Z Roadmap 20Sept 2022, Nikon brochures

[thelordofthelight]

@fcotterill
Agree with this but the one thing I’m not all that sure is whether there’d be adequate demand for a 1200mm lens? I find the 800mm itself a bit of a speciality lens but 1200mm would be a super speciality focal length, no?

Also, I somehow feel camera companies are taking a different approach with the 300/500mm focal lengths these days. I.e. zoom instead of prime. 120-300 instead of 300 2.8 and like wise on the 500mm as well. There are already rumours about Canon launching a 200-500 F4 zoom and I hope Nikon also does something similar. Either a 200-500 F4 or 4.5 TC or a 500 F4 or 4.5 PF TC that’d be about 1.5-1.7 Kgs.

600mm equivalent of the 400 4.5 or a 600 PF would be another killer lens a lot of folks would be interested in and this would make their 400 and 600 range complete (100-400, 400 2.8 and 400 4.5 likewise 180-600, 600 f4 and 600 5.6


“
I agree with your list
Add a 200 f2 and 500 f4 perhaps with integral TC
100(120?)-300 f2.8 TC14
1200 f8 PF

A high end 300-600 f4.8S TC14 (perhaps as a faster heavier f4.5S) would be very versatile for wildlife photography including video

A Z 600 PF would likely cause a feeding frenzy! Scaling the 800 f6.3 PF design 127mm window) equals a 600 f4.8S PF. Its release will sell more cameras and lenses....

105 f1.8S is another obvious gap, considering Nikon history of this focal length.

The Fast Ultrawide Prime niche is most certainly a big gap, especially considering how its design can leverage Z mount architecture.

It's going to be interesting to see how the new 70-180 f2.8 performs for close ups... So in the approx role of the 70-180 AFD Micro Nikkor.

We will maybe see a surprise or more in new Z Nikkors before the end of the current financial year - April 2024. (Also see Thom Hogan's suggestions in March). Both the following sources suggest Nikon has more products planned for release this year:”

 

[Nimi]

@EricBowles yah, i've always thought that based on the ongoing narrative about the relative size of the companies. if canon's ilc business wasn't viable, canon (the overall company) isn't likely to say to that division, that's fine, you can just operate at a loss.

Yeah in fact it’d be the opposite..if they know a division isn’t doing all that well, they may very well shut it down and re-purpose their investments where more money is.

Which is exactly what Olympus did to their camera business. They weren't making money and they couldn't keep up with the R&D requirement so they dumped it.

 

[Photographer_Bill]

The relative size of Nikon compared to Canon or Sony makes a lot less difference than you might think. For Nikon, cameras and lenses are a core business. For Canon, they are relatively important and there is good disclosure on performance to the financial community and investors. For Sony, there is virtually no disclosure positively or negatively - it's not big enough to matter.

All of these companies allocate capital and other resources based on profitability. It's all about return on equity and growth in return on equity. It needs to not only be profitable - it needs to cover the cost of the equity and associated investments in the business. If it fails to provide as good a return as other business units, capital is diverted to the places that are growing profitably and faster.

Sony is a very large company - but not because of cameras or lenses. In Sony's case, the big drivers are the gaming and entertainment businesses. ILC cameras are a small part of the Entertainment Segment - a segment that has declining profits due to the television business and the pressures of high R&D. The somewhat related Image Sensor segment is primarily focused on phones and automobiles - and ILC camera sensors from all companies are just a small part of the business. So in this case, the ILC camera business is at risk of reduced R&D because of the impact from the much larger television business slowing. Note that Sony is also in the smartphone business. That business has gone from a 9% market share in 2007 and a peak sales of 39 million units in 2014 - to just 2.9 million units and a market share under 1% in 2021. Being big is not necessarily a positive. At Sony, ILC cameras are expected to produce profits that can support higher growth businesses (Page 20 of the FY 2022 Supplemental information). None of this reflects negatively about Sony ILC cameras - just the reality that being part of a big company is not necessarily a positive.

It's interesting what you bring up about Nikon's delay with mirrorless but quick catchup. It reminds me in the early DSLR days when Nikon was committed to DX sensors and thought FX sensors were no longer necessary, but then Canon was starting to run away with the market share of full frame bodies and Nikon finally woke up with the D3 and ensuing D700 and very quickly got back "into the game". They may not be the best with the crystal ball but once they see the industry turning they quickly course correct and put out amazing products. I do not consider myself a brand loyalist, but I have stayed with Nikon for the better part of the past 15 years and have been quite happy with the tools they've given photographers.

 

[groob]

The relative size of Nikon compared to Canon or Sony makes a lot less difference than you might think. For Nikon, cameras and lenses are a core business. For Canon, they are relatively important and there is good disclosure on performance to the financial community and investors. For Sony, there is virtually no disclosure positively or negatively - it's not big enough to matter.

All of these companies allocate capital and other resources based on profitability. It's all about return on equity and growth in return on equity. It needs to not only be profitable - it needs to cover the cost of the equity and associated investments in the business. If it fails to provide as good a return as other business units, capital is diverted to the places that are growing profitably and faster.

Sony is a very large company - but not because of cameras or lenses. In Sony's case, the big drivers are the gaming and entertainment businesses. ILC cameras are a small part of the Entertainment Segment - a segment that has declining profits due to the television business and the pressures of high R&D. The somewhat related Image Sensor segment is primarily focused on phones and automobiles - and ILC camera sensors from all companies are just a small part of the business. So in this case, the ILC camera business is at risk of reduced R&D because of the impact from the much larger television business slowing. Note that Sony is also in the smartphone business. That business has gone from a 9% market share in 2007 and a peak sales of 39 million units in 2014 - to just 2.9 million units and a market share under 1% in 2021. Being big is not necessarily a positive. At Sony, ILC cameras are expected to produce profits that can support higher growth businesses (Page 20 of the FY 2022 Supplemental information). None of this reflects negatively about Sony ILC cameras - just the reality that being part of a big company is not necessarily a positive.

Precisely, I actually think it’s quite telling that Sony hasn’t introduced any innovative lenses (unless I’ve missed something), and there are no concrete rumors that interesting stuff is on the horizon. At its heart, Sony is a technology company that has a dominant position when it comes to sensors.

My reading of the tea leaves is that Sony is telegraphing to the industry that it will innovate and share technology across its own platforms to push sensor and camera performance (e.g., the AI-augmented AF system in the A7RV) because that is what Sony is good at. But there’s not much evidence that Sony is interested in the photography world beyond refinement of sensor technology. If it were, it would release lenses that were more than just (excellent) retreads that have been made by CaNikon for decades. Indeed, my fear for a while now is that Sony will just abandon its photographic offerings if/when its margins get too small. Given the shrinking ILC market, and the push by CanNikon into mirrorless, that day is not too hard to see if one squints.

Of course, the counterpoint is that Sony has invested in and released excellent optics. True, but again, unless I’ve missed it, those optics are just the tried and true formula that CaNikon have proven for decades that people want and need. So, an interesting question for those who are considering Sony: why does Sony makes such excellent and interesting cameras but not optics? And how confident are you that Sony will stay in the ILC market long term? As Eric said, if your interest lies in interesting photography gear, being a large company does not necessarily help.

 

[Nimi]

Precisely, I actually think it’s quite telling that Sony hasn’t introduced any innovative lenses (unless I’ve missed something), and there are no concrete rumors that interesting stuff is on the horizon. At its heart, Sony is a technology company that has a dominant position when it comes to sensors.

My reading of the tea leaves is that Sony is telegraphing to the industry that it will innovate and share technology across its own platforms to push sensor and camera performance (e.g., the AI-augmented AF system in the A7RV) because that is what Sony is good at. But there’s not much evidence that Sony is interested in the photography world beyond refinement of sensor technology. If it were, it would release lenses that were more than just (excellent) retreads that have been made by CaNikon for decades. Indeed, my fear for a while now is that Sony will just abandon its photographic offerings if/when its margins get too small. Given the shrinking ILC market, and the push by CanNikon into mirrorless, that day is not too hard to see if one squints.

Of course, the counterpoint is that Sony has invested in and released excellent optics. True, but again, unless I’ve missed it, those optics are just the tried and true formula that CaNikon have proven for decades that people want and need. So, an interesting question for those who are considering Sony: why does Sony makes such excellent and interesting cameras but not optics? And how confident are you that Sony will stay in the ILC market long term? As Eric said, if your interest lies in interesting photography gear, being a large company does not necessarily help.

That's not exactly the case. Some of the most innovative cinema cameras have recently come up from Sony, both entry level (ZV and FX30) and highest-end (Venice). The Venice, for example is going up against a camera twice its cost and actually winning; Top Gun was filmed on one.

Optics aren't that important in cine since the industry relies of 3rd party lenses much more. So the Venice, for example comes in a PL mount.

 

[groob]

That's not exactly the case. Some of the most innovative cinema cameras have recently come up from Sony, both entry level (ZV and FX30) and highest-end (Venice). The Venice, for example is going up against a camera twice its cost and actually winning; Top Gun was filmed on one.

Optics aren't that important in cine since the industry relies of 3rd party lenses much more. So the Venice, for example comes in a PL mount.

That actually proves my point exactly. I said that Sony makes very interesting and high performing cameras. I also said that I doubt Sony is all that committed to the photography market.

You just pointed to interesting and innovative CINEMATIC cameras. Doesn’t that further what I just said?

 

[Nimi]

That actually proves my point exactly. I said that Sony makes very interesting and high performing cameras. I also said that I doubt Sony is all that committed to the photography market.

You just pointed to interesting and innovative CINEMATIC cameras. Doesn’t that further what I just said?

It does if "camera" is synonymous with "still."
Photography is a fraction of cinematography with almost nil commercial applications, so I can't blame Sony for focusing on video. Nikon simply does not do anything in the field. Canon has some excellent cameras and lenses. Fuji makes some of the most sought-after cine lenses.

I think we agree.

 

[groob]

It does if "camera" is synonymous with "still."
Photography is a fraction of cinematography with almost nil commercial applications, so I can't blame Sony for focusing on video. Nikon simply does not do anything in the field. Canon has some excellent cameras and lenses. Fuji makes some of the most sought-after cine lenses.

I think we agree.

I see. Yes, I’ve been talking about still cameras. As I understand it, the cinema market is larger and more profitable than the still image market, which is another reason Sony seems likely to lose focus on the still market.

 

[Nimi]

I see. Yes, I’ve been talking about still cameras. As I understand it, the cinema market is larger and more profitable than the still image market, which is another reason Sony seems likely to lose focus on the still market.

Hard to measure, but industry analysts peg photography at $6 and videography at $30 billion.

 

[EricBowles]

I see. Yes, I’ve been talking about still cameras. As I understand it, the cinema market is larger and more profitable than the still image market, which is another reason Sony seems likely to lose focus on the still market.

They cinema video is in a different business segment. It's not in the segment with ILC cameras, televisions, etc. There may be a little technology overlap, but it's unimportant to both businesses.

The people running the business with ILC cameras, televisions, etc. are focused on selling products to consumers. They are certainly not going to lose focus. But they do face challenges to profitability and have had to make tough decisions. They view ILC cameras as a business that contributes profits to other higher growth areas.

 

[EricBowles]

Precisely, I actually think it’s quite telling that Sony hasn’t introduced any innovative lenses (unless I’ve missed something), and there are no concrete rumors that interesting stuff is on the horizon. At its heart, Sony is a technology company that has a dominant position when it comes to sensors.

My reading of the tea leaves is that Sony is telegraphing to the industry that it will innovate and share technology across its own platforms to push sensor and camera performance (e.g., the AI-augmented AF system in the A7RV) because that is what Sony is good at. But there’s not much evidence that Sony is interested in the photography world beyond refinement of sensor technology. If it were, it would release lenses that were more than just (excellent) retreads that have been made by CaNikon for decades. Indeed, my fear for a while now is that Sony will just abandon its photographic offerings if/when its margins get too small. Given the shrinking ILC market, and the push by CanNikon into mirrorless, that day is not too hard to see if one squints.

Of course, the counterpoint is that Sony has invested in and released excellent optics. True, but again, unless I’ve missed it, those optics are just the tried and true formula that CaNikon have proven for decades that people want and need. So, an interesting question for those who are considering Sony: why does Sony makes such excellent and interesting cameras but not optics? And how confident are you that Sony will stay in the ILC market long term? As Eric said, if your interest lies in interesting photography gear, being a large company does not necessarily help.

Sony's sensor business has a 70% market share - 95% of which is centered on low margin products for phones and automotive. They also have larger sensors such as those used for cameras, and the margins are better there but volume is small. It's a nice, profitable niche but does not drive strategy for the high volume products. Photography is too small to significantly influence strategy in the Sensor segment.

 

[Nimi]

They cinema video is in a different business segment. It's not in the segment with ILC cameras, televisions, etc. There may be a little technology overlap, but it's unimportant to both businesses.

The people running the business with ILC cameras, televisions, etc. are focused on selling products to consumers. They are certainly not going to lose focus. But they do face challenges to profitability and have had to make tough decisions. They view ILC cameras as a business that contributes profits to other higher growth areas.

I think it's more integrated than that. For example, the FX3 (cinema line) is essentially an A7SIII (ILC) in a different body. The new ZV-E1 is listed under the ILC lineup, but is in effect a vlogging video camera that uses that same 4k FF sensor. But I think we all agree, regardless of how they are organized, that as good as their still cameras are, they are not as core to the company as a whole as the video camera business is which ties directly into their entertainment segment.

 

[groob]

They cinema video is in a different business segment. It's not in the segment with ILC cameras, televisions, etc. There may be a little technology overlap, but it's unimportant to both businesses.

The people running the business with ILC cameras, televisions, etc. are focused on selling products to consumers. They are certainly not going to lose focus. But they do face challenges to profitability and have had to make tough decisions. They view ILC cameras as a business that contributes profits to other higher growth areas.

That’s interesting. But just tbc, I wasn’t suggesting that Sony is going to lose focus on profitability in general. I am only suggesting that it might not stay with the still imaging business for the long haul, particularly if the margins shrink.

 

[theEntreriCode]

The line up has shaped up quite nicely. I am surprised that the 1.4 Primes have been ignored completely. There is certainly a case, and a price point between the 1.8 and 1.2s for them to service. A 105 F1.8/1.4 is definitely in the offing. It is good to see a faster 35 and 135 mm coming out.

I would love to see some tilt shifts making it into the system. I can certainly see a 24 mm and some sort of macro adding a lot of value to the system in general.

On the tele front, a replacement for the 120-300 and the 180-400 TC should be on the cards, both sports and wildlife photographers/videographers could make very good use of such lenses. I'm sure they will come.
Given the weight and performance of the Z400 F4.5, I do not see Nikon looking at PF lenses shorter than 600 mm, maybe not even then. They could easily release a 600 F5.6 or 6.3 with a traditional design at half the weight and price of the 600 F4TC, but I doubt we will see anything like this for a while. I personally would love to see a 500F4 TC get manufactured, but it looks like Nikon would rather I buy the 400TC instead and not get my hopes up. Maybe they are happy for customers to cross shop between the F500FL and the Z400 4.5

The simple truth of the matter is, short of the 105 and a fast tele zoom or two, there really is not much left for Nikon to release to complete the line up. Anything else is a wish and want for niche products that may or may not be profitable for the company.

 

[fcotterill]

Nikon possibly has another telephoto planned. The 600 f4S TC14 was the most recent release end 2022

"....But there's a lot that can happen in 12 months...."

 

[fcotterill]

Well, Nikon released their first Nikon 1 CX Mirrorless camera - the V1 - in 2011. This was perhaps to complement the popularity of their popular Point&Shoot Coolpix models (since the late 1990s). For several years, several of the features in the Nikon 1 broke new ground: The V1 did 10 fps with full AF in late 2011, and the V3 (in 2014) did 20 fps....

In summary: "That focus performance was unmatched by any mirrorless camera at the time, and was near DSLR levels. Even today, the Nikon 1 autofocus system is still at or near the top of the heap in mirrorless, despite many advances by competitors and few by Nikon. Moreover, the Nikon 1 products can manage focus at speeds up to 20 fps. The Nikon 1 was that far ahead of its time, basically."

A System Guide to Nikon 1 (CX) | Sans Mirror | Thom Hogan

A System Guide to the Nikon 1 mirrorless cameras, lenses, and accessories

www.sansmirror.com

Perhaps it's more than coincidence that the lens mount has a 17mm throat depth (Z is 16mm) and it is a gaping 40mm dia (Z is 55mm): dwarfing the tiny 1" CX sensor. I've read somewhere some years ago that Nikon patented System 1 optics with designs curiously similar to some recent Z designs with big rear elements to leverage the Nikon 1 mount architecture. As we know, Nikon shut down the N1 production in 2018, as they launched the Z System. And the latter obviously was not a rushed planning, being thought out very carefully.

Nikon's R&D invested in their N1 MILC system was most definitely not wasted. But in those years, Nikon was still earning off the considerable corporate investments embedded in its sizeable DSLR business: factory operations they have restructured since, which as we know are prioritizing their FX mirrorless. Thom Hogan pointed out Nikon's failings with their N1 system, hopefully they learned from this and don't forget....

It's interesting what you bring up about Nikon's delay with mirrorless but quick catchup. It reminds me in the early DSLR days when Nikon was committed to DX sensors and thought FX sensors were no longer necessary, but then Canon was starting to run away with the market share of full frame bodies and Nikon finally woke up with the D3 and ensuing D700 and very quickly got back "into the game". They may not be the best with the crystal ball but once they see the industry turning they quickly course correct and put out amazing products. I do not consider myself a brand loyalist, but I have stayed with Nikon for the better part of the past 15 years and have been quite happy with the tools they've given photographers.

 

[Photographer_Bill]

Well, Nikon released their first Nikon 1 CX Mirrorless camera - the V1 - in 2011. This was perhaps to complement the popularity of their popular Point&Shoot Coolpix models (since the late 1990s). For several years, several of the features in the Nikon 1 broke new ground: The V1 did 10 fps with full AF in late 2011, and the V3 (in 2014) did 20 fps....

In summary: "That focus performance was unmatched by any mirrorless camera at the time, and was near DSLR levels. Even today, the Nikon 1 autofocus system is still at or near the top of the heap in mirrorless, despite many advances by competitors and few by Nikon. Moreover, the Nikon 1 products can manage focus at speeds up to 20 fps. The Nikon 1 was that far ahead of its time, basically."

A System Guide to Nikon 1 (CX) | Sans Mirror | Thom Hogan

A System Guide to the Nikon 1 mirrorless cameras, lenses, and accessories

www.sansmirror.com

Perhaps it's more than coincidence that the lens mount has a 17mm throat depth (Z is 16mm) and it is a gaping 40mm dia (Z is 55mm): dwarfing the tiny 1" CX sensor. I've read somewhere some years ago that Nikon patented System 1 optics with designs curiously similar to some recent Z designs with big rear elements to leverage the Nikon 1 mount architecture. As we know, Nikon shut down the N1 production in 2018, as they launched the Z System. And the latter obviously was not a rushed planning, being thought out very carefully.

Nikon's R&D invested in their N1 MILC system was most definitely not wasted. But in those years, Nikon was still earning off the considerable corporate investments embedded in its sizeable DSLR business: factory operations they have restructured since, which as we know are prioritizing their FX mirrorless. Thom Hogan pointed out Nikon's failings with their N1 system, hopefully they learned from this and don't forget....

Funny you bring that update about the Nikon 1 system, I bought a couple for my kids back in the day and thought they were very impressive for what they offered in such a small package. So yes, Nikon did some pioneer effort in early MILC but just not with what we think of as full size camera which obviously came in the form of the Z series. I appreciate the reminder and journey down memory lane.

 

[Photographer_Bill]

On the tele front, a replacement for the 120-300 and the 180-400 TC should be on the cards, both sports and wildlife photographers/videographers could make very good use of such lenses. I'm sure they will come.

I'd like to see a fast zoom telephoto like these come into the Z lineup.

 

[Photographer_Bill]

I'd like to see a fast zoom telephoto like these come into the Z lineup.

But would like to see the 120-300 f/2.8 SR go through a weight loss program for Z. Canon has their RF 100-300 f/2.8 L that is 1.5 lbs lighter than the Nikon SR so maybe Nikon can figure out how to increase a bit of magnification while reducing some weight for more hand holdable convenience, that being said I love the idea of the built in TC even though it adds some weight, I wouldn't mind seeing a Nikon Z 100-300 f/2.8 TC S lens that offers built in 140-420 f/4 performance, I'd like to see more fast zooms come with this option.