What Are Your Thoughts on Nikon's Design Consistency?

I've been watching NR for the big model introduction announcement, hoping for the mythical Z equivalency of a D500 (or at least a Z70/90 type of APS-C camera). Well, heck, nothing yet. But, I happened upon a rather interesting article on CanonRumors that enticed me to read about design pros and cons faced by Canon users over the years.

https://www.canonrumors.com/a-look-into-canons-ergonomics/

Since I've always used a Nikon, except for a brief dalliance with Minolta, I cannot speak to Canon's design choices, but I know many of you use both major brands. I haven't seen an article reviewing the history of Nikon's design transition from FF to APS-C and DSLR to Mirrorless.

I am still awaiting Nikon's introduction of a more advanced APS-C model than the Z50. If it doesn't come soon, I guess I'll bite the bullet and try to pick up a Z6II or Zf and pair it with the Z 24-200. We'll see. At this point, I'm satisfied with my decision not to buy the Canon R7, although I almost made the switch. I really do find myself pretty much in the Nikon camp, but I do wish the company would continue to make an advanced APS-C body.

So, folks, what are your thoughts about how Nikon has dealt with design challenges going from DSLR to mirrorless? And, what are you finding in switching from, say, an introductory level Z5 up to the Z7? The Z8 and Z9 are somewhat different creatures and really cannot be compared to a Z5 design wise. Apples and oranges.

While I'm thinking about it, why continue with the Z5 rather than having the Z6 as the FF starter body?