Thom Hogan

When the Z System was first introduced, Nikon had a lot to prove to the world. If we ignore the Nikon 1 experiment, Nikon was technically the last major camera company to pile onto the mirrorless bandwagon. In full frame, for instance, Sony had a five year head start. 

As I’ve noted before, Nikon clearly learned from Sony’s initial, constant iterating. When the Z6 and Z7 were announced, they weren’t as problematic as the original Sony A7 and A7R. It felt more like Nikon was perhaps a generation behind (in other words, had skipped forward a generation or two). 

And, of course, lenses would be an issue for anyone contemplating a new system, so Nikon for the first time issued a relatively detailed Lens Road Map to try to convince prospective buyers that they would eventually have a full line of optics for the new cameras.

But now the Road Map has dwindled to just two remaining lenses and Nikon has a “full” lineup of cameras, and some of each are regarded as state-of-the-art (so much for Sony’s head start). In a previous article I posited that Nikon seems to be retreating back to “secret development mode.” In other words, no news about future products until those products are announced. 

You can’t shouldn’t make your development totally secret unless you’re pretty certain that you’re showing a full current hand to customers, that you’re now perceived as “fully competitive.”

Which brings me to today’s thoughts (and headline): what’s left for Nikon to do in mirrorless cameras and lenses?

To answer that question, we first have to look at what we have. Let’s start with full frame:

• True consumer camera (Z5)
• Pair of enthusiast cameras (Z6 II, Z7 II)
• Pair of pro cameras (Z8, Z9)
• Fifteen known primes in the basic range (20-135mm), with compact and S-line variations available
• Eleven zooms in the basic range (14-200mm), plus a consumer and pro trio covering the range
• Four known primes in the exotic telephoto range
• Two zooms in the exotic telephoto range

Five cameras, thirty-two lenses. Arguably a full range of choices, though your specific choice might not exist (also true of any lens mount, actually). 

From a professional’s standpoint, I’d argue that I can currently build a full camera and lens kit that does exceedingly well what I need to do—and I do most everything—with no compromises and arguably state-of-the-art. Thus, I’m tempted to say that the only job left for Nikon to do in full frame is to iterate bodies and supplement that with additional lens choices that are more specialty in nature. 

Let me elaborate on that last comment starting with lenses (see also today’s companion article on primes): in full frame we’re missing some key wide angle options, both zoom and prime. The mid-range is well covered. The telephoto range is well covered, but there’s a gap from 135mm to 400mm in primes. A number of specialty lenses (e.g. fisheye, perspective control, etc.) are missing in action, so we have to continue to use F-mount versions on an FTZ adapter. If I were Nikon: 14mm f/2.8, 16mm f/2.8, 8-15mm fisheye, and perhaps a 16-35mm would be the things that would most likely make current FX Z users happiest. Everything else would be niche picking.

It’s in the enthusiast range that FX seems to have stagnated a bit, and particularly with bodies. I think that most Z System users all now feel that the Z6 II, in particular, is overdue to be iterated, though I’m sure some Z5 and Z7 owners would say the same for their cameras. Given history, I don’t expect a Z5 update until at least the four-year boundary is hit: no other entry full frame competitor really matches it, and the long D600 and D750 lifecycles seem to indicate that Nikon likes keeping the lower model(s) around for a long time, using price to drive their continued sale, not feature/performance competitiveness. 

As for a Z6 III and Z7 III, it appears that Nikon won’t be iterating those until 2024. Let’s hope it’s early 2024, because that would be three-and-a-half year cycle for products that really should be on a two or three year update path. 

Some of you will say “but there’s no high resolution camera!” There are actually three: Z7 II, Z8, and Z9. Despite Sony’s recent update to the A7R (now Mark V), I’m not convinced that 60mp+ full frame is the way to go. If I need more pixels, I’d seriously contemplate medium format. Moreover, for the primary uses of “higher resolution,” pixel shift actually might be a better choice than more pixels. 

My argument is essentially this: 

• Consumer/enthusiast FX is in reasonably good shape and the eventual iterations will improve that. 
• Pro FX is in tremendous shape, and Nikon seems inclined to keep it that way, even if they have to do it through firmware updates. 
• Lens-wise we have a solid set of basic focal lengths, and Nikon shows no sign of slowing their pace in introducing new lenses. 

Short version: FX is fine.

On the other hand, DX is (once again) a mess. 

It starts with just understandability. While we have three DX cameras, they are essentially all the same camera in different sheep’s cloth. Dressing the same thing differently doesn’t really make it different (ladies: it’s not how you dress that will impress me, but rather who you are inside). Worse still, I have to have at least two of the variants (Z30 for vlog, Z50 for stills) in order to do everything I want when small 20mp is all I really need. 

Underlying that, having three different-but-same cameras doesn’t tell potential users what Z DX is for (apparently buying the same camera three times ;~). Is DX for vlog-type creators (Z30), small travel (Z50), or nostalgia (Zfc)? 

The lens set doesn’t help you figure that out (I’m feeling a buzz coming on ;~). We seem to have one lens for each (12-28mm for creator, 18-140mm for traveler, a small FX prime with a silver ring on it for nostalgia). 

The danger for Nikon in DX is multiple. Nikon needs to be looking both directions (at both the leading and trailing competitors).

Canon clearly is going all in with their RF-S strategy (which is their equivalent of Z DX). Four cameras that actually comprise a clear range of choice, with more coming. As the market share leader, Canon is likely to stay the leader by simply bringing all their old Kiss-to-prosumer concepts over intact from DSLRs and cranking up the marketing engine. I happen to think that this first round from Canon (R7, R10, R50, R100) is a little on the weak side at each position, but Canon also uses price as a hammer when their performance finesse gets brassed by others. 

Second place Sony has three aging cameras in the crop-sensor space Nikon DX lives in, plus two vlog-friendly additions. Indeed, it’s in those creator-friendly models that Sony APS-C seems to be showing recent sales success. But the other three models are clearly aging (A6100, A6400, and A6600 are all four years old). However, with 22 APS-C lenses in the system, you still have to consider Sony’s crop sensor stable solid, and we’re likely going to see camera iterations coming starting this summer that should reinvigorate their position.

Thus, Nikon’s two bigger competitors have more clarity, depth, and breadth in their crop sensor offerings than Nikon currently does. When that happens in a market, the big get bigger and the small get smaller. Sony set sight on Nikon’s market share way back in 2006. While it took them quite some time to take it, you’d have to say it was Nikon’s failures as much as Sony’s successes that enabled that. 

But looming just behind Nikon competitively is Fujifilm APS-C. Fujifilm, too, has set sight on Nikon’s market share, and is doing that with crop sensor. 40+ Fujifilm APS-C lenses make Nikon’s 5 look paltry. Fujifilm’s aggressive body updates lately make the Z DX cameras feel more like entry toys. 40mp certainly makes 20mp look “old school.” The list goes on. The problem for Nikon is that if Canon, Sony, and Fujifilm all take Nikon’s crop-sensor market, there’s no reason for Nikon to be in that market. Being all-FX would give Nikon no chance to regain any of the overall market share ground they lost.

Thus, we get to my primary answer to the question in the headline: what does Nikon still need to do? Simple:

1. Build a full, rationalized DX camera lineup. At a minimum: creator/vlogger, entry, mid-level, and high enthusiast. At the high end the lineup has to be as buzz worthy as the Z8/Z9 are (and as competitor’s R7 and X-H2 models are).   
2. Build more wide DX lenses (both primes and zooms). 
3. Add more size-friendly FX lenses that crossover to DX (like the 26mm, 28mm, 40mm, and 50mm macro). 

Couple that with iterating the FX bodies and supplementing the FX lenses, then Nikon’s position in the market would solidify nicely, I think, and we won’t still be thinking that they have “undone” things to work on. 

Unfortunately, I see no indication that Nikon is doing #1 or #2. At least any time in the near future. And if a Zf is really the next FX camera, Nikon is taking an odd course towards saying they’re a primary camera competitor. 

Bonus: And I haven’t written much in the above about video, another Nikon-is-behind talking point by competitors, or accessories, where Flash, among other things, remains a concern to the user base. That’s the thing about high tech product companies: your work is never done. Just when you think you’ve mostly got things under control, you get nipped at on the edges by other things. 

Still, I’ll stick by my overall assessment: Nikon’s doing fine with FX, but has a lot to do to get DX any real traction.