Z6 ii and Z7 ii

PB_PM

Pistnbroke said:

I notice all the Z6 Z7 variants which were out of stock on the grey market where I always buy are now back in stock at about $500 below recommended so are Nikon dumping stock to the grey market? ..see e-infinity.com

You do realize what grey market means right? It just means it is a camera that was sent by Nikon to one national distributor (say China for example), then imported to your country by a dealer from there, rather than through the local authorized Nikon distributor. Nikon doesn’t dump anything into the grey market, it just doesn’t work that way.

photobunny

We might not see a Z8, the higher MP will go into the Z7III in the future. A gripped Z9 with all the FPS is however quite possible. Z8 really makes no sense as its own thing, it would be a line that competes with the Z7 series but with a bit more MP... It would need to be a markable bump, not 60 but closer to 90MP for it to be a truly distinct line.

I don't see Nikon counting their old numbering scheme of 800, 810, 850. It's going to be Z5 to Z9 with these being distinct series like the Canon 6 series, 5 series, and 1 series. This as well with the improved Z lens design and simplified naming shows that Nikon have got it's A game on in the marketing department.

WestEndFoto

I think you will see a Z8 and Z9 for the simple reason that if the best that Nikon can come out with is a Z6/7, many users including myself will be disappointed.

I predict that they will repeat the formula of the Z6/7. The Z8 will be the sports version of the D6 and the Z9 will be the high res version. In am in the market for a Z9 in this scenario.

photobunny

What would be the point of two bodies that do exactly the same as the Z6II and Z7II? Like a pro sports body makes a lot of sense, but if we are getting more MP it'll be the Z7III. It would be like if we had a 600(Z5), 780(Z6), 850(Z7), 950(Z8) and 6(Z9), I don't see the point of so many bodies competing with themselves.

Pistnbroke

listening to all this speculation I feel quite ill.

WestEndFoto

donaldejose said:

Rockwell is correct. He is simply saying these two models will be minor improvements, sort of like an s model's mid-cycle refresh (except for the D3s which was a new sensor). He is saying they are not "landmark" cameras which is why they do not have new names like Z8 or Z9. None of us expect them to be anything more than models which add a few features (like dual card slots and vertical grip) we had complained about when they first came out. No big deal. The Z8 and Z9 will be the "big deal" we all will like and want. Hopefully, they will be out early next year. Meanwhile, focus on the great Z mount lenses Nikon is producing. The body you want to go with those lenses will be here next year.

My biggest issue with Rockwell is statements like this:

I'd be very careful before sinking any more money into Nikon's system — it's not 1979 anymore. I get tired of fielding all the technical support calls that Nikon can't solve and how ticked I am that Nikon's sloppy system with numerous technical incompatibilities means that half my lenses won't autofocus on the FTZ - while every...….

Careful about sinking money into Nikon? As if Nikon is going to go out of business in the near future. I think you can build a better case for Sony on that and even that is a poor case. And half his lenses can't autofocus - that is because they are grandpa's lenses - the kid is E, the dad is G and Grandpa is D - Nikon's FTZ adapter brings two generations of lens technology from F to Z. Is there any Nikon D lens launched in the last 20 years? Cmon, I will shed a tear for my 135 DC 2.0 and 200 Micro 4.0, but only a tear. The first will become my new manual focus character lens along with my 15 3.5 AIS and 50 1.2 AIS and since I plan on buying another D850 or D880, I think I will have autofocus on my 135 for a while. And the 200 - I doubt that I have shot a 100 times using autofocus - this lens is made for MF.

Second, a second card slot and control grip may not seem like much to some, but to me and others it is the difference between a camera only appropriate for snapshots and a camera that with the exception of some cheese, almost closes the gap with the D850.

photobunny

People forget there is a huge(350,000 employees) company behind Nikon. Nikon isn't going anywhere and is still the 2nd biggest brand. Sony outselling in one category for a few years and being the darling of Youtuber's hasn't changed that Canon and Nikon dominate.

A whole host of Nikon users waiting for the Z6II and Z7II expecting them to be the R6 and R5 of the Nikon world... and why shouldn't they be. Canon R and RP are no where near competitive with the Z6 and Z7. And now Nikon is only behind on a 85 f/1.2 and a 100-400.

WestEndFoto

photobunny said:

What would be the point of two bodies that do exactly the same as the Z6II and Z7II? Like a pro sports body makes a lot of sense, but if we are getting more MP it'll be the Z7III. It would be like if we had a 600(Z5), 780(Z6), 850(Z7), 950(Z8) and 6(Z9), I don't see the point of so many bodies competing with themselves.

Hi Photobunny, your statement sounds like you think that the main important difference between cameras is the sensor. I would dispute that.

So what will the Z7 II not have that Nikon can put in a Z9 and charge more for:

Body Items - these are items that could not fit into a Z7 II
-fully integrated battery and control grip - not an add on.
-the big D6 battery
-square 43.3mm by 43.3mm sensor - this is the size required to rotate a 24mm by 36mm crop to any angle and have it remain completely inside the sensor - it would enable a circular image to be captured or a 24mm by 36mm in both the landscape or portrait orientation which would eliminate the need to rotate the camera 90 degrees
-internal ND filters
-professional build quality
-more internal processing space such as additional Expeed processors, GPS, internal flash controls etc. Consider the computational horsepower needed for auto-focus. Nikon's main source of differentiation moving forward which could have a big impact on auto-focus ability and price might be quad Expeed processors in the Z8/9, dual Expeed processors in the Z6/7 and single Expeed processors in the cheaper models.

Latest and Greatest Items - these are items that could fit in a Z7 II, but Nikon might reserve for a higher end product to differentiate their products. A good current example is the difference between the Z5 and Z6/Z7 and its sensor. The Z5's sensor is cheaper and allows Nikon to speak to two different markets and/or prices points. And not everyone wants the biggest sensor.
-so a very high resolution sensor with the Z7 retaining its 46mp sensor
-Nikon is rumoured to be working on new sensor technology - this might be launched in the Z9 first and perhaps reserved to the Z9 for a generation. Combined with more and faster Expeed (say Expeed 7) it might hypothetically enable something like 96mp 60fps global shutter and 8k+ full sensor read video at 60p.
-Dual CFExpress with unlimited buffer in any shooting mode.
-Enhanced phase detect on the sensor
-Enhanced ingest options
-And numerous other small enhancements. One on the D6 that I wish my D850 has was voice memos.

Now a lot of the above may or may not end up in a higher end body. My point is that there are numerous ways in which Nikon could differentiate a Z9 from a Z7 II and charge more, perhaps several thousand more, for a Z9.

PB_PM

WestEndFoto said:

Careful about sinking money into Nikon? As if Nikon is going to go out of business in the near future. I think you can build a better case for Sony...

Nikon = small company with a small range of products in dying markets, Sony = huge company, with products in almost all areas of electronics. Yeah Sony is toast before Nikon.

WestEndFoto

Yes, on the surface you are correct. But Nikon is bigger than you think - photography is less than 50% of their business. And you are not alive to the risk that Sony may not have the resiliency to stay in the photography business, for the reason that you mentioned.

WestEndFoto

Just to be clear, I don't consider the risk of Sony departing the camera business to be high. I just think that the risk of Nikon departing the camera business to be even lower.

Also, Sony has a history of abandoning business lines. The only business line that I can think of that Nikon has abandoned is rifle scopes.

PB_PM

One also has to consider that Sony has spun off most of these parts of the business, the camera business, and sensor business are separate companies (on paper anyway) from the parent Sony brand. Still Sony is killing it in sensors, since other than Panasonic and Samsung, nobody else is making sensors in large numbers.

Sony put big money into cameras because the profit margins are big in the areas that they have been successful (mid-high end). Will they stay with it? Everyone said Sony was doomed as a camera maker 10 years ago and that they would jump ship. Hasn't happened yet. Did they change lens mounts? Yup, but then again so did Nikon.

As for Nikon, I'm talking about the entry company, not just the photo part. It is a small business, overall compared to the other big camera makers, in other words, Sony, Canon and Panasonic.

WestEndFoto

PB_PM said:

One also has to consider that Sony has spun off most of these parts of the business, the camera business, and sensor business are separate companies (on paper anyway) from the parent Sony brand. Still Sony is killing it in sensors, since other than Panasonic and Samsung, nobody else is making sensors in large numbers.

Sony put big money into cameras because the profit margins are big in the areas that they have been successful (mid-high end). Will they stay with it? Everyone said Sony was doomed as a camera maker 10 years ago and that they would jump ship. Hasn't happened yet. Did they change lens mounts? Yup, but then again so did Nikon.

As for Nikon, I'm talking about the entry company, not just the photo part. It is a small business, overall compared to the other big camera makers, in other words, Sony, Canon and Panasonic.

Like I said, I don't think it is likely, I just think that Nikon is even more unlikely.

And I don't think that business size is necessarily correlated with long-term survivability once you get to Nikon's size or higher. Nikon is a very large company in its own right. It is only small when you compare it to Sony.

And just for a further clarification, I am not saying that Nikon has a smaller chance of going out of business than Sony. I am saying that Nikon has a smaller probability of leaving the camera business than Sony. These are very different statements.

If you think about things like "core competency", "strategic focus" and "strategic execution", I think that you will start to discern the truth of what I am saying.

PB_PM

Considering that Nikon is expending it's non-photo business and downsizing and cost cutting it's photo division, it could be the exact opposite of what you think. The success of the Z5, up coming Z7II & Z6II could determine the long term survival of the camera division. I don't want to see Nikon go, but things are not looking good, and haven't been for a while (several years now).

WestEndFoto

Expending?

Pistnbroke

Angry photographer has stated he will buy a Z6 II so we will get one honest review

photobunny

Nikon are not a small company. They are a brand of a huge company. The Nikon department may have requirements to be somewhat profitable or may even be considered a asset to sell of to another huge company. But as it stands they have very deep pockets and way more chance of survival than Sony’s camera business.

Suggesting Nikon is in trouble is akin to saying Xbox is in trouble. They are both just departments of a much bigger business with longer term strategies.

PB_PM

Nikon is not part of a huge company, or a division of another company. They are part of the Mitsubishi group, but they are not owned by Mitsubishi, and is noted as a “group of autonomous Japanese multinational companies in a variety of industries“. “The Mitsubishi Group is made up of about 40 individual companies without a controlling parent company. Each of the Mitsubishi companies owns substantial (but usually not controlling) portions of the shares of the others.” Meaning Nikon is independent, not a subsidiary and not controlled by said group.

If you look at the biggest shareholders, Canon and Nikon are both controlled by the same people, so if you want to look at it that way, sure. Thing is shareholders can and do jump ship any time they want, unlike owners.

tc88

photobunny said:

People forget there is a huge(350,000 employees) company behind Nikon.

This is just wrong. Nikon itself is a publically traded company. As such, no one is going to give it free money since it's akin to give money to other shareholders who don't contribute. In fact, money has been flowing the other way around the last few years at the expense of R&D. That's clear indication that they see writing on the wall and want to extract as much return as possible before it goes poof.

photobunny said:

Nikon isn't going anywhere and is still the 2nd biggest brand. Sony outselling in one category for a few years and being the darling of Youtuber's hasn't changed that Canon and Nikon dominate.

Nikon is no longer #2. It's now #3 and the transition happened probably end of last year. And it's #5 in mirrorless right now which is going to be main market going forward. So until its market share drastically improves, "dominate" is clearly the wrong word.

tc88

WestEndFoto said:

But Nikon is bigger than you think - photography is less than 50% of their business. And you are not alive to the risk that Sony may not have the resiliency to stay in the photography business, for the reason that you mentioned.

This is self contradictory. What you are saying, Sony is big, so it won't care about supporting a losing camera business. But Nikon is big, so it will support a losing camera business.

WestEndFoto

TC88, you have a very different perception of Nikon than many of us to. What seems self contradictory through your lens is not to us.

We could be looking at the exact same thing, such as company size or diversification, and you could perceive it as evidence of weakness and I could perceive it as evidence of strength.

And that is fine. That is how markets work. There is your lens, my lens and probably ten other lens. The truth might be one of of those other ten and we are both wrong.

tc88

@WestEndFoto, what I did is logically translate what you said. It had nothing to do with my perceptions, since I didn't put in my own opinion in this case. It's 100% yours.

BTW, I did quote what you wrote and people can compare those against the logical translation I did.

WestEndFoto

And to answer your above question, Sony is really big with lots of baskets only loosely related to each other so writing off a division is no big deal and Nikon is kinda big with different baskets more related to each other so it is going to double down on a weak division.

And given the market and Nikon’s strengths which I think are considerable, I think that Nikon Imaging is a strong division operating in a sound market that only looks weak because Nikon was able to capitalize on a temporary market aberration that peaked in 2012 and was smart enough to spot the abberation’s decline which enabled it to orderly retreat while maintaining important R&D AND continue to pay dividends.

Damn!!! They are not perfect but pretty damn impressive! I am going to buy some Nikon stock when I get home from lunch.

tc88

@WestEndFoto, ok, those explanations sound much better though still quite subjective.

WestEndFoto said:

And to answer your above question, Sony is really big with lots of baskets only loosely related to each other so writing off a division is no big deal

So you think Sony will just close shop on camera and throw away the market share? At least it will spin it off and such a spun off company will be no weaker than Nikon considering the market share each has achieved in mirrorless which is the market.

WestEndFoto said:

in a sound market that only looks weak because Nikon was able to capitalize on a temporary market aberration that peaked in 2012 and was smart enough to spot the abberation’s decline which enabled it to orderly retreat while maintaining important R&D AND continue to pay dividends.

When was the last time Nikon had a market below 20%? Before you were born? And you sound like Nikon is making money. While it made meager profits some recent years, every couple of years it went through a reorg that wiped off many years of regular profits, and it has gone through those multiple times and there is no saying there will be no more. So in aggregate, it hasn't made profit in many years.

PB_PM

tc88 said:

@WestEndFoto, ok, those explanations sound much better though still quite subjective.

WestEndFoto said:

And to answer your above question, Sony is really big with lots of baskets only loosely related to each other so writing off a division is no big deal

So you think Sony will just close shop on camera and throw away the market share? At least it will spin it off and such a spun off company will be no weaker than Nikon considering the market share each has achieved in mirrorless which is the market.

Guess you missed the news, Sony already spun off the image and sensor business earlier this year. So the sensor business is one company, and cameras is another. Doesn't seem to have caused any change whatsoever, and it wasn't due to a lack of profits. It was likely done for tax purposes.