Nikon has now been delivering Z System products for a bit over six years. We’ve also now cycled from the top to the bottom of the lineup with a second generation of cameras. Finally, 2025 should be the year when Nikon reaches its 50 Z-mount lenses proclamation. So where does the Z System really stand? What’s still missing?
Cameras
- We have four cameras that are still stuck in the first generation: Zfc, Z30, Z5, and Z7II. The first two are easy, as they’d simply be a Z50II in different skins with different simplifications. Is there a rush to get those to market? I don’t think so, but the Internet Amplification Effect will probably slowly build up the pressure to do so. The Z5 is tricky, as it’s the entry camera to full frame, so you don’t want to be putting more expensive parts into it (e.g. EXPEED7, newer 24mp sensor). My thought is that we won’t see this camera iterate to Z5II until there’s a Z4 (or Z3). Also, as I’ve explained many times, the bracket of Z6III and Z8 makes just putting EXPEED7 into the Z7 to create a Z7III produces a bit of a conundrum, as you’d slice sales from both the adjacent cameras, particularly the Z8.
- We have video to consider now: with the acquisition of RED, we’re all now expecting Z-mount video cameras to show up. I’m sure we all don’t want that to be as simple as “just swap out the RF mount for the Z mount” for the Raptor and Komodo. Nikon and RED need to figure out how to integrate what each does best for the acquisition to fully pay off, and I’d hope that the first take on the RED side is more than just a mount swap. My understanding is that RED is targeting end of 2025 for new models, but that doesn’t foreclose a mount swap happening earlier. Moreover, we need a bridge between the two lineups; call it the ZR.
- It’s easy to define “missing” cameras: Just look around at what Nikon needs to compete with (currently over 50 models from others) and you can find niche holes everywhere. Just start with the mirrorless adjacent Ricoh GR and Fujifilm X100VI compacts: Nikon has nothing even close to that space, but a redesign of the Z5 into a fixed lens compact would be easy enough to do. Meanwhile, a full frame camera Z3 akin to the Z30 could take on products such as the Panasonic S9 and some of the Sony models. Flipping to the top of lineups, Nikon doesn’t have a ~24mp fast pro camera, but Canon and Sony do. The list goes on and on. So the question about adding anything to the lineup—Nikon currently has nine models available—almost immediately drives to figuring out whether Nikon should even attempt any additional niche. That’s because six of Nikon’s current models define very broad use cases from the Z50II all the way up to the Z9.
- "Two a year” forces tough decisions: Nikon’s camera introductions in the last four years have gone 2, 1, 2, and 2. Even if you pull all the way back to the start of the Z’s you only add 3, 1, 2, so the average is still essentially 2. That seems to strongly say that the R&D forces are centered around producing a couple of new cameras a year. I can define perhaps a dozen cameras Nikon could make. That’s on top of continuing to iterate the models they already have. Thus, someone at Nikon is going to be making some really tough decisions of what to proceed with and what to cut. The overall mirrorless camera market is only at about 5m units a year right now, so you can’t proliferate ad naseum. Even Sony seems to now understand that.
Overall, I’m not anticipating Nikon steering away from what they’ve been doing. That’s been successful and profitable, and it doesn’t require them reinventing how they do things. (That last bit is always a bit of warning sign to me, though. Nothing stays the same for all that long in tech. You have to be constantly evolving yourself as well as your products to stay a winner.)
Bonus: There's been rumors for at least two years now of a "very different" Z camera being fiddled with and in prototype form. Not DSLR-like, not vlogger/creator, not legacy. The way I hear it defined is true entry automation. In other words, a simplified user experience that brings more point-and-shoot thinking to mirrorless.
Lenses
Lenses are a much wider playing field than cameras. Not a single lens maker, ever, has managed to produce everything that could and should be produced for a mount. Moreover, the volume of some of the non-mainstream lens ideas—for example, tilt/shift—is really quite limited, so you may only produce those for a short period until the small demand is filled.
What's missing in the Z-mount right now is:
- Tilt-shift. The demand comes from two specialties: landscape and product photography. Best case, that means you need three lenses (wide angle, normal view, telephoto macro), which is pretty much what both Canon and Nikon did in their DSLR mounts. Here’s the dilemma: you need to automate those lenses, particularly focus. So this type of lens needs R&D and technology that’s deeper than has occurred in the past. And then you won't sell a lot of them. So how high a priority would you place on this?
- Wide angle. In both DX and FX, Nikon is deficient in truly wide angle options. Sure, we’ve got some zooms that go there, but we not only don’t have all the zooms we’d want in the truly wide angle realm, but we’re missing any prime. To me, this is the biggest Z-mount hole that needs addressing, and I don’t believe Nikon should just let the Chinese come in and fill the void.
- Lens line completion. Are two f/1.2 primes it? The 35mm f/1.2 is still MIA, and if it arrives, are we then done? And are two f/1.4 primes all we get? I hope not. That set needs at least an 85mm f/1.4 and many would welcome a 24mm f/1.4, as well. Missing in the f/1.8 S line are 14mm, 18mm, and 28mm. I’d also suggest that we’re missing a couple of f/2.8 primes, as well. At f/4 we’re missing a telephoto zoom option (e.g. 70-200mm, but also 100-300mm, which is what I’d prefer at this point). The NOCT sits alone. The good news is that we’re not missing much in the telephoto realm. Basically 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8 in some form, and I don’t see a ton of photographers demanding those. But just in this bullet I’ve defined a dozen lenses that are missing from established lines.
- Buzz Buzz. Really? Five DX Nikkors for three cameras? Particularly now that one of those cameras is a remarkably capable all-rounder. It doesn’t take a lot of effort here. Two or three well considered VR-enabled lenses could dull most of the complaints, and then the Chinese can fill in the rest.
- New frontiers. Nikon has well over 50 years of finding new optics ideas and being first to produce them. A few of those have been abandoned for unknown reasons (the macro zoom is a good example). It would be nice to see Nikon taking a few more stabs at things people aren’t specifically asking for, as it would extend the whole Nikkor brand innovation into the future.
Bonus: Nikon is completely reworking their lens plant in Japan. Beyond just the ability to create more (and perhaps different) glass, this is the location where most of the more esoteric offerings have been put together, and it will be interesting to see if that happens again once the new facility is done, or whether Nikon continues to do most of their lens manufacturing in China and Thailand instead.
Other
- Flash. What happened to the new flash system Nikon tested a couple of years ago? The SB-500 is back on the discontinued list, leaving only the Medicare-eligible SB-700 and the approaching-retirement SB-5000 as the only units you can find new. Zero innovations in flash in eight years. Heck, zero iterations in flash in eight years. It’s almost as if Nikon doesn’t think that light is important to photography. At a minimum Nikon needs a new small flash (SB-3000), and a new full high-end and multiple flash system (SB-9000). Either that or they need to get a third party to do it and embrace them 100%, not just with a press release that said almost nothing and doesn't seem to have produced anything of interest.
- Software. Here we have a littered field of we-licensed-this things that aren’t state-of-the-art (e.g. NX Studio), coupled with a host of proof-of-concept level products that all need attention (e.g. SnapBridge, NX Mobile Air, NX Tether, etc.). It seems clear to me that Nikon doesn’t want to invest very much in this area, but somehow feels strongly that they need to play on those fields. That’s sort of the worst possible way to approach software. Nikon needs to get all-in or all-out here. Straddling is not a viable option. But let’s talk about the new big problem we have: SnapBridge and NX Mobile Air overlap, Nikon Imaging Cloud and Nikon Image Space overlap. What we’re getting is a bunch of “does something” bits and pieces when we need a “does everything” approach. The deeper we get into the 21st Century, the more Nikon’s mid 20th Century ideas don’t fly.
Bonus: Here's the thing, Nikon has been mostly a "hardware maker" in all of their endeavors. Hardware in the 21st century is an enabler for software, and software is what is really driving products forward. The reason why Flash and Software are loitering in the abandoned wings of the buildings in Tokyo is because they really are software problems, and require software solutions (that live on hardware). Meanwhile, the Z9 has proved my point here, as more attention to software has improved that product at least five times without changing a single screw in hardware. And I think it could still be improved more.
