I don't think there's enough appetite for a $2,500 crop body for the full frame companies to consider when they can make and sell more $2k~$2.6k full frame bodies (Z6, R6(ii), a7iii/iv) than Fujifilm sell their $2k crop bodies.
So why would Fujifilm still make those crop bodies? Because they have to. It's their X-mount flagship body, that's where all new and future tech development goes, and by default, it's the tip and also smallest part of the buying universe.
For the three full frame companies (Panasonic doesn't have aps-c), they will probably eye the bigger chunk of the crop market in the sub $1k R10/X-S10/a6400/Z50 and arguably the $1.5k R7/X-T5 segments.
Now do I expect Nikon to answer to the X-T5 and R7? Sure. That is also about the same, if not higher, technical capability as the D500 back in the day, for less money. That's going to be more or less sufficient if one is looking for a "pro crop" body. But if one wants is a bleeding edge crop body regardless of how capable the rest of the crop bodies are, then Fujifilm is the only one who will do that.
The last 2 paragraphs contradict. First, the Z50 is an entry level camera, incapable of filling the shoes of the D500, and in fact has the same 20.9 MP, as do all of the current Z DX cameras. I (and I'm sure
nearly all current D500 shooters) WILL NOT go for a camera that doesn't offer a substantial upgrade in pixel density.
Second, the X-T5 and R7 are absolutely competitors for a supposed Z90. More "Pro-level", definitely not Entry level. But, even with those two cameras, there is "more meat on that bone", and I feel THAT is the direction Nikon should take in order to retain the Nikon Pro DX crowd. As much as Fuji "has to", so does Nikon. They built the best DX DSLR of all time, and should "have to" follow it with the best Mirrorless DX Camera.
I'm old, but I'm not done buying cameras, and I would like the next one to be a Nikon ... but, Nikon will have to put something out there, that I want, or my next camera, at this juncture, will be a Fuji X-H2, or X-H2S.
For me, Nikon could offer a stratospheric full frame Z8 (say, with the Sony 61MP sensor), and I
might consider it, provided it has Pro-like functionality and speed, as well as state of the art, Auto Focus. Right now, the 45 MP Full Frame sensors (even the Z9), are less dense than my D500 ... so, they not an upgrade, in that respect.
I'm not giving up on Nikon yet, but I have no specific time-frame of when I will. I believe Nikon can make a Pro Z-DX, and, with my ideal specs ... a
balance between the two X-H2 models ... a 33MP BSI sensor, @ 20FPS, with Pro controls, sufficient buffer depth, and state of the art AF ... and sell it for $2250, or $2450 with the FTZII included, and I will be at the front of the line. All three Numbers are at the "Median" specification, including the price. My thinking is, it doesn't need to have a stacked sensor at those specs, (the Fuji 40MP BSI is not a stacked sensor).
Why do I think Nikon can get $2250?
A) my D300 was $1600, my D500 was $2000 ... that's a $400 jump, and I am proposing a $250 jump. That comes in under the X-H2S, which has 26 MP @ 40 FPS, and over the X-H2, which has 40MP @ 15FPS. The Nikon would have more MP than the X-H2S, but less speed, and more speed than the X-H2, but fewer MP.
B) It's a Nikon C) see B
Arnie
(this must mean that those two DX lenses should come soon also, otherwise there is no idea to release the Z90.
