The number one objection I keep hearing from people about the Nikon Z50II is simple: it doesn't have sensor-based image stabilization. But then I look at how early buyers are using the camera, and, well, they don't particularly need stabilization.
VR, VC, IS, OIS, or whatever you want to call image stabilization has its uses, for sure. However, its biggest use to date is as a marketing point that locks in the sale. Had Nikon included sensor VR in the Z50II, the marketing check list would have been complete and the camera would be flying off shelves. Those flying cameras probably wouldn't have taken better pictures, though.
Why do I write that?
Well, most lenses I see people using on the Z50II have VR in them. If you're trying to stay compact, the 12-28mm and 16-50mm both have effective VR capabilities. If you're going for action or wildlife, the telephoto lenses you'd pair with the body all have perfectly fine VR (Nikon) or VC (Tamron) capabilities. Finally, if you're buying a low-cost, fast Chinese DX prime, that extra couple of aperture stops gives you basically the same level of improvement (via shutter speed) as the kit lens VR does.
No doubt that sensor VR would improve all the above some and would be nice to have in reserve, but I just don't see it being all that necessary. Consider that the list price of the Z50II is US$910, would you really want the complication and extra cost that sensor VR would add? I mean, would you be just as happy with a Z50IIVR at US$1199?
Customers often say they need something when it's really just a want. And often a want triggered by Keeping Up With the Jonesism or loud marketing trumpets.
I was discussing this and other similar items with another pro recently and made the comment "if I had this camera at this price 10, 20, 30 years ago I'd have been knocking it out of the park compared to my competition."
Nikon with the Z50II, Z5II, Z6III, Z8, Z9, and Zf has done something I don't remember them having achieved nearly as well before: these are all pretty superb products at different price points with minimal compromise as you go down the line. Yes, compromises exist (viewfinder, rolling shutter, and in the case of the Z50II, lack of sensor VR), but what's left in total are six very complete cameras that really do almost all jobs well.
Let me put it the opposite way from what me and my pro friend were discussing: "someone using a Z50II today is knocking very close to what I'm achieving with the best gear that's available to me."
Get over it. The Z50II doesn't have sensor VR. It's still a fine camera. Prioritize VR lenses if you feel you really need help keeping the camera steady.
Maybe Nikon will come out with a camera above the Z50II that has sensor VR some day. I suspect they will, as I know they've tinkered with this in various early prototyping. They could, for example, just stick the current DX sensor (or a newer one) into the Z5II body and get a bunch of "upgrades" to easily create a Z70 with little new engineering work. (The upgrades would be EVF, rear LCD, dual slots, optional battery grip, thumb stick, and of course, sensor VR.)
What strikes me is that Nikon has been successfully putting out the best camera available at a price point throughout the Z9 generation. The Z9, of course, started that, but we then got the parade of other cameras that were arguably best in class at a lower price when they first appeared. To me, many of the "no sensor VR" complaints are actually coming from people who wanted the Z50II to be in a different class (more of an R7 competitor than an R100 one, for example). In its class, the Z50II is best in class as far as I'm concerned.
And yes, I actually follow my advice to you further up the article: I consider the Z50II a fine camera for some of my needs, and I prioritize VR lenses when I think I need any stabilization help.
