As I catch up on my Internet reading and digging through my email box, I find two “chatter” points about Nikon at the moment.
1. The next camera will be a Zf (full frame legacy). Or maybe it’s just a bunch of “I want the next camera to be a Zf” wishful thinking. The interesting thing in all the conversation about such a potential new camera is I see very little discussion about which image sensor such a camera would use. Hmm. I thought that taking images were the point of a camera, not twirling dials.
For a Zf to appear in fall of 2023, as some predict, it almost certainly would have to use one of the four existing image sensors: (1) Z5 24mp (derived from the original D600 one); (2) Z6 II 24mp; (3) Z7 II 45mp; or (4) Z8/Z9 45mp. (I suppose Nikon could also use the 20mp D6 image sensor, but that would be just weird.)
The original Df, upon which all this legacy-dial design thinking begins, had an odd choice for image sensor (the D4 sensor, which was expensive to produce). The Df also did not have any video capability extended to the user interface. On the other hand, the Zfc used the least expensive (and second oldest) image sensor in Nikon’s arsenal, but did include video capability, including a fully articulating Rear LCD.
I see tons of comments about “yeah, I want a Zf” without resolving the apparent design dissonances I point out in the previous paragraph. Again, the impression I get is that people are asking for dials without really caring about what the image sensor is at the heart of the camera. Or whether video is included or not.
The interesting aspect of this is that I see some additional dissonance in who might want a Zf and why. The Df was a deliberate subject camera—as opposed to an action-oriented camera—that seemed to have its highest appeal among those that remembered and used pre F4 cameras. The Zfc had a real uptick in sales because it became a fad camera among the young creatives. Those are two very different audiences, and a Zf would cater to, what, one or both of them? Which image sensor does that? ;~)
Nikon has other issues with the legacy design in the Z era, too. Technically, if you want a “dials camera,” you should want an aperture dial, too. None of the Z lenses have one, not even the NOCT. Instead, they have a control ring, and that control ring is not click-stopped. Thus, if you use the control ring as an aperture ring, it’s really easy to change aperture unintentionally, which is the antithesis of dials in the first place. I’ve been very vocal about dials that lie to you, but dials that shift on you is just as bad.
To me, all the discussion about a Zf is misfocused, pardon the pun, and I personally have no interest in seeing such a camera. And I really haven’t even gotten around to talking about which lenses you’d use on such a camera, which opens up another can of worms.
The bigger question, of course, is whether Nikon would see such a camera as productive for them. “Productive” as in: sell enough at a high enough ROI to justify. I’d argue against that, even if the ROI was high. Just as the Df got a user backlash in 2013 when Nikon really needed the D750 that came in 2014, I’d guess that a Df-like Zf would get a similar backlash today when Nikon really needs a Z6 III. Thing is, the Internet is much more contentious and filled with influencers and fanboys that will create that backlash more intensely this time around.
Which brings me to this: what is Job One at Nikon Imaging?
Nikon would likely say “manage the current efforts emphasizing profits over growth.” Nikon’s best customers would more likely say “iterate the full lineup with the Z8/Z9 technology and stay competitive with Canon/Sony.” And yet it’s clear there is a vocal minority that want a Zf, which aligns more with Nikon’s profit views than the bulk of its customers’ views.
I’ll say this: I've heard a different camera might actually be destined for that fall slot. No, it’s not an iteration of anything already made. It represents a more modern set of thinking than legacy.
It’ll be interesting to see what Nikon does. At the moment, I expect grumbling to grow louder among those that have made the switch to Nikon mirrorless already.
2. Nikon’s quality is terrible. The whole Z8 service advisory just sours users on Nikon. While I do have some questions as to whether Nikon shipped too aggressively, I’ve gotten a lot of “heated” emails and seen plenty of posts about how this was the straw that broke the camel’s back. A common complaint I see is “I just bought a camera for summer plans and now I’ll be without it for weeks.”
I’m not even sure where to start with thoughts expressed like that.
My understanding is that the “repair” doesn’t involve any real tear down, so should be pretty efficient for Nikon to perform. I put “repair” in quotes because I don’t know how much the advisory results in inspection-and-replace-problems versus just replace.
It is amusing to contemplate back-of-the-envelope numbers. Here in the US, for instance, it appears that perhaps 8000+ cameras are In the affected serial numbers. If the repair takes 15 minutes, that means that you need 2000 man hours to repair them all. If you have 10 technicians doing this, you need 200 hours of their time. That’s a total of 25 repair days.
But you’re not going to get all those Z8’s back for repair immediately, because quite a few folk buying the camera are oblivious to the service advisory, while others are going to wait a bit before sending their camera in because they’re using it at the moment and it seems fine.
I’ll bet that most of the time you’ll be without your camera will be due to the shipping time, not the repair time. Given that Nikon is motivated to get this done—Nikon Japan is footing the bill—I’ll bet that one week tends to be close to the average you’d be without your camera, and most of that week will be simply transit.
But underlying all the angst I’m hearing about the Z8 mount problem are strange unsupported biases and conjectures. For instance, the xenophobic one: “only the stuff made in Japan is any good.” First off, I’m old enough to remember when “made in Japan” was a pejorative here in the US ;~). But facts on the ground tell me that we’ve had more Japan-made problems than Thailand-made ones with Nikon. The whole D800 left focus sensor fiasco was a product of the Sendai, Japan factory making a big mistake and not catching it.
Moreover, we’re talking about highly complex products. Every camera maker has had issues at times. Delaminating image sensors. Defective shutters. Misalignments. Improper voltage regulation. Failing integrated circuits. Problematic soldered connectors. The list goes on and on, and every camera maker has had something they’ve had to deal with. Frankly, considering how many millions of cameras have been produced, I’m a little surprised we haven’t seen more failures. I’ve had cars and computers last less long and be more problematic than my cameras.
Beyond that, there’s this: what would you like Nikon to have actually done differently? They owned up to a problem before any users really were complaining about it. They’ve offered to repair every camera, even gray market ones. They’re trying to do this as efficiently and quickly as they can. And they’re (almost) doing it all at their own expense. (The “almost” comes from one problem: if you live really rural and don’t have a UPS drop-off nearby, it’s going to cost you significant time or your own money to get the camera back to Nikon.)
Yes, it’s disappointing that a highly sought after camera needs a checkup almost immediately after buying it. Yes, it’s disappointing to be without my camera for a bit.
I’m reminded of a quote: “If you don’t fail at least 14% of the time, you’re not likely to actually fully succeed.” We ask the camera companies to do the impossible and push state-of-the-art faster and further. We need to expect there will be hiccups along the way.
If you’ve read my Web sites for the past 28 years (yes, 28), you’ll know that I’ve never been hesitant to point out when I think Nikon has done something wrong. However, I’ll also defend them when they do something right. The Z8 Service Advisory is Nikon doing something right to fix something they did wrong. We want more of that, not less of that.
