On my recent trip to Iceland, I decided to go light, as I was doing hikes as much as 12 miles a day. That ended up with me bringing the Z30 and Z7 II. Not an optimal pairing, to say the least, but let me use a reader’s recent complaint to illustrate my problem: "I just want to take my new Z8 and my 24-120 lens—but I’ve come to realize that combination is just too bulky and heavy to carry along with a 25-pound pack for 14 days.”
Exactly so. The more you have to carry and protect gear on a trip, the more likely you’re not using a Z9 and the f/2.8 lens trio ;~). Both the difference weight (3+ pounds versus 2- pounds) and the difference in bulk (bigger FX bodies versus smaller DX bodies) make this a “for a couple hours I use the Z8/Z9, but for several days…” problem.
Nikon never seemed to realize that a large number of their top-end camera customers (say Z6 II to Z9 these days) also have the need for more stealthy, easier to carry options in their gear closet. Right now, that’s basically Z50 or Zfc (need for an EVF). Both those cameras are bracketed near the D5xxx realm, which means “significant limitations”, whereas most of the users would be looking for something more D70/D7xxx like. A few really want a Z90 younger brother to the Z9, but I’m going to dismiss them today, as the Z8 is nearly the same size and weight as the D500 was: the "Want Z90" group’s complaint is mostly about price now.
We also lost the Coolpix A somewhere around the line, which was the “pocket option,” and of course, the diminutive Nikon 1’s also went away. So it’s Z30, Z50, or Zfc if you want Nikon’s “best effort” at a smaller, lighter camera.
And that sucks.
Sorry to be so crude, but it does (suck).
I’m going to have to go back and adjust my Z50 review soon, as the autofocus system on it is not standing the test of time. Even the Z30 and Zfc only move the bar a little.
The more I use the 20mp DX triplets, the more I find the following:
- The small capacity batteries don’t really frustrate me, I just have to carry more and charge more often.
- The 20mp doesn’t really bother me, as that’s more than enough quality pixels for the ways I use these small cameras.
- The articulating versus tilting Rear LCD is a no-win situation, until you want to do anything selfie-ish, at which point the articulating ones win.
- For short vlog-style video (or Web video), these cameras are awesome (right up to the point where you need “something better than basic 4K”, like 10-bit).
- The 1/2000 second limit for Electronic First Curtain Shutter is annoying, and guaranteed to net you some overexposed images because you weren’t watching for it.
- Most of my frustration tends to accumulate around:
- The autofocus system. There’s a tendency for these models to re-hunt in AF-C, which produces too many near misses. And we don’t have good enough subject detection or autofocus override customizations.
- The lens choices. The two-lens kit (16-50, 50-250mm) is great from 16-50mm, but that’s too short a focal length to be switching lenses with (e.g. 50mm switchover is annoying). The alternative two-lens kit (12-28mm, 18-140mm) is also annoying in that you’re then switching at 18mm. You also get “slow apertures real fast”(tm), which can be annoying at times (e.g. moving from an outside location to an inside one means having to pay close attention).
In short, I keep finding myself wanting:
- A Z50-size body with fewer restrictions, more customization.
- Better autofocus capabilities.
- A small sized 16-70mm f/2.8 or even f/2.8-4 type lens. This would also alter what I might use for very wide angle. For telephoto, the 50-250mm lens is fine because I don’t have to crossover so often.
What I’m defining is a Z70 and a new DX lens.
Nikon seems to have forgotten the “hole” in the middle, which was actually their most successful DSLR series in terms of producing long-term, repeat customers!
The D40+D60+D3xxx+D5xxx most definitely produced the most unit sales of DSLRs for Nikon. Those customers also bought only one or two lenses and didn’t rebuy product when it turned out that the updates were mild. If they did buy another camera, it was in the middle.
The other end of Nikon DSLRs was FX. Starting in about 2009, Nikon internationally went on an “buy FX” craze in their marketing and sales efforts. This was the attempt to lure their best customers into a higher end unit that made them more profit. To a large degree, it worked. The lowish-cost D600 led the way (and the Z5 inherits that load today, not ironically with basically the same image sensor). This produced new lens demand, as well, particularly in the non-telephoto focal lengths.
Unfortunately, the DSLR middle started strong (D70) and ended weakly (D7500). Not that any of the iterations were terrible—okay, the D80 was weak—but it seems as if Nikon decided all those enthusiasts buying in the middle needed to be moved up and only up (again, to FX). Water down the iteration and you make the higher-end products look more palatable.
What Nikon missed in all that DSLR juggling is that many of those top-end folk were also buying a tool-around-with camera in the middle. Indeed, if the situation I was going to be photographing in was risky, I was going to lean towards my D7500 instead of a D850. Heck, I’ll point out that on more than one occasion, I saw NikonUSA employees do exactly the same thing. No way were they going to take one of the D3 loaner pool and strap it to the back of a bike on an extreme motocross coarse. Nope, they used a D90 instead ;~).
Well, I have news for Nikon: A Fujifilm X-S20 is 1% wider, 9% shorter, 9% thicker, and weighs 9% more than a Nikon Z50. That’s remarkably close in size and weight. Close enough to ignore. The Fujifilm has more pixels, sensor-based IS, better video specs, and a wider range of lenses to put on it than the Z50. Yes, it’s more money, but I’m arguing about the “middle”, and what Nikon is suggesting to all of us is to “buy the bottom” and sacrifice needs for money. I’m going to call Nikon out on this: they keep repeating that they wish to target “pro/hobbyists” with “mid/high-end” cameras. Those are their words, not mine.
Simple observation: the Z30, Z50, and Zfc don’t really do that. They’re low-end cameras. Nikon is missing the mid-end camera in DX, and they’re aging out with their lower end FX products, which some might also consider in the middle.
My conclusion from my Iceland trip was simple: I’ll be buying something non-Nikon for that kind of the trip in the future. I keep getting emails from people who’ve come to the same conclusion: Nikon isn’t producing the product they want.
Here’s my problem with that: the biggest potential customer for Nikon is those with D70 to D7500 cameras sitting in their closet. I’ve watched that group sample, leak, and switch, and that is not stopping. Fujifilm and others will gobble that customer up over time.
My message for Nikon is simple: if they’re happy with a lower market share that remains profitable, the lineup should start at a properly defined Z70. Get the third-party lens makers to fill the DX lens lineup for you if you have to. Alternatively, I can point out that there’s no reason why Nikon couldn’t create a Z3 that’s the same size/weight as a Z50 from the Z5/Z6 parts bin, and make that the bottom of an FX-only lineup. We’d need a couple of small FX travel zooms to supplement the 24-50mm if they did that, though.
The current situation—low DX, high FX—is going to eventually lose a great number of Nikon’s legacy and most loyal customers. And if low-DX gains new customers, Nikon would still be missing a middle that they could move those customers to. Doh!
Again, I’m going to call Nikon out: the current situation is product line management suicide. Is there not a grown-up in Tokyo who recognizes this? Can we move that person into a position of authority, please?
Neither of the rumored “next” Z cameras deal with the problem I outline above. Instead, they both create new problems. Thus, I don’t think this is the last time you’ll see me address this situation ;~).
