Continuing with my series outlining how I believe Nikon needs to progress with their model line, we come to another camera due for iteration, the Z50.
Of course, the Z50 has been iterated twice already ;~). Witness the Zfc and Z30. Both are basically the same internals (with some minor tweaks) in different design concepts. So the first question I have to answer is this: does the Z50 really need to iterate?
The answer is yes, however this time it needs to be a real iteration that changes the camera substantively. I don't care if Nikon calls that the Z50 II, but a better choice, given the needs, is to do everything I note and call the highly improved model a Z70 instead.
Let's get to details:
- Price — Again, I'll bet you didn't think I'd lead with price, but again it's actually important. The Z50 currently sits at ~US$850, which puts it up against its siblings, plus the Fujifilm X-E4 and X-T30 II, the Sony ZV-E10 and A6400, and maybe cameras such as the Canon R10 and Fujifilm X-S10. As you can tell from that list, while there's a fairly common price point near US$1000, nobody is filling it with the same product. Only the older X-T30 II and the new Canon R10 really try to be the DSLR-like product that the Z50 is. Nikon has to figure out whether it wants to just play the same game they have been, or push above their current triplets to create something new. Thom's Choice: US$1000-1250 with something new. What Nikon will likely do: raise the price with a mild Z50 II update. Nikon needs: to find the right position amongst a lot of competition.
- Image sensor — My fear is that Nikon is sticking a little too long with older image sensors. This is now firmly true of the APS-C products, as we go all the way back to the D500 for a new image sensor. The D500, D7500, Z30, Z50, and Zfc all use the same basic 20mp sensor, though it has been mildly tweaked once along the way. Fujifilm's sitting at 26mp (with 40mp on the horizon), and Canon's R7 popped up in the middle with 33mp. Whatever you think, 20mp no longer plays in a 24-40mp world. Not for a DSLR-like mirrorless body. Basically, sensor decision pretty much dictates what Nikon can do with a Z50 iteration. So here's my take: sticking to 20mp means that we get a Z50 II, with mild updates. Moving to a newer sensor means we get something much more like a Z70. Thom's Choice: 26-33mp and move the Z50 up in capability to a Z70. What Nikon will likely do: continue at 20mp. Nikon needs: 24mp+.
- Focus — Like the Z6 II, the Z50's biggest shortcoming is in subject tracking and EVF updating. At this lower level of camera, customization and user override options wouldn't be as important as subject detection and tracking improvements. Thom's Choice: implement subject detection and 3D Tracking, address the focus position lag in the viewfinder, and add AF-ON+AF Area customization to the buttons. What Nikon will likely do: subject detection improvements. Nikon needs: implement subject detection and 3D Tracking, address the focus position lag in the viewfinder.
- EVF — The Z50’s viewfinder is probably okay, though it is a bit coarse. Upping the dot count isn’t necessary at this price point near as much as just making the overall experience cleaner and less obvious in changing light/subjects. Plus, any subject detection and tracking in the focus system has to be kept up with. Thom’s Choice: 120 fps option, clean up coarseness. What Nikon will likely do: probably 120 fps option. Nikon needs: clean up coarseness, less EVF lag in overlays.
- Rear LCD — As with the Z6 III, Nikon has to make a choice here, and no matter what choice they make, someone is going to complain. Since we’re talking about the Z50 update staying DSLR-like, I would argue that tilt display is perfectly fine. One thing I would like to see go is the faux touch buttons on the side of the display. While this was an interesting idea, they can’t be found by touch and they’re often touched by accident. I note that the Z30 and Zfc dropped this, so the Z50 update should, too. Thom's Choice: tilting LCD, lose the touch buttons. What Nikon will likely do: tilting display, keep the touch buttons. Nikon needs: nothing specific.
- Frame Rate/Buffer — Here’s where things get interesting. The Z50 is on the low side for both these things near the US$1000 price point. Moreover, this is a general purpose camera, so it needs to have “some” of everything. The current model is low in frame rate and buffer, in my opinion, so bump the camera to a solid 10 fps with EVF refresh and up the buffer. My fear is that Nikon will do the latter through HE raw, basically. A camera this price won’t be losing its mechanical shutter this round. Thom’s Choice: 10 fps with solid viewfinder refresh, buffer improvement. What Nikon will likely do: huge buffer improvement due to EXPEED7 and things like High Efficiency raw. Nikon needs: bigger buffer, higher frame rate.
- Video — Given the DSLR-like nature of the Z50, it doesn’t need much in the way of video changes or additions. It’s already a competent video fill-in camera when needed. So any addition would be useful. If, as I expect, the new model comes with EXPEED7, then some things tag along with that change for free. Thom's Choice: ProRes, 10-bit 4:2:2 internal. What Nikon will likely do: ProRes, 10-bit 4:2:2. Nikon needs: nothing in particular; just improve 4K in some way.
- Connectivity — Other than bringing the USB port up to the current specification while adding USB Power Delivery, I'm not sure whether Nikon needs to invest any real effort here. The Bluetooth/Wi-Fi connectivity isn't overly constrained by the camera, it's mostly constrained by Nikon's poor applications on the mobile device and computer side. Thom's Choice: USB Power Delivery with current USB-C spec. What Nikon will likely do: USB Power Delivery. Nikon needs: mobile app improvements, USB Power Delivery.
- Customization — Given the price point of the camera, the real need here is to simply “fix” the current bits that are broken. The big one here is that U1, U2, and U3 don’t store all the options a user wants saved. Secondarily, the U options need to be saved in the Save Settings file. Thom's Choice: fix the missing elements in U1/U2/U3 (drive, exposure mode), provide a button-based recall system. What Nikon will likely do: nothing. Nikon needs: fix the missing elements in U1/U2/U3 (drive, exposure mode), provide a button-based recall system.
The critical thing in a Z50 update is where Nikon positions the model. At a US$850 price point they don’t have to do as much as they would at a US$1000+ price point. There’s a great opportunity here for Nikon to do something that makes the updated model highly competitive and triggers updating, which only requires refining the DSLR-like bits while promoting a new sensor/processor combo. I’ve been fairly low key in my choices—it would be easy to ask for more—because I think Nikon really needs both a Z70 and Z90 long-term. If this model stays with the Z50 moniker, it has to be the true entry DSLR-like product, yet stay competitive with all the action around it.
_________________________
Bonus: Let’s discuss a possible Z90 for a moment and why it’s going to be difficult for Nikon to justify. Everyone would expect a Z90 to be a mini-Z9. A Z9 costs US$5500. Using the rule of thumb that customer price is typically about 3.5x actual costs, that means that there is US$1500 or so worth of cost in the Z9. I’d guess that everyone thinks a Z90 should be the old D500 price, or US$2000. That implies we have to take about US$900 of cost out of the Z9 to get a Z90. Put another way: a Z90 has to cost Nikon US$600 to make.
Smaller camera body and frame is going to save only a few dollars. Removing GPS is another few dollars. Removing the FTP server and Ethernet is probably a few more. Going through the entire Z9 teardown and trying to eliminate parts, the best possible case I can get to while still keeping the mini-Z9 idea is about a US$100 reduction in cost. So the question quickly becomes this: would a stacked APS-C (DX) sensor on a VR platform cost US$800 less than a stacked FX sensor?
The good news is that Sony Semiconductor already has a 26mp APS-C stacked sensor (used by the Fujifilm X-H2S). Does Fujifilm have an exclusive on that sensor for a period of time? I don’t know. Another question is what Nikon might want changed in the sensor, if anything. The X-H2S doesn’t appear to have the dual-stream thing that powers the Z9’s no-blackout finder, for instance.
Note also that the X-H2S is a US$2500 camera. Frankly, I think that’s probably about the right price for a Z90 by the time you factor in R&D costs. Remember, Nikon also has to engineer a smaller VR platform, and will probably spend money tweaking the offload speeds, gains, and Bayer layer on the sensor, which they’ll want payback on.
First, Nikon is going to be scared of that US$2500 price for a top-end APS-C camera. D500 sales fell substantially from where Nikon thought they’d be and now we’re trying to place its mirrorless replacement higher? Oh-oh. But you all know what I’m about to write: ITLS! (It’s the lenses, stupid). If I’m going to buy a US$2500 camera, I dang well want appropriate lenses for it. Other than for sports/wildlife, there are none in the Z-mount. None. Which is a significantly lower number than the “few” we had for F-mount DX. No lenses limits the number of cameras you will sell, period.
Moreover, the X-H2S is already on the market, and due to the fickle nature of camera buyers, we’re already into some D500 to X-H2S switching (a compounding of the already present Nikon DX to Fujifilm X switching that’s been going on). A Z90 isn’t happening in the next year that I can tell, so late-with-no-lenses-at-high-price is a recipe for near-disaster for Nikon. I write “near-disaster” because no matter the problem, Nikon would sell a moderate number of US$2500 Z90’s. Only problem is that it will be a small surge that doesn’t last. Why? (1) lack of lenses; (2) Fujifilm sucked up many of those buyers already; and (3) the US$2500 FX model is really good.
Nikon’s management is smart enough to fully understand (already) what I just wrote. The “answer” is (1) develop more lenses; (2) push the schedule up; and (3) use a more aggressive price (e.g. US$2000-2200). That’s “cost”, “cost”, and “loss of profit” respectively. Getting that past the Tokyo bean counters is going to take a lot of persuasion. Just who is that glib-tongued persuader these days at Nikon? Even Goto-san—who had the most leverage in recent Nikon management past until his Df love child flopped and he was pushed out—would have a hard time getting a Z90 past the bean counters.
The only good news is this: Nikon absolutely wants to go upscale. And Z DX can really only go upscale given where they've started. But I think you now see why I say that moving the Z50 II up and making it a Z70 is the more likely scenario at the moment.
