I continue to engage in a lot of discussion about the upcoming Zfc camera with my site readers. Let's see if I can put my primary concern into succinct and proper form:
A. Nikon has lots of gaps they still need to fill with the main Z System lineup, both bodies and lenses.
B. If the Zfc is successful, it immediately creates new gaps in appropriate lenses for the Zfc.
Thus, IF B THEN A SUFFERS because Nikon has limited resources to make new product. And IF NOT B THEN WHY B in the first place?
At this point, if Nikon doesn't soon shift resources to make more appropriate lenses for the Zfc (and Z50, buzz, buzz), then the Zfc becomes a three or four lens product, much like the Canon M series, which I regard as a dead end because of its limited lens lineup and mount incompatibility. In this scenario the Zfc becomes a short-term success, but a long-term problem.
So why did Nikon make the Zfc? A combination of several reasons: (1) same reason they made a Df; (2) attempt to shore up Japanese and Asian market low-end sales and fend off Fujifilm; (3) attempt to make up for still rapidly decreasing D3xxx/D5xxx sales; (4) the Z50 II changes were already in progress; and probably (5) it's what they could quickly do with the parts and time constraints they currently face.
The bigger issue is that the Sony Alpha lineup is broad, deep, and relatively complete. The Canon RF lineup is quickly expanding and likely to consume M (certainly at the high crop sensor end). Thus, Nikon's two biggest competitors are moving forward and will dominate the realm that the Z50, Z5, Z6 II, and Z7 II live in. Instead of holding serve on the big court, Nikon is sitting on the sideline playing a game of Pacman on a Gameboy. My In Box says that quite a few of Nikon's most loyal customers are noticing that and wondering why.
I've said it before: Nikon's messaging is problematic (and that's being kind; it's really FUBAR). It's not that the Zfc is a bad camera—though I wouldn't know for sure about that until I've used one for awhile—it's that the Zfc doesn't really help Nikon dig out of the hole they've already dug for themselves. Nikon executives speak of the need for urgency, but Nikon's execution doesn't live up to that at the moment.
Nikon will almost certainly retain the third place ILC market position as the dust settles and we complete the move from the DSLR era to the mirrorless era. However, third place is going to be down in the dicey profit region that Sony once occupied (12-14% market share). This won't be the first time Nikon has fallen in market share in ILC to the third position. However, when cycles like that repeat, you have to look harder at the reasons why they do, because the source is likely endemic in your management practices.
Personally, I'm more interested in the 28mm lens than the Zfc, and as most of you know I'm not a fan of 28mm as a focal length. I would have preferred a Z50 II with the Zfc changes, as I really like the Z50 as a travel camera (and a 28mm f/2.8 on it would be useful).
Meanwhile Nikon absolutely needs the 100-400mm or 200-600mm lens to appear soon. The Z owner base is clamoring for telephoto options and instead getting retro crop sensor bodies.
