely new camera would change something slightly in mount communications and I'd get a slew of "how do I fix this" questions, plus you'd see "Nikon broke my [Third-Party] lens" posts. The lens company in question would (usually) eventually come up with a firmware update that fixed the problem, but back then we didn't have ways of doing that in the field, so the lens had to go back to manufacture to get new firmware. Nikon's customer support line was on the front lines constantly having to deal with the customer question when they knew nothing about the lens that was having trouble.

I know that Nikon didn't like that. Almost always the finger was pointed at Nikon as intentionally doing something to break compatibility. In my talks with Nikon engineers and product managers, though, the answer was always something akin to "we just wanted to improve our product; we don't test against third party lenses." 

I suspect that Nikon now sees third party lenses as a potential support issue if they're not licensing the mount communications from Nikon. Even there, we recently had a problem with at least a couple of licensed Tamron lenses when a camera firmware update was released, but this was resolved by both parties quickly, as there was official communication going on between the organizations behind the scenes. 

I know that when the Zfc was introduced, Nikon was actually supportive of Viltrox's lenses for the mount, particularly in Asia. The Zfc would have been a problematic mistake in Asia if there was only one small Nikon prime for it. As it was, Nikon had to point to two FX lenses (28mm f/2.8 and 40mm f/2), which don't exactly fit in a nice 35mm or 50mm equivalent box. 

Somewhere along the way Nikon decided that they would license the mount. That Cosina (Voigtlander) and Tamron were the first two to sign on isn't surprising, as these companies have worked with Nikon on an OEM basis way back into the film era and had close relationships. I think it was Nikon deciding that everyone making a lens for the Z-mount using the communications protocols should be a licensee that things started to break. 

You might note that Z-mount versions of Tamron lenses tend to be about US$30 more than the E-mount versions. I don't believe this is due to sales volume or special parts needed for the Z-mount. I suspect that it's because Nikon is charging a small per lens licensing fee. At US$30 to the consumer, that would imply something significantly less than US$10 a lens. On a US$1000+ lens, that's not a big deal and not likely to change demand. But what happens on a US$200 lens? You start distorting pricing upwards enough to potentially impact sales. The Chinese have been using pricing to drive sales, and I suspect that they're balking at paying a mount fee (it seems clear that Viltrox and Nikon were talking before the suit was filed). When you also add in the potential tariff hits, I suspect the rice counters in Shanghai and Hong Kong began complaining about bottom lines and cash flows. 

Personally, I was never a fan of the third-party lenses in the F-mount. The only time I'd opt for one was when it was the only choice, and even then I'd hesitate. That's because the mount logistics just kept causing issues, first with focus, then with VR, then with... well, you get the idea. Mount licensing has the potential to put that kind of problem behind us, as the quick fix for the Tamrons showed. If that means US$30 more a lens, I'm all for it. I believe that's Nikon's stance, too, but I'm reading a lot between the lines here.

Bonus: We've already seen issues with the Chinese reverse engineering. For the most part that doesn't show up for still photo use, but I've seen multiple problems with video autofocus and aperture control on several third party lenses that aren't mount licensed. 

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Nikon’s lawyers have been sending letters to Chinese lens makers. At least three now publicly admit to having received some form of a “license the mount (e.g. pay us) or else” letter. The Viltrox suit previously mentioned is now in progress in Chinese courts. Meanwhile, Sirui apparently has withdrawn their Z-mount autofocus lenses in China (half of which are APS-C, or DX, and fill clear gaps in Nikon’s DX lineup). Mieke also seems to have withdrawn their autofocus lenses. 

None of the Japanese camera makers seems happy with the recent onslaught of Chinese optics that keep getting progressively better. CIPA and camera makers are reporting attachment rates—number of lenses sold per body—going down. 

In the case of Nikon, they’re sending mixed signals more visibly than a teenager trying to find a date to the prom. Nikon made a big thing about higher end cameras being their goal, and then came out with the Z50II and Z5II and found that they’re selling so many entry bodies that it’s lowered their average selling cost. And then the Chinese come along and sell those new low-end camera buyers low-cost lenses. "Oh woe is me” say the beancounters. “You’re doing it to yourself” says I.

We did eventually get two more Nikon DX lenses to go with the quite great Z50II. But that still only makes a total of seven, and there are clear gaps in what’s available. Of course customers are going to build out their lens sets by looking elsewhere. Meanwhile, we see something similar with the Z5II: it finally received a 24-105mm f/4-7.1 companion, but there are probably only four FX primes and five FX zooms that track well with the Z5II's size and price point. Of course customers will go elsewhere when you leave a partial vacuum.

Stopping low-cost Chinese lenses in the mount doesn’t solve a problem for Nikon. Instead, it creates a new one: after two years of customers thinkng that the Z-mount is open, they are now starting to believe that the mount is closed. This has some contemplating buying cameras with more open mount stances, particularly from the two companies that Nikon most fears in terms of market share: Fujifilm and Sony. How do you say “oopsie” in Japanese? And how deep will you need to bow?

Don’t get me wrong. Nikon should protect their patents. However, in doing so they need to be doing one of two things to fully succeed: (1) produce every lens that’s needed in the system; or (2) find a FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing solution that treats everyone equally and encourages third-party lenses filling in the system quickly. Nikon is currently doing (3) micromanaging in ways that they think benefit Nikon but are rattling customers. Plus, once Nikon picks #1 and/or #2, they need to communicate that clearly to the customer.

Cameras are a consumer business, and cameras (other than perhaps compacts) are systems, and these systems only benefit if they fill out quickly and fully. 

Let me approach the issue from my point of view. I’m a key influencer when it comes to cameras, and particularly Nikon ones. I can’t begin to tell you how many people I’ve gotten started with something like a Nikon Z50II, one or two of Nikon’s DX zooms, and then finding one or two primes that fill in the holes in the all-Nikon approach (which right now means fast Chinese DX primes). If Nikon wants to take the Chinese lenses off the table, influencers such as myself start pointing out that Fujifilm X may be a better starting point, simply because it offers more optical choices (i.e. is a more filled out system, seems to have no third-party constraint, and thus might be more conducive to whatever you want to do in the future). 

I’m not sure that Nikon understands who they’re in competition with. For about two decades, the choice was Canon or Nikon. Sometimes Canon won, sometimes Nikon won. Between the two, they controlled 75 to 85% of the market in any year. As Nikon started retreating from peak camera, Canon didn’t, so Nikon simply isn’t competing with them any more: Canon wants to (and mostly does) own 50% of the market, and Nikon has now drifted down to one-fifth the volume of their former rival. Nikon now finds themselves tucked into a market share war between Fujifilm just below them, and Sony a fair way above them. Drifting below Fujifilm would make Nikon a marginal brand, I believe. Nikon instead needs to grow volume and erode Sony. But neither Fujifilm nor Sony appear to be limiting Chinese lenses (even though they too are starting to feel the sting of lost lens sales). (I’m really going to have to look up the Japanese word for “oopsie,” aren’t I?)

Everything’s exacerbated by the fact that all the camera companies are having difficulties in launching their next cameras, thus they want to sell as many lenses as possible to make up some slack. The miniscule camera market doesn’t have the clout to get new sensors and ASICs on fab in a timely fashion, let alone buy enough DRAM and other short-supply parts for all their future cameras. Since the pandemic, parts supply has been a real problem for the camera makers. Now with AI gobbling up chips coupled with plant disruptions due to the new-fangled tariff war and a host of other issues, this has put every camera introduction I’m aware of behind schedule. Four products that I had been told were scheduled for late 2025 or early 2026 now are tentatively “second half 2026” announcements. 

Nikon, I believe, has misinterpreted this as a “we need to circle our wagons” event. Perhaps they think that they can keep sales up by selling more lenses, but not in the way they seem to be going about it. I’ve written for decades about business frictions and their impacts. Nikon just upgraded from drum to disc brakes and is generating more friction than ever. Lens mount licensing needs to get resolved, stat. 

I’ll have more to say about this in my WPPI commentary on byThom. I spent part of my time at the trade show tracking down Chinese lens makers and asking some pointed questions.

Today Nikon announced the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S II, a rethink of the original fast telephoto zoom, with the same overall specification, but quite a few changes in the details. 

Like the 24-70mm remake before it, the new 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S II gets the Silky Swift VCM focus system and is about 3.5x faster to focus, plus focus tracking while zooming is said to improve 40%. Also like the 24-70mm remake, there's a new, better optical formula that results in higher optical performance while decreasing weight (26% lighter) and length (12mm shorter). Minimum focus distance also improves to a 1:3.3 ratio at 70mm and 1:4 at 200mm (the previous version was 1:5). The extra control ring can now be set to click or be freewheeling, and the included lens hood has an opening that allows adjustment of polarizing filters. 

Wait for it...wait for it...after 22 years of directly and loudly complaining, Nikon has finally added an Arca-Swiss dovetail to the foot of the removable tripod collar for this lens. This just makes me more inclined to yell "wolf" when I see one ;~). 

Price is now US$3199, and this lens should be available in late March.

Nikon today released two firmware updates.

The first is a bug fix update for the Z9, version 5.31. The sole item in this fix is a long-standing issue where the focus point might move from the subject in 3D-tracking and Subject-tracking AF. The earlier 5.3 update seemed to make this more likely to happen, and now it's been fixed, according to Nikon (I haven't had the chance to test it yet).

Meanwhile, the ZR got its first firmware update (to 1.10), with a number of modestly useful changes. Video can now be recorded for up to six hours, up to 50 LUT files can be added for View assist, file names can be given reel/clip/date and other information, timecode can be synced via the microphone/line input, and there are now warning indicators to indicate potential loss of detail in highlights when recording R3D raw files.