Thom Hogan

First up, we have firmware update for the Z5 (1.42), Z6 II (1.61), and Z7 II (1.61) that corrects one issue relating to camera date and time not being set correctly on cameras not used for an extended period of time. Nikon's update site

Second, DxO PhotoLab 7.3.0 has been fully updated to support the full set of lenses on the Zf camera.

Having had lots of experience with the Z-mount Nikkors now, and as part of my year-end site updating (now basically complete), I made a full pass through my reviews—particularly ratings—tweaking some of them a bit. My overall satisfaction with a number of lenses has changed just a bit with continued use. 

Better

Lenses that I like more now than when I first reviewed them:

• 50mm f/2.8 MC — This little lens isn't a top performer, but I'm liking it more over time, particularly since it's easy to stuff into a bag, just in case. I'm finding more and more reasons to take it out of the bag.
• 14-30mm f/4 S — I'm still not 100% comfortable with the absolute corners, which will get munged due to the distortion correction necessary on this lens, but generally for the types of uses I make of this lens, that just never really shows up in my images. 
• 17-28mm f/2.8 — I liked this lens in my review, and it still is growing on me. Like the previous lens, you need to be careful about corner usage, but the central area is going to be excellent.
• 24-120mm f/4 S — I found it solid in my review, and it's continued to perform for me. I've gotten to the point where I simply don't care about its small deficiencies. 
• 400mm f/4.5 VR S — The joy of carrying just overcomes that stop-and-a-third extra exposure necessary. For most of my uses, the change in aperture from my f/2.8 just doesn't show up as busier backgrounds, at least not at the level I'd be concerned with.

Worse

A few lenses seem to be languishing in my use, and it's because I'm no longer enamored by them:

• 35mm f/1.8 S — One of the first three lenses for the Z-mount, it just seems a little blah for its size now. I keep finding that at around that focal length, I'm opting for the far smaller 40mm f/2 more often, even though it just doesn't hold up in the corners as well.
• 24-70mm f/4 S — Another of those first three lenses. It's still one of the strongest kit lenses you can get on any system at this focal range, but my use of the 24-120mm f/4 S shows that the modest focal range of the kit lens dulls my opinion of this original zoom somewhat.
• 24-200mm f/4-6.3 — As Nikon keeps knocking Nikkors out of the park (and some off the wall), this lens just keeps coming up short for me. As a superzoom, it is probably better than most expect, but it's a superzoom, and has all the issues that get intermixed with trying to extend to such a huge focal range. If you're buying it for 200mm, I'd say no these days; you have better options. With the 24-120mm as your primary zoom, get a 70-180mm f/2.8 at some point to give you the longer telephoto range. You'll see the difference at 180mm almost immediately.
• 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S — I've specifically knocked this lens down from Highly Recommended to just Recommended. Yeah, that's probably a surprise to most of you. But the 180-600mm pretty much obliterated it at the long end when you look at price/performance at 180-400mm. I'm down to now saying that the 100-400mm belongs in the three-lens, slower aperture kit (e.g. 14-30mm f/4 S, 24-120mm f/4 S, and 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S; see below). That set takes you through a much more than adequate 14-400mm range in about the best combo you can find. 

Kits

So, speaking of kits, here's what I now tend to say make solid choices as a base zoom kit:

• Consumer zoom trio: 17-28mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/4, and 70-180mm f/2.8. Way more competent than you'd expect, and without breaking the bank.
• Middle zoom trio: 14-30mm f/4 S, 24-120mm f/4 S, and 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S. Competency defined. 
• Pro zoom trio: still comprises the three f/2.8 S lenses: 14-24mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm. Nothing matches them from corner to corner from 14mm to 200mm, but you pay a price and a weight penalty for that.

You can mix and match if you want, but I find that abilities within each of those three trios are extremely well matched, meaning that you don't have to think about anything moving from one lens to another. 

We've been through this before, and it appears we're going through it again: Nikon's crack marketing team keeps having to walk a fine line with product names. The issue is between legacy naming and present day naming, particularly when either starts hitting limits. 

The first time things truly broke down for Nikon was with the N90 to F100 transition. Up to that point, single digit was a pro model, double digit was a consumer model. Except the N90 straddled that to start with. And then there was the N (North America) versus F (everywhere else) thing. 

You'd think that by the time digital rolled around, someone would have said to themselves "maybe we should rationalize our naming scheme," but instead Nikon just lumbered on. F5 begat D1, F100 begat D100, and N80 begat D70 (gave themselves a little room there, didn't they? ;~). Of course, if you iterate by 10 each successive model, a D90 would eventually have nowhere to go. Which is exactly what happened in 2010. 

Which led us to four digits = consumer, three digits = prosumer, and one digit still indicating pro in the second decade of DSLR. Fortunately, DSLRs started dying out before Nikon could exhaust digits again. 

So why the heck did Nikon change naming strategies with the Z System? Suddenly one digit was full frame, two digits was crop sensor. Of course, at this point 5 through 9 are already taken, which has led Nikon to adding a new II suffix. The problem with that, as Sony has discovered, is that this sort of forces you into iteration upgrades; you can't change the basic definition of the product easily without adding another modifier (as Sony has done with S and R). But then your numbering starts to drift and no longer clearly indicates technical generation across model names correctly.

I'm surprised that Nikon put the 5, 6, and 7 models out so tightly, then had 8 and 9 models filling the final places. I would have though that they would have used the 3, 5, 7 idea initially (e.g. Z3 instead of Z5, Z5 instead of Z6), as that was something they did in DSLRs to give themselves naming room. But perhaps someone argued that using 3/5/7 might get people thinking some were APS-C cameras ;~). Naming just ain't easy.

Meanwhile, the Zfc and now Zf basically are "if it has dials, it's an f." Nikon says the c stands for "casual," but I'm pretty sure it stands for "crop" (or at least the C in APS-C). 

One problem is that it isn't product marketing that's really driving new models, model changes, and model iterations, it's engineering. I've seen this in internal references: R&D tends to refer to the product they're working on with either legacy naming conventions or the term "new model." Thus, while marketing is the one responsible for the ultimate name, they're being caught by R&D's thinking in what's about to become a naming issue.

From more than one source I've gotten the suggestion that Nikon is less interested in just doing mindless iteration of established models at this point, but rather looking for unique model opportunities coupled with targeted iterations of a few current models. As we've seen from the Zfc and Zf, a unique model may actually go outside the numbering schema Nikon established for the Z System. 

Three specific possible future models seem to be impacted by the naming constraints: (1) video; (2) very high speed; and (3) very high pixel count. Each poses a different problem to the naming that was originally established. 

For instance, video. The natural thing to do would be just add a V, as in ZV6. Or perhaps just Zv (to mimic the Zf naming). Unfortunately, Sony beat Nikon to the ZV naming convention, so that would be poor marketing on Nikon's part to attempt to use ZV in any way. Okay, how about just V6? Well, that doesn't say "Z-mount", sounds like an automobile engine, and implies a full video lineup, which I'm not sure Nikon is ready to do. Thus, we're led to something more awkward, such a Z6V. Personally, I'd go with Zc (for cinema). 

The very high speed camera that seems to be in prototype already (or at least a mule that's passed around a bit), really is a pro-centric camera. Or rather, would appeal mostly to some specific pros, such as sports photographers. If you were to put it in a Z9 body (for EN-EL18 battery use) Nikon has a legacy naming path they could use here: Z9h. But what if it's in a "new body"? Oops, it's the Z9.5 (it can't be 10, because then it would be DX crop using Nikon's current naming schema). What I've heard is that there is a thought to just give such a camera a simple letter (as in Zh). 

This opens up a new naming path for Nikon: niche and speciality cameras get letters. 

The curious thing is that if you look at the front of a Z8 or Z9, there's no name identification shown. The trio of other full frame cameras (Z5, Z6, Z7) all use the same basic body, so it makes sense to advertise the model name on the front. The Zfc and Zf don't have any plate space on the top to identify model, so they, too, get the front name splash. But this inconsistency of naming position also is something that Nikon marketing never really resolved.

Naming is always an issue in tech. It's part of how you present the tech to the potential customer. Sony made a bit of a mistake going extreme with Mark Roman constructs. We now have one Sony model that's at Mark VII. By going that route you start to get into the "oh just an iteration" expectation on the part of the potential customer, plus once you get beyond III you have to start explaining roman numerals to some people. Perhaps all that's okay if you keep previous generations on the market at "sale" pricing, but as Nikon once discovered and Sony is now discovering, that just eats your profit margin in order to protect market share. Not a long-term winnable game.

I'm curious to see how Nikon will handle upcoming camera names. I'm guessing that no matter what Nikon may decide to put out as new models in the future, more letter-naming options are coming.