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.
