We're coming up to the time period where the third iteration of Nikon's most important full frame camera should appear. October to February would be the expected range; it could be earlier, but it probably won’t be later. I haven't previously written much about what I think the Z6 III needs to remain competitive, so let's correct that with this article.
First, let's start with what's happening with the competition. Canon, Panasonic, and Sony all play in the US$2000-2500 all-around full frame camera market. Sony's A7 Mark IV is marketed with the line "Basic has never been this good." I'd agree. As things sit right now, Canon feels a bit under-sensored, Panasonic feels under-focused, while the Nikon Z6 II puts in a good show. However, after just two years on the market, the Z6 II is now feeling a little bit old in comparison to the newer Sony model.
Previous to the Sony A7 Mark IV appearing, I was on record as saying the Nikon Z6 II was highly competitive, and in many ways, better at focusing (other than real-time subject tracking [which is not the same thing as continuous focusing performance, by the way]). Thus, I'd tend to say that the very big thing that Nikon has to prove is that it can match Sony's iteration pace. Given the timing, doing so puts Nikon no more than a year behind Sony, possible less depending upon the features and performance adds to the Z6 III. To put that in perspective, Nikon started five years behind Sony in this category.
So let's get to some details.
- Price — Bet you didn't think I'd lead with that attribute, but it's actually important. The Z6 II currently sits at US$2000, while the Canon R6 and Sony A7 Mark IV have moved up to the US$2500 price point. If Nikon leaves the Z6 II as the low cost option in this model category, what they have to change for a III iteration is less intensive than if they move up to price match Canon and Sony. Personally, I want Nikon to move to US$2500 and use that price bump to do new things (see next). Thom's Choice: US$2500. What Nikon will likely do: raise the price, but maybe not to US$2500. Nikon needs: to match or beat competitors.
- Image sensor — My fear is that Nikon is sticking a little too long with older image sensors. This is definitely true of the Z30, Z50, Zfc, Z5, and is now an issue with the Z6 II. Sony has moved to a very good 33mp sensor, and as I note in my review of the Sony camera, it feels a lot like the original Nikon D800 in terms of its imaging abilities (which is to say quite good). So one of the first things I'll be looking at is whether Nikon moves from the 24mp sensor to a 33mp one. Personally, I want the 33mp one, and I think you should, too. The Sony Semiconductor 33mp sensor is a good balance between all the performance aspects that need to go into an all-around camera. It also gives us something more than 14mp with the DX crop, which is much more usable than the current 10mp you get from DX crop. All the other aspects we'd want (frame rate, video capabilities, etc.) also would get improvements. The thing all of you fear (needlessly) is noise, but current sensors are essentially just recording the randomness of photons these days. That type of noise is easier to control than the artificial types that used to dominate our image data. Thom's Choice: 33mp. What Nikon will likely do: continue at 24mp. Nikon needs: probably 33mp.
- Focus — While the Z6 II is quite good and very usable in autofocus, I see three clear areas that need addressing: (1) Subject tracking needs to really be 3D-tracking; (2) EVF needs to keep up; and (3) we need more button customization. Fix those three things and I have no complaints. Some of you will disagree. You'll want the Z9's subject detection, I'm sure. Guess what? The competitive cameras don't really match that. Selectable human/animal/vehicle detection is fine, automatic is a bonus. Nevertheless, the three things I note here have to happen in conjunction with one another in order to move the focus system up to Z9-like levels, which is where we all want it to be. Doing only one or two doesn’t get us there. Thom's Choice: implement 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: 3D tracking plus subject detection improvements. Nikon needs: implement 3D Tracking, address the focus position lag in the viewfinder, and add AF-ON+AF Area customization to the buttons; perhaps use the Z9 subject detection improvements.
- EVF — Speaking of the EVF, 3.7m dot seems to be more the new standard at the Z6 price point today. I'm not a fan of just increasing EVF resolution, though. You're staring at a small screen effectively 1m away, so you don't need dots as much as you need better refresh rates. I'd take High FPS Viewfinder Display over dots, as well as getting the viewfinder more in sync with the focus system. Another small thing that needs doing is to show “focus achieved” in AF C mode. The big thing will be no slide shows in the viewfinder at high frame rates, though. Thom's Choice: no slide shows, 120 fps option, plus AF C focus achieved indicator. What Nikon will likely do: no slide shows, probably 120 fps option. Nikon needs: no slide shows, less EVF lag in overlays, particularly active focus sensor positioning, show focus achieved in AF C.
- Rear LCD — The operative question here is whether tilting or articulating is the correct choice for the rear display. Please don't give us the funky Z9 dual tilt mechanism. I'd make the argument that the Z6 is an all-around camera that has to cross the still/video line with aplomb, and that suggests picking an articulating LCD. As for size, clarity, and touch capability, Nikon already does just fine with all that. Thom's Choice: articulating LCD. What Nikon will do: hard to predict, they could go either way. Nikon needs: nothing specific.
- Frame Rate/Buffer — 10 fps is enough for this level of camera. However, getting that with a slide show in the viewfinder has to stop. Effectively, the current camera is a 5.5 fps one (the Z6 II becomes unusable for moving subjects or composition above that; static subjects don't need high frame rates). Keep the current mechanical shutter this round, which can do 14 fps, but address the EVF side of what happens so that we see each frame, and with as little blackout as possible. The buffer doesn't really need direct addressing, though it would be nice to get the CFexpress slot supporting CFexpress speeds instead of XQD speeds. Thom's Choice: no real changes other than using a faster CFe card slot and ending the slide shows. What Nikon will likely do: huge buffer improvement due to EXPEED7 and things like High Efficiency raw, increase fps top speed to 20 fps. Nikon needs: accurate viewfinder stream.
- Shutter — Given the Z9, the critical question is whether Nikon might drop the mechanical shutter in the Z6 III. Doing so probably requires a new stacked image sensor, as otherwise we get a bit too much rolling shutter issue with the current Sony Exmor BSI technology. All the recent non-stacked sensor cameras that have high frame rate capabilities have clear rolling shutter impacts. The question is whether Nikon would tolerate that in this model. I sure hope not. Thom's Choice: I'll stick with 1/8000 mechanical. What Nikon is likely to do: implement a faster electronic shutter, possibly drop mechanical shutter. Nikon needs: up the flash sync speed to 1/250.
- Video — While a new image sensor might bring new capabilities (e.g. 6K+), the most useful (and easy) gains would be much like what Nikon did in the Z9: ProRes capability, 10-bit 4:2:2 internally, and new raw capabilities via EXPEED7. Thom's Choice: ProRes, 10-bit 4:2:2 internal, RAW internal. What Nikon will likely do: ProRes, 10-bit 4:2:2, RAW internal. Nikon needs: ProRes, 10-bit 4:2:2, RAW internal.
- Connectivity — Other than bringing the USB port up to the current Power Delivery specification, 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. It would be nice if there was a "performance mode" for USB connections, but I'm not convinced that this is an area that currently needs addressing to keep up with competition. Thom's Choice: update the USB port to current standard. What Nikon will likely do: not much. Nikon needs: mobile app improvements.
- Customization — This is the area that Nikon must address. The Sony A7 Mark IV shows just how good user customization can be; the Z6 II, not so much (if at all). I don't mind the U1, U2, U3 capability on a camera with a Mode dial, but Nikon's choices for that are dramatically deficient compared to Sony's. At a bare minimum, Nikon needs to give us named Settings files, but Sony's Memory Recall capabilities just mockingly dance around Nikon's best efforts at any user customization. Being first and going to last is not something you ever want to do with features in your products, but Nikon's managed to do just that with customization. Thom's Choice: user-named settings files, fix the missing elements in U1/U2/U3 (drive, exposure mode), provide a button-based recall system. What Nikon will likely do: not much; perhaps add some missing elements back to the U1/U2/U3 settings. Nikon needs: user-named settings files, fix the missing elements in U1/U2/U3 (drive, exposure mode), provide a button-based recall system.
If Nikon implemented all my choices, we'd have a Z6 III at US$2500 that can easily hold it's own against Sony's best effort. And a camera that would be an amazingly versatile full frame camera. Nikon's marketing line for the Z6 II is "More power. More speed. More possibilities." I'm advocating that Nikon go back to the original Z6 marketing line: "All-around performance." Okay, we should move forward with the wording, so let’s make it "Best in class all-around performance."
