I just tried to post a response on the quite lengthy thread "Thoughts on Nikon DX" and was turned away due to the thread being closed. But, I wanted to respond to the following comment by sportyaccordy. Hope I'm not violating a rule I'm not aware of. Don't ban me. Just tell me how to do it differently, please.
"If the Z50 is just a slightly smaller Z5, then yes a DX sensor in a Z6 style body would be meaningfully different. More weathersealing, better balance + stronger mount for longer lenses, more heat capacity to cool for video and high FPS stills.
Heck just the fact that Nikon Z is the only system without even some semblence of this kind of camera is enough justification to make it."
I'm not interested in a Z50 size body, but the Z5-6 larger size for better handling.
Also, the slightly larger body will allow for some of the features that we would want in a Z70-90. I'm in agreement with sportyaccordy and would hope that Nikon gets to work on a higher end DX sometime before the end times. ;-)
Quoting this post, but hoping to keep the context of the whole thread that most believe that with the Z8 we don't even need a D500 mirrorless replacement.
For stills, I can see many people's point on this. Shooting the Z8 in DX mode gives very similar resolution to what the D500 is, and the Z8 is much more capable due to mirrorless specific features (subject recognition, no blackout, 60 fps, etc). I do think the counter-arguments to this are also rather valid, as Z8 DX mode is technically less resolution in a 6-7 year newer camera, both less resolution than competition, pretty much negligible size or weight savings in a mirrorless system, and it costs double (D500 - Z8). These are all stills focused arguments, which is fine because this is generally a stills-focused forum as a whole.
However, I think the argument about no high end DX breaks down the more you think about videography. I thought about this more, as my area's community chat posted the pre-release news of the A6700, and nearly every videographer went nuts and said they were going to order 1-2. 4k60p 4:2:2 10 bit oversampled from 6k seems like a fantastic option, especially in a $1400 camera as light and compact as the a6700. The camera also offers 4k120p, which may be a bit much for some, but others who wish to slow down footage it might be a great option. The 'lowest' tier body Nikon has that does 4k60p is a Z6ii, and 4k120 is a Z8/Z9. Not taking into account the perpetual sale the gen ii bodies are on, the small Sony camera is $600 cheaper than the Nikon one, has the larger battery that is higher capacity than even an ENEL15-C battery, and has advanced video features such as auto-framing.
I'm saying for videographers, you could get two a6700's, two $400 APS-C E-Mount lenses, two $150 SD cards, and two $50 tripods, all for the price of a body-only Z8. A whole two camera setup for 4k120p for the price of a single camera without memory card or lens. I think this the most glaring whole in the Nikon lineup, after the a6700 launch brought my attention to it.
Back to the quoted material, I think Nikon could certainly outshine an a6700 or FX-30, particularly because Nikon somehow can put internal RAW recordings in their cameras without consequence, and Expeed7 has shown it can keep up with 8k60. But in order to accomplish something like this in a DX body, I think Nikon may have to make a DX camera bigger than the Z50, but (hopefully) smaller than a Z8 simply for heat dissipation. I think making a camera as capable as it needs to be for high-end video would make it more than capable for high performance stills shooting as a consequence, rather than the primary intention.
This doesn't change my initial desire for a high performance DX camera that's easy to travel with. Instead, perhaps a DX camera with amazing video features, perhaps even auto-capture, is the next Nikon DX camera to be released. A camera aimed at the scores of videographers with 2-to-3 B-roll and C-roll cameras in their kit looking for an upgrade.
