Z9 owners were regularly treated to a “new camera” via the massive firmware releases that periodically added features and customizations. This near constant iteration resulted in a lot of positive press for Nikon, and established the Z9 as a critical pro tool with ever-expanding abilities.
Ironically, the last truly big Z9 update was from version 5.20 to 5.30 back in December of last year, and it did not address a number of things still missing in the Z9 that other Z9-generation cameras now have (apparently no Z9 user needs to get their images to the cloud, let alone a Nikon cloud). So all that positive feeling has now started to dissipate. Even more so because big firmware updates for other cameras haven’t been happening this year, either.
ZR users, for instance, have expected some of the key missing “cinema” elements to be addressed, but in the almost year since the camera appeared we’ve only gotten a few modest bug fixes. Bug fixes are always welcome, but just as with the seminal Z9, Nikon received a plethora of feedback that should have driven bigger firmware updates with the ZR, as well. We just haven’t really seen any reaction out of Tokyo (or is it Los Angeles?) yet.
This is a tricky territory to navigate (firmware updates, that is). On the one hand, if you save “big” features, functions, and performance changes up, the next full iteration of a model looks more impressive and has more things marketing can do some AI slop on in the eventual press release (Nikon’s press releases are now so formulaic, I can write them in my sleep, so an AI should be able to do this tout suite [hmm, another article idea]). On the other hand, serious users buying US$2000+ cameras aren’t buying every generation of a camera, but still want to feel like their brand is not neglecting them as tech keeps ticking onward.
As readers of my sites know, I’m an advocate of skipping generations. Don’t buy every generation of a camera (e.g. Z6, Z6II, and Z6III). Buy a product, use it through a complete update cycle and rejoin the buying with the subsequent later cycle (e.g. Z6, then Z6III). Cameras have been remarkably good for almost two decades now, so chasing incremental improvements really doesn’t pay off. You need a major platform change to get useful things.
Or you need a Big Firmware Update ;~).
Nikon has been hoist on their own petard at this point, though that tends to get misrepresented by many. Many felt the big firmware updates with the Z9 that uncovered a slew of new features and kept me busy updating my book was a sign that Nikon was listening to users and improving their product willingly.
Not exactly. As many of you may remember, I characterized it differently. The Z9 hardware was ready before the Z9 firmware was. Nikon shipped the initial camera with quite a few things that had been on the software critical path left out, then kept the firmware team executing until they had finally caught up with all the originally intended features. Coupled with that, they did listen better and incorporate some user suggestions along the way, including a couple of mine, but the primary reason we got big firmware updates was that the Z9 wasn’t finished when it was launched.
And again, the Z9 still isn’t finished. Nikon Imaging Cloud, Flexible Picture Controls, several Custom Settings, HEIF support, and a few more items have appeared on subsequent Z9-generation cameras but never made it to the progenitor. I’m sure a Z9II will pick up those things, and thus the slipped schedule of the Z9II may be the reason why we didn’t get a Z9 firmware 6.0 to incorporate them, as the Z9II was supposed to happen sooner.
Coupled with no new cameras in a year, the decline in big firmware updates means that Nikon hasn’t much to crow about on the camera front. Correct that: they’ve had nothing to squawk about. Connect that with price increases and Nikon PR has had a bad year. Is it a wonder that sales are down from forecasts?
Let me conclude by offering my thoughts on the coming months. I suspect that we will get another big firmware update this fall or winter, and specifically for the ZR. Nikon needs to shore up some things on their only current cinema camera if they want to hold serve. But other than that, I think it won’t be until the Z9II hits that we see anything else on the feature, function, customization, or performance side that is significant. We’ve just gone through a cycle of bug fix updates for most models, and nothing new appeared during that, so I believe Nikon is holding the Next Big Things for the Z9II launch at this point.
And of course you’re going to start peppering me with questions about when that will be. My best estimate has been and continues to be start-of-the-new-year plus or minus a month. In other words December 2026 through February 2027. However, as I’ve talked with manufacturers, suppliers, and others in the know recently, we’ve had multiple cameras postponed in 2026, not just from Nikon. The memory shortage is obviously not helping, but I’ve seen reports of several other components that are causing severe timing issues for the camera companies. So my Z9II expected date may slip further. Still, my current estimate is somewhere very near the year changeover; I haven’t yet heard anything that would change that prediction.
Here’s the real problem Nikon is facing. It’s not the lack of big firmware updates. It’s not delays in shipping new products. Nope, it’s really the fact that in long periods of quiet as we’re currently experiencing, the lack of any Nikon marketing messaging erodes confidence in the user base. Users wonder whether or not there’s a bigger issue with their brand of choice. Particularly when other companies that recently passed Nikon by—(cough) Sony—seem to be more active and moving forward with interesting products and messages.
I’ve written it before: Nikon is their own worst enemy, and that starts with product marketing and extends to all marketing and customer relations. The real issue is that there’s no consistency to Nikon’s messaging, and they often go into complete periods of message lapse that worries their best customers, and each time that happens it causes a few more to leak to other brands. Nikon did not really address this issue in the DSLR era, and now that’s extended well into the mirrorless era. It’s a fundamental flaw in their organization and management, and one that doesn’t play in the current world expectation of overcommunication.
—————
Bonus coverage: On a related note, it has now been almost three months since the development announcement for the 120-300mm f/2.8 TC VR S. The most likely user of this lens, the sports photographer, is just starting up their big fall schedules, and once you’re into that cycle, you’re not really looking to update or add to your gear, as your hands are full just going from game to game and delivering images to clients. Several Nikon-wielding sports pros have been asking me “when will this lens appear?” That’s a little tricky, in that development announcements tend to happen three to six months prior to actual launch. We’re just about to head into that window, so it could be any time in the next month or two. But again, the silence is not helping Nikon, and delivering in October would be a big miss in terms of when that lens would have been most appreciated and purchased. And if it slips past December delivery, it would be a huge miss, in that it would miss year-end tax write-offs for this same group. Put a different way, anything past December would reduce the urgency at which the sports professional might consider picking up this lens.
Things aren’t helped by the fact that Nikon doesn’t have a D500 update in the Z-mount (e.g. Z70 or Z90 speed-oriented camera). The 120-300mm (and 420mm with the teleconverter invoked) has very solid use cases for sports with FX bodies, but those users alone would limit the upside of that lens. 120-300mm (and 420mm with teleconverter) would be a solid wildlife lens on DX, expanding the sales market, as it would be effectively 180-450mm f/2.8 with a 630mm f/4 option.
So once again I have to take issue with the coordination of product planning between the camera group and the NIKKOR lens group: it’s like they’re not on the same page. The sum of the parts (cameras, lenses) should actually be greater than the sum of the parts when product management gets their job done correctly. I’ll note that Nikon missed their goal of a 2:1 attachment rate (two lenses sold for every camera sold), and is mired down just under the historical 1.5:1 rate. What I’m writing about here is one of the reasons for that result. Nikon’s lack of marketing messaging of any note is another. (I’m sure Nikon will blame it on component shortages, tariffs, and other things, but they’re wrong: the real issue lives in the corporate offices and could be seen by installing a mirror.)