Not particularly impressed with Nikon's announcements today. They look like they're aimed at weaning existing Nikon shooters off SLR and onto mirrorless, as opposed to attracting outsiders to the new system. Individually, each item looks decent enough (with certain weaknesses in the body specs), but, taken as a whole, they don't provide a compelling reason for those not already shooting Nikon to move to the Z-mount, nor a particularly strong reason for those not heavily invested in F-mount to move to Z-mount rather than moving to Sony, or waiting to see what Canon has to offer.
With the bodies themselves:
- One card slot? What were they thinking? This point alone makes the Z6 and Z7 less than worthy of being considered top-tier systems and unsuitable for a lot of professional use. It doesn't matter if the risk of card failure is one in a million - if that one is you, and you're shooting a must-capture event that can't (or won't) be repeated, you'd better have a backup. But, due to other factors, it probably hurts Nikon less than it otherwise could have. In truth, the Z6 and Z7 could not have been the foundation of a pro-focused system, almost regardless of their specs. More on that later.
- The listed battery life is around half that of the A7r3/A9. Any A7r/A7r2/A7s/A7s2 user will know how annoying it was to have to carry a whole bag of batteries around, even if each one wasn't very big.
- The Z7 is essentially a mirrorless D850, or A7r3 clone. But it comes a year later than the D850 and A7r3, without the A7r3's lens options or the D850's performance with F-mount lenses - it looks to be a case of 'me too' rather than an attractive product in its own right. If you already own lots of F-mount lenses, why not just get a D850? If you don't, what reason is there to get the Z7 rather than the A7r3?
- The Z6 looks to be an updated D750 and seems more interesting than the Z7. At the right price (e.g. less than the A7III, as an introductory price due to the new mount and lack of lens options) it could be very attractive to buyers looking to move into full frame for the first time, locking them into the system with lens purchases as more lenses are released. But I doubt Nikon will market it that way.
- Again, one card slot???
With the system:
- The initial lens releases pretty much tie it to hobbyist use. A 24-70/4 and two relatively-slow primes might be attractive as a travel photography starter kit, and the upcoming 58/0.95 might win over hipsters and the artsy types, but simply won't cut it as a pro kit. If they had released a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 as their first two lenses, with a 16-35/2.8 or 14-24/2.8 coming soon after, they would have had a very solid starter kit to encourage pros to move into the new system. Sure, you can use F-mount lenses with an adapter (with whatever AF and alignment issues that introduces), but that still leaves pros with no incentive to move to Z-mount - those who have F-mount lenses can just use them on a D5 or D850 without an adapter and get better performance, while Sony already has a full ecosystem of bodies and lenses, ready for pro use, for those who don't already have a bag full of F-mount lenses. Ironically, this is why the single card slot probably hurts them less than it could have - the single card slot makes the cameras less viable for a pro setup, but the lack of core lenses makes it less-than-attractive as a pro system anyway, at least until the next generation (which may come sooner rather than later).
- The lens roadmap is a good start, providing some certainty for those looking to move into the new system, but is likely too slow. The 14-24/24-70/70-200 f/2.8 trinity won't be ready until the next generation of Nikon is almost ready for release, and the next generation of Sony is likely to have already been released. There won't be any long telephotos in time for the Tokyo Olympics.
- The closed mount will only make uptake of the system slower, due to fewer lenses being available and possible compatibility issues (a bit like earlier-generation Sigmas on Canon cameras).
Overall, I'm not sure what Nikon has achieved here. They either needed to smash it out of the park for the pros with a top-tier, full-featured body (with two card slots) and a lens lineup ready for pro use (even if it's just two or three core fast zooms) at time of launch, or to try to undercut the A7III with a camera designed for new users to full-frame, locking them into the Nikon framework and Z-mount while building up their lineup for pro use later. They haven't really done either - instead, they seem to have done something in between.
Assuming that people are logical and go for whichever system will benefit them most and give them the most bang for buck, rather than having an unhealthy attraction to brand name and marketing alone, this is how it stands at the moment:
If you already own a lot of high-end F-mount lenses - stick with the D850 or D5. Why would you take a bunch of good lenses that work perfectly well on Nikon SLRs and put them on a system that's more expensive (compared with the D850), where you have to use an adapter, with less battery life, with a single card slot, and where they probably wont' autofocus as well? It's not as if D850s and D5s are going to disappear off the shelf tomorrow. This lot aren't moving to mirrorless with this generation, although they will likely gradually leak across as fewer and fewer F-mount lenses and bodies get released.
If you own one or two high-end F-mount lenses - are you happy with SLR, or do you have a particular reason to go for mirrorless? If SLR is serving you well, why not stick with it for another generation or so, until both bodies and lenses become outdated? If you particularly want to move to mirrorless (for whatever reason), are you so wedded to Nikon that you must move to Z-mount and use your existing lenses with an adapter and reduced performance, or would you be better off selling your current lenses and moving to E-mount and the equivalent lenes there (or waiting another two years for Nikon to release suitable native Z-mount lenses)? In this category, they're all acceptable options.
If you shoot Canon full-frame - you really have no reason to move to Z-mount at the moment. Maybe in a generation's time, as your lenses age out and Z-mount becomes more viable, with more lens options, and it becomes clearer where Nikon and Canon are going with mirrorless, but, for now, sticking with Canon SLR seems like the most sensible choice if you're in no hurry to move, or moving to Sony (with good support for Canon lenses via Metabones adapters, and lots of native lens choices) if you particularly want to move to mirrorless or aren't happy with Canon's body and sensor offerings.
If you don't currently shoot full-frame at all - the Z6, with some compact lenses, might be interesting if the price is right, if you don't need the bigger/faster/longer lenses right away and are prepared to build up a lens collection over time. Otherwise, there's a whole Sony ecosystem out there, with lenses available for any budget and almost any shooting style.
So, at present, it looks much more interesting for existing Nikon users looking for a second, compact body than for anyone not already using the Nikon system. This will likely change over time, as the Z-mount lineup grows, but, right now, it doesn't look like it will challenge E-mount for another generation or so, and will only grow market share by slowly weaning F-mount users away from SLR, rather than pulling people away from E-mount.
It will be interesting to see what Canon does. If they release a similarly-performing full-frame mirrorless body, with dual card slots and 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 lenses at the outset, Z mount will struggle.
