tl;dr answer: no, not for most of us.
We're at an interesting juncture for Nikon: the Z9 generation lineup is nearly complete (Z30II, ZfcII, Z7III are the only models that could be said to be missing). Nikon is nothing if not predictable: introduce new technology high on approximately four year boundaries, deploy into other lower models over time. In film, it was eight year boundaries, but with digital we've had a pretty clear four year cycle, really only distorted a bit by unplanned events (e.g earthquake/tsunami, pandemic).
The Z9 was announced in late 2021, so it's natural that the Nikon crowd thinks that maybe a replacement is right around the corner.
I have two problems with that.
My first, of course, is that the Z9 itself was left to languish in features and function as the lower models introduced new things or improved Z9 functions. That a Z8 is now arguably a better camera than a Z9 (outside of body/battery/GPS) seems wrong to me. It's not that the Z9 isn't still selling, either. Dealers I talk to say they still regularly sell Z9's at pretty good rates for a top-end camera (which is never going to be the best seller).
If a Z9II is mostly firmware changes, then this is doing a disservice to Nikon's best customers, which is something you really don't want to do. As a pro who uses their camera hard, I want to know that I'm using the best product right up to the day where I submerge/drop/crush my current camera into oblivion. At which time I want to buy the best camera again (which today would be a Z8).
Which brings us to my second problem: if a Z9II is real hardware changes, what would those be that might truly appeal to me? Let's consider the known possibilities:
- Better EVF — The Z6III shows us what is possible there, and I'd definitely want that.
- Better Rear LCD — The ZR shows us what is possible there, and again, it's something I'd find useful.
- CFe 4.0 — Being able to truly use the 4.0 write speeds would have useful buffer impacts.
- New image sensor — Some will claim they want global shutter here, and it's a possibility given Nikon's recent patents on a dual shutter approach. The second most talked about gain would be more dynamic range, and that, too is possible using current dual/tri gain techniques. Finally, there's the question of how many pixels? Fewer? More? Same?
- EXPEED8 — Here's where the new technology tends to really live. Faster performance, better exposure, AI additions, and much more.
To those add UX improvements. In particular settings files/banks, but better menu structuring, additional/better help, and more viewfinder/LCD customizations.
I can come up with several variations for the Z9II, and this is where we'll get to the "is it necessary" question:
- Complete Z9 Overhaul — All the Z9 generation additions plus the UX improvements, as well as #1 through #5, above. That, my friends, would be a Z9II that makes waves. So much to market. Add in things like R3D video, and Nikon would simply have the top top camera again.
- Modest Z9 Overhaul — The Z9 generation additions and some UX changes, R3D video, and #1 and #2 in the above list. Frankly, I'd probably write "what took so long" as this isn't a huge engineering ask.
- Minimal Z9 Overhaul — Just the Z9 generation additions and perhaps some UX changes. Maybe #1 in the above list.
Okay, I think you can see where I'm going now: "Minimal" would be an insult to current Z9 owners if no Z9 firmware update addressed the missing bits. But it wouldn't appeal new purchases, because it doesn't add/change enough.
"Modest" doesn't do much better, as it only adds a bit more, none of which would likely be deemed essential to the current Z9-using crowd.
So it's really only the "Complete" change that is of interest. But here's the rub with that: I'm having a difficult time coming up with anything in #4 and #5 that is necessary to my work, or will clearly improve it. Perhaps some focus system improvements, but extended dynamic range as DRO would add isn't going to provide much useful change, and I'm leery of AI sneaking too much into the data capture. Sure, a global shutter might be useful in a few cases, though I'm not really having any issues with the current rolling shutter. Perhaps if I use flash more it would give me a broader shutter speed range to work with.
Personally, I'd rather that Nikon update the Z9 firmware and spend more time making sure that the post-Z9 generation has more "oomph" that is truly useful. I suspect that is mostly going to come in #4 and particularly #5, and those are expensive parts that need to be 100% right. The fact that Nikon hasn't asked me (or any other Z9-using pro I know) about things we'd value in a next generation worries me. It's quite possible to engineer changes and improvements that don't resonate with users, and remember, any Z9II really has to set the stage for all Z-system users for the next four years or more. Engineering for engineering sake doesn't sell cameras.
So, yes, I'm a bit pessimistic about exactly what a Z9II might be and how it might help me. The good news, however, is that I'm always pessimistic, and Nikon has managed to surprise me about 50% of the time ;~). Let's hope this is one of those times.
-----------
Bonus: I briefly mentioned flash. Photos are made great by proper composition, excellent technique, and control of light. Composition can be helped in a camera by UX (simple examples: horizon lines, grid lines). Technique is where most of a camera's design is centered these days (particularly exposure and focus). However, it seems that Nikon's forgotten about light. We haven't had any changes or additions to flash capabilities since the DSLR days—okay, technically we've regressed some—and finding a Speedlight in stock currently seems to be only SB-700 (outdated) and SB-5000. The latter is only in stock probably because everyone is buying third-party flashes these days.
Light is one of the places that a disconnect between Tokyo-centric engineering and photographers is most visible. Every pro photographer I know is controlling, adding, and modifying light. None of the currently available cameras really help much with that any more, so what I see more than anything else is "manual control of light via trial and error."
A camera is a tool that lets us photographers adjust and balance all the things we need to do to get our desired image (or raw capture). Cameras are currently out-of-balance.
Meanwhile, the "just add video" craze is at its height and about to hit a brick wall. That brick wall is post production. Way back in the late 70's and early 80's I had a (very big) machine that did just what I needed to do for fast turn broadcast quality work. AB roll. Broadcast grading. Voiceover. Titling. Which camera company has produced software that does that? Where do they end up pointing you when you need it? Brick wall (actually: Learning Cliff).
