Very true. But speculating is part of the fun. Out of curiosity, what is your make or break to stick with Nikon?
indeed speculating is part of the fun. Right now I don't have a hard set "go / no-go" point. As long as my D500 is holding up and meeting my needs I can wait it out for quite a while. Although the D500 is starting to get a bit long in the tooth as compared to some of the modern marvels coming out it is still more than adequate to generate both pro-level photos and just about any still photo I want. It lacks horribly in video and I have been shooting more video lately using a Sony RX10-iv.
I can say that a Z9, R3 or A1 are not in my future. I simply cannot afford it on a retiree's income. Additionally, photography is a hobby not how I earn a living. I sell and/or gift a few images a year but nothing that can come close to a break even point.
I guess my break point with Nikon is if the next updates to the Z7 / Z6 line do not include better autofocus capabilities then I would make a jump to another brand which would yet to be determined. Some of the bells and whistles of the Z9 are not important to me but may be for others. For example, 10-15fps is plenty for me, I con't need 30 or 120fps. A built in grip isn't important to me. I'd be satisfied buying an add-on grip if I chose to use one (like I have done with the D500 and it's after-market grip. I can count on one hand the times I've used it). I would be OK with 2 SD cards but a CFe and SD is also OK or 2 CFe cards would be OK. I typically shoot RAW to card slot 1 and JPG Fine to card slot 2. I do want decent video but do not need a video-centric camera.
I guess the break point for me would be
1) if my D500 were to break tomorrow I don't think I would go to a Z7ii but start looking into other systems like Sony (A7iv looks interesting) or Canon with their R5.
2) Nikon either does not come out with a new mid-tier product in the next 12-18 months or the mid-tier they announce just doesn't meet what is available for similar price with competitors.
3) If Nikon fails to deliver a 200-600 that is at least on par with the Sony 200-600 or the Canon 100-500 then it would be a deal breaker. Again, I cannot afford a 400 F2.8 or a 600 F4. Additionally for my shooting I prefer zooms. One cannot always "zoom with feet" especially in parks and other natural preserve areas where one cannot go off trail. Also, closer focusing on things like butterflies and dragonflies is nice with a zoom.
Guess it is fair to say I don't have a hard and fast "no go" but more of a general feel of the direction and I think whatever Nikon announces (or does not announce) this year will tell the tale.