The usual thing that happens when Nikon goes into one of their silent phases is that we get quite a bit of the “Nikon’s falling behind” pontifications on the Interwebs.
You already know my take on these sorts of claims: wait for the frog to jump. It’s inevitable it will, and it’s probable it will land in front.
That said, it’s also probably worthwhile to look at what the mad typists on the Web feel are Nikon’s liabilities. In no particular order:
- The Canon R50 is faster/better than a Nikon Z50. I guess my response is “it had better be, it’s over three years newer." That’s a whole design cycle, and then some. But even with a full generation advance, the difference really only boils down to 24mp versus 20mp, 12/15 fps versus 11 fps, and subject detection autofocus versus face/eye detection autofocus. Am I lusting for all those R50 capabilities in a Z50 II? Not overly, though better autofocus is something I would absolutely demand in a Z50 update. I think the biggest concern for Nikon compared to the Canon R50 is the R50’s price, not so much its abilities. An R50 with kit lens is US$800 while a Z50 is US$900. Nikon is now asking more money for less, basically. Frankly, though, both Canon and Nikon are hobbled by NOT ENOUGH CROP-SENSOR LENSES. (I’ve decided to shout today instead of buzz ;~).
- The Canon R7 and R10 aren’t matched by Nikon. True. Nikon has the 20mp triplets cluttering up the bottom of their product board, each with its own personality, but no true “line” of crop sensor mirrorless. I see this more as Nikon got to entry crop sensor first, Canon got to middle level crop sensor first. So the onus is on Nikon to bring something to the plate in the gap between the Z50 and Z5, and to do so reasonably soon. The longer the R7 and R10 are on the market without a Nikon competitor, the worse things will be for Nikon.
- Fujifilm now “owns” crop sensor, Nikon should give up. I wouldn’t go that far, but Fujifilm spent some big R&D bucks to get a 26mp stacked and a 40mp BSI APS-C sensor that puts their imaging engine in front of everyone in crop sensor mounts for the moment. Personally, I was hoping the X-H2S (stacked) was going to be the D500 successor we’ve all wanted. It took three major firmware iterations for it to get close, but I still don’t think it’s quite there. As often happens in the tech business, the hardware guys got their side done and we are now waiting for the software folk to catch up. Thing is, considering how far Fujifilm pushed, it’s not just Nikon that needs to do some catching up. Canon’s at 33mp and non-stacked. Sony’s at 24mp and non-stacked. However, I have a common complaint: Fujifilm doesn’t have enough crop-sensor lenses that take true advantage of their sensor moves. The big takeaway here though is that Nikon’s 20mp DX image sensor dog is now following the pack. That’s never good.
- Sony owns the megapixel race. The Sony A7R Mark IV and V are 61mp cameras. I actually sold my copy of the Mark IV as I found that it didn’t do anything the A1 didn’t, and really wasn’t providing any useful benefit over my Z7 II. So if you’re comparing the A7R Mark IV and A1 to the Z7 II and Z9, I’d say that no, Sony doesn’t own the pixel race. The A7R Mark V changes that slightly (especially given noise AI processing that’s appeared). Coupled with the pixel shift abilities of the Mark V, if pixel count (resolution) is your goal and you’ve got the lenses to support that, yes, Sony currently has an advantage. I don’t expect that to last long.
- Nikon’s autofocus system isn’t as good as the other brands. First, at the top of the heap (Canon R3, Nikon Z9, and Sony A1), that’s simply not true. All three of the pro cameras have state-of-the-art focus systems that are slightly different from one another in nuance, but in skilled hands, produce essentially identical results. You don’t buy any of these three cameras because "its autofocus system is better.” Anyone that tells you that is someone you need to stop listening to, because they’re spreading misinformation. Below the top end, Sony moved first, Canon second, and Nikon has yet to move. So, yes, there are some differences in the most recent A7, the higher R model numbers, versus the lower Z model numbers. I expect Nikon to move again soon, and then we’ll likely be back to where we are with the pro cameras (i.e., equal). That said, the Z6 II and Z7 II are still pretty darned good at autofocus, and in skilled hands produce excellent results in tough situations (even birds in flight, sports, etc.), as I’ve shown pretty much since day one. I’ve written this before, and I think it still applies, though: if you never want to change autofocus settings and have the camera do everything in All Auto mode, the current Sony A7 models are probably what you want. Don’t be surprised, though, when you still get some out of focus photos ;~).
- The FE mount is where the lenses are. Probably true if you think third-party lenses are only made by Sigma. Probably false (or will be soon) if you think Tamron is the more important third party. Funny thing is, everyone who makes this claim to me seems to write off Panasonic’s L-mount lenses. That lineup includes 14 very nice options that cover from 12 to 300mm. But they don’t work on a Sony camera ;~). I’m also not sure that counting Sony’s lenses is the right thing to do: from 35mm to 55mm, for instance, Sony has a bewildering array of 11 lenses. Meanwhile, really top telephoto lenses in Sony cladding are starting to look fewer and less capable than the competition, to the point where Sony pre-announced a lens at least a year in advance (and it still won’t have a built-in teleconverter as Nikon is doing, or zoom like Canon just added). Two years ago, yes, Sony had a clear lens advantage. Today? Not so much, and whatever advantage they did have erodes every quarter.
All that said, there is one thing I worry about. Nikon is once again seemingly sluggish at moving, and this time they’re the last mover, not the second. Z DX simply isn’t really competitive at the moment, while the Z FX lineup needs faster iteration below the Z9. Nikon seems to think they have plenty of time to build the inevitable Z50 II, Z70, Z90, Z5 II, Zf, Z6 III, and Z7 III. I’m not sure that’s true. Those Nikon legacy body owners with film SLRs and DSLRs in their gear closet aren’t spring chickens. At some point they either jump ship because Nikon doesn’t offer what they want, or they simply die off with what they had.
Which brings me to this: Nikon is once again proving that they're an optical company, not a consumer products company. I write that because the Z-mount Nikkors don’t exhibit the same problem as the bodies. As I’ve written before, the S-line lenses are great. Generally the Z-mount Nikkors are already a fairly full lineup without peer (though Sony GM lenses are slowly closing that gap). I see plenty of evidence that the Z-mount lineup will soon become 50+ lenses that cover everything I (and likely you) need.
Personally, I need two bodies that aren’t currently available though (I mostly photograph using two Z9s these days): a Z90 so that I have a more portable “fast” camera/lens combo (e.g. Z90 plus 400mm f/4.5 versus Z9 plus 400mm f/2.8), and a 60mp+ (and/or pixel shift) for landscape work. Something tells me I’m not getting those soon.
