Advice needed, buy a Z6ii now?

[javiair]

Your question has been asked about a billion times in just about every subject. I think Cavemen were asking that very same question about their rocks. “Rock shiny, should I wait for shinier rock?”

So what is your motivation for your purchase? Have you had your eye on the Z6II and thought now is the time to pull the trigger but now thinking to yourself will the price go down later? Or was is that it was at the price was right and purchase of opportunity?

You have already eliminated the Z6III option if its ever released because the price would have to be in the $2500 as Sony and Canon have done. And if/when its released I dont know if the Z6II will go down in price any further because its already well below $2500. You saved yourself $300 and be happy with that and dont look back. If it was about saving money, how much more do you think you would save waiting for the Z6III? Maybe another $100?

Be happy with your new camera. Sounds like you are keeping it so be happy and get rid of the buyers remorse. .. enjoy

 

[Aston Senna]

Your question has been asked about a billion times in just about every subject. I think Cavemen were asking that very same question about their rocks. “Rock shiny, should I wait for shinier rock?”

So what is your motivation for your purchase? Have you had your eye on the Z6II and thought now is the time to pull the trigger but now thinking to yourself will the price go down later? Or was is that it was at the price was right and purchase of opportunity?

You have already eliminated the Z6III option if its ever released because the price would have to be in the $2500 as Sony and Canon have done. And if/when its released I dont know if the Z6II will go down in price any further because its already well below $2500. You saved yourself $300 and be happy with that and dont look back. If it was about saving money, how much more do you think you would save waiting for the Z6III? Maybe another $100?

Be happy with your new camera. Sounds like you are keeping it so be happy and get rid of the buyers remorse. .. enjoy

why would it have to be the same $2,500 as sony and canon? Panasonic has hit hard at $2k with the new S5 II. Nikon already undercuts the R3 and a1 by $500 and $1,000. I really do think their power play moving forward is providing more affordable cameras than canon and sony. Shoot, even their recent lenses are well-priced. canon would for sure have charged $5k at least for a 400 4.5 pro quality lens. i think that's how nikon will stay relevant in the big picture. If they for some reason don't stick at a cheaper price point than canon or sony, and also move to $2,500, it better be damn good enough to really match them or exceed them spec to spec and real world abilities.

and it better still have vertical grip compatibility, too

 

[javiair]

why would it have to be the same $2,500 as sony and canon? Panasonic has hit hard at $2k with the new S5 II. Nikon already undercuts the R3 and a1 by $500 and $1,000. I really do think their power play moving forward is providing more affordable cameras than canon and sony. Shoot, even their recent lenses are well-priced. canon would for sure have charged $5k at least for a 400 4.5 pro quality lens. i think that's how nikon will stay relevant in the big picture. If they for some reason don't stick at a cheaper price point than canon or sony, and also move to $2,500, it better be damn good enough to really match them or exceed them spec to spec and real world abilities.

and it better still have vertical grip compatibility, too

Why would I think the price would be at $2500? Because you need to increase your profits. If your rivals are selling cameras at $2500 and you sell yours at $2000, you are losing $500 per unit over your competitors. To make up the difference, you are going to have to sell more units to make up $$ gap. Has the Nikon Z6 line ever outsold the Sony A7 line? Then you add in the Canon R6mkII and you think they can sell more units simply by pricing them $500 below their cost? I dont see that. How are the sales of the Z6ii going vs the Sony and Canon? Is Nikon out selling them at a torrid pace because of the lower asking price?

Now of course, Im just speculating but I dont see how they can pack more features or features equal to your rivals and charge $500 less. Maybe $100 less but not $500.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

why would it have to be the same $2,500 as sony and canon? Panasonic has hit hard at $2k with the new S5 II. Nikon already undercuts the R3 and a1 by $500 and $1,000. I really do think their power play moving forward is providing more affordable cameras than canon and sony. Shoot, even their recent lenses are well-priced. canon would for sure have charged $5k at least for a 400 4.5 pro quality lens. i think that's how nikon will stay relevant in the big picture. If they for some reason don't stick at a cheaper price point than canon or sony, and also move to $2,500, it better be damn good enough to really match them or exceed them spec to spec and real world abilities.

and it better still have vertical grip compatibility, too

Why would I think the price would be at $2500? Because you need to increase your profits. If your rivals are selling cameras at $2500 and you sell yours at $2000, you are losing $500 per unit over your competitors. To make up the difference, you are going to have to sell more units to make up $$ gap. Has the Nikon Z6 line ever outsold the Sony A7 line? Then you add in the Canon R6mkII and you think they can sell more units simply by pricing them $500 below their cost? I dont see that. How are the sales of the Z6ii going vs the Sony and Canon? Is Nikon out selling them at a torrid pace because of the lower asking price?

Now of course, Im just speculating but I dont see how they can pack more features or features equal to your rivals and charge $500 less. Maybe $100 less but not $500.

This isn't necessarily true. If Nikon's cost is say $1400 and they sell it for $2000, then they're making a $600 profit. Let's say Sony's costs are $2000, but they're selling it for $2500, they're only making $500. We would have to know the cost info to make that assertion. You're assumptions are that the costs are the same (or that Nikons are higher than Sony/Canon's) but we don't know that for sure.

 

[ericbowles]

why would it have to be the same $2,500 as sony and canon? Panasonic has hit hard at $2k with the new S5 II. Nikon already undercuts the R3 and a1 by $500 and $1,000. I really do think their power play moving forward is providing more affordable cameras than canon and sony. Shoot, even their recent lenses are well-priced. canon would for sure have charged $5k at least for a 400 4.5 pro quality lens. i think that's how nikon will stay relevant in the big picture. If they for some reason don't stick at a cheaper price point than canon or sony, and also move to $2,500, it better be damn good enough to really match them or exceed them spec to spec and real world abilities.

and it better still have vertical grip compatibility, too

Why would I think the price would be at $2500? Because you need to increase your profits. If your rivals are selling cameras at $2500 and you sell yours at $2000, you are losing $500 per unit over your competitors. To make up the difference, you are going to have to sell more units to make up $$ gap. Has the Nikon Z6 line ever outsold the Sony A7 line? Then you add in the Canon R6mkII and you think they can sell more units simply by pricing them $500 below their cost? I dont see that. How are the sales of the Z6ii going vs the Sony and Canon? Is Nikon out selling them at a torrid pace because of the lower asking price?

Now of course, Im just speculating but I dont see how they can pack more features or features equal to your rivals and charge $500 less. Maybe $100 less but not $500.

That's an interesting statement since no information about specific camera model volumes is public. Most cameras sold are entry level or consumer level.

Nikon has long maintained a $2000 price point. But the key is they sell 2 lenses per camera or more in the enthusiast segment, so their total revenue per camera sold is closer to $3500 and up. Gross profit margins have actually improved while maintaining the $2000/$3300 price point for their enthusiast cameras. The key was eliminating very low margin entry level cameras - products that only make a profit with higher volume than the market will absorb. The other key to margins is having a high level of re-use. The common body size and common components for the Z6/Z7 lines works to keep costs down. The same is true for lenses with common focus motors, VR units, etc.

 

[Digmen1]

In the past I was engaged much more with the camera market knowing the rumors and stuff, I’m not any more so when I started reading up (after I ordered) I find out that the Z6ii is likely to be replaced by a new version soon.

It will be replaced with a other camera. I think the announcement come in September and if you lucky you have it end December 2023, but the most users become it in April or May 2024. But if the replacement of the Z50, the replacement of the Z7II and a new Z DX camera come first it is possible you have to wait a year longer and you shoot your first photo with the Z6III in 2025.

I don't think that Nikon can afford to wait till 2024 for the Z6iii.

Unless they can release a meaningful AF firmware upgrade for the Z6ii, then I think sales of the Z6ii will slow down.

I would hate to be a Nikon engineer, going to work each day with your manager saying "have you finished that A/F algothrym yet?"

 

[Aston Senna]

If Panasonic can bring what they did to the S5 II for $2k, then so can nikon with a z6 iii or whatever it'll be called.

If they move upmarket to $2,500, they might keep nikon users moving up, but that is not them GROWING their company. First time buyers or people moving from crop to full frame for the first time will likely not choose the nikon if it costs the same as either the sony or canon. The way to draw NEW buyers and regain market share would be to offer a more affordable option that can still compete well. That's definitely the panasonic stance with the s5 ii, in that they're trying to grow their full frame share, give a real compelling reason for first time full framers to use their system, by way of price point.

eh what do we know. maybe nikon will get full of themselves and make a z6 ii replacement $3K and make it 'premium.' Or cancel it. and just be like, Z9 or bust to all prospective buyers.

 

[javiair]

This isn't necessarily true. If Nikon's cost is say $1400 and they sell it for $2000, then they're making a $600 profit. Let's say Sony's costs are $2000, but they're selling it for $2500, they're only making $500. We would have to know the cost info to make that assertion. You're assumptions are that the costs are the same (or that Nikons are higher than Sony/Canon's) but we don't know that for sure.

Of course what Im saying isnt necessarily true, but its also not impossible either. I really doubt that Nikons Cost per unit would be cheaper than Sony's because unlike Canon and Sony which make their own sensors and Nikon has to purchase the sensors from Sony. Of course none of us know the cost per unit either but if you have to buy sensors from another company, then that is going to increase the cost per unit and to keep the price down, sacrifices will be made.

Also, I would imagine every company has this issue and Nikon is no exception. What do we add to our products that makes it attractive without sacrificing our other tier products? Can Nikon add features to the Z6 to keep it competitive to others while not cutting into sales of the higher priced Z7?

By adding more features on the Z6 and pricing near or slightly below the Sony and Canon, then if you own a Z5, the Z6 would feel like a leap to a better camera. How many Z5 owners would think getting a Z6i or II would benefit them?

Now yes, the Panasonic was introduced at $2k and some people are pointing out that they put some nice tech for a good price. My counter argument is that the Panasonic was not built or priced to make people jump ship but to give people who dont want to own Nikon, Sony or Canon a good alternative. For me, its not worth jumping ship however it does look like its a mighty fine camera and Nikon will have to decide what is their next move.

So we shall see what happens.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

Of course none of us know the cost per unit either but if you have to buy sensors from another company, then that is going to increase the cost per unit

Not necessarily.

Setting up the fabrication line does not come cheap, Sony cameras buy there sensors from the same company as Nikon - and there is also huge demand from the smart phone market.

and to keep the price down, sacrifices will be made.

Perhaps you are excluding Nikon "getting one over Sony and Canon" by being first to introduce 45 MP in the D850 - using a sensor at least part made by Sony

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is similar to learning to play a piano - it takes practice to develop skill in either activity.

 

[fz750]

Now yes, the Panasonic was introduced at $2k and some people are pointing out that they put some nice tech for a good price. My counter argument is that the Panasonic was not built or priced to make people jump ship but to give people who dont want to own Nikon, Sony or Canon a good alternative.

or to "upgrade" from their (and Olympus's) MFT models perhaps..

Nice price though for the S5ii. The Z6ii was originally launched here in Switzerland at around 2.5K, but that's "normal" (annoyingly..), but would be nice if Nikon were a little more competitive outside the USA from the beginning..

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

Nice price though for the S5ii. The Z6ii was originally launched here in Switzerland at around 2.5K, but that's "normal" (annoyingly..), but would be nice if Nikon were a little more competitive outside the USA from the beginning..

Perhaps a little of the original topic – I find on at least 80% of photographic products there is little difference between USA and UK prices - once the different tax factor is Incorporated.

There are lots of upfront costs associated with introducing new products.

Generally manufacturers keep prices relatively high in the early part of the sales cycle to recoup their up front investment relatively quickly.

After the R and D cost has been recouped manufacturers do not need to factor this into the selling price - and in consequence street prices tend to fall.

 

[Joop_S]

This isn't necessarily true. If Nikon's cost is say $1400 and they sell it for $2000, then they're making a $600 profit. Let's say Sony's costs are $2000, but they're selling it for $2500, they're only making $500. We would have to know the cost info to make that assertion. You're assumptions are that the costs are the same (or that Nikons are higher than Sony/Canon's) but we don't know that for sure.

Of course what Im saying isnt necessarily true, but its also not impossible either. I really doubt that Nikons Cost per unit would be cheaper than Sony's because unlike Canon and Sony which make their own sensors and Nikon has to purchase the sensors from Sony.

The Sony Semiconductor Solutions Group is an Affiliated Companie from Sony. Sony and Nikon have both to buy sensors from that group, They are also close with Nikon and use Nikon Lithography Systems to produce the sensors.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

This isn't necessarily true. If Nikon's cost is say $1400 and they sell it for $2000, then they're making a $600 profit. Let's say Sony's costs are $2000, but they're selling it for $2500, they're only making $500. We would have to know the cost info to make that assertion. You're assumptions are that the costs are the same (or that Nikons are higher than Sony/Canon's) but we don't know that for sure.

Of course what Im saying isnt necessarily true, but its also not impossible either. I really doubt that Nikons Cost per unit would be cheaper than Sony's because unlike Canon and Sony which make their own sensors and Nikon has to purchase the sensors from Sony. Of course none of us know the cost per unit either but if you have to buy sensors from another company, then that is going to increase the cost per unit and to keep the price down, sacrifices will be made.

Also, I would imagine every company has this issue and Nikon is no exception. What do we add to our products that makes it attractive without sacrificing our other tier products? Can Nikon add features to the Z6 to keep it competitive to others while not cutting into sales of the higher priced Z7?

By adding more features on the Z6 and pricing near or slightly below the Sony and Canon, then if you own a Z5, the Z6 would feel like a leap to a better camera. How many Z5 owners would think getting a Z6i or II would benefit them?

Now yes, the Panasonic was introduced at $2k and some people are pointing out that they put some nice tech for a good price. My counter argument is that the Panasonic was not built or priced to make people jump ship but to give people who dont want to own Nikon, Sony or Canon a good alternative. For me, its not worth jumping ship however it does look like its a mighty fine camera and Nikon will have to decide what is their next move.

So we shall see what happens.

It may be that while NIkon does have to buy the sensors, the overall cost of the facility (as Leonard mentioned) may make costs a bit skewed, and it may in fact cost Sony more if you tally up everything (even though the sensor division is a separate unit, but as a whole -- combined financials -- their overall costs may be higher, and this is one advantage for Nikon from a cost standpoint -- since they aren't necessarily eating the whole cost of a fab facility).

Sony probably also has a larger engineering staff, larger sales staff, etc. But both are competing for the same target market and price point basically so if anything, it may be tougher for Sony than Nikon in some regards.

 

[Digmen1]

As a Z6ii user (disappointed with lack of firmware for the last year)

I would buy a Nikon Z5 or a Z6 second hand to get in to the Nikon Z full frame system.

Then when they release the Z6iii I would trade up to the NZ6iii.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

As a Z6ii user (disappointed with lack of firmware for the last year)

They did release an update back in Nov 1, 2022. It didn't really contain any performance updates, but then again, I don't think you will get any more performance updates from firmware. They'll just release a Z6 III.

I would buy a Nikon Z5 or a Z6 second hand to get in to the Nikon Z full frame system.

Then when they release the Z6iii I would trade up to the NZ6iii.

Personally, I think getting a Z5 would be worse than a Z6 II with no real recent performance updates.... (The OP already bought a Z6 II but is having second thoughts.)

--
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..

 

[LiteRider]

As I replied earlier I’m keeping the camera. I decided I’m not going to make myself crazy worrying about the possible loss of a few hundred euros. Waste of time.

What helps is that the camera exceeds my hopes and expectations. AF is way better than th e xt3 especially when set up as Omar Gonzalez (YouTube) shows. I enjoy the overall user interface and snap bridge functions like 80’s Mercedes compared to Fuji’s app which is as reliable as a 60’s Alfa Romeo. This alone saves me money from anger management counseling.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

As I replied earlier I’m keeping the camera. I decided I’m not going to make myself crazy worrying about the possible loss of a few hundred euros. Waste of time.
What helps is that the camera exceeds my hopes and expectations. AF is way better than th e xt3 especially when set up as Omar Gonzalez (YouTube) shows. I enjoy the overall user interface and snap bridge functions like 80’s Mercedes compared to Fuji’s app which is as reliable as a 60’s Alfa Romeo. This alone saves me money from anger management counseling.

Yes good choice. There will always be something better. For most people, the Z II's are enough, the Z III's will probably be better but is the extra cost difference going to be worth it? Probably not for most people.

The Z Ii's once you get used to them, are very capable cameras. perhaps not the fastest out there, or most feature rich but certainly suitable for most people's work.

 

[HyperCypher]

Nikon needs a revised AF system in its mid range cameras at least as much as Sony needed a better menu system not long ago ...

I'd wait.

 

[LiteRider]

Well,… I really wonder what an even better AF system will bring….me at least.

Ive yet to test it in sports, I will adapt my 70-300 and compare to my D7200 soon. But at this moment I can’t imagine it doing worse than th D7200, which is more than ample.

Yesterday a made a video, in really low light (even candle lit at one time) and eye AF worked remarkably. Can’t ask for much more….

I guess I’m saying that once minimal AF needs are met, others thing become more important. Things that (for me) Sony or Canon will never deliver.



But off course I’m not very objective anymore, I’m selling my choice to my self ;-)

 

[abc123brian]

Well,… I really wonder what an even better AF system will bring….me at least.

Ive yet to test it in sports, I will adapt my 70-300 and compare to my D7200 soon. But at this moment I can’t imagine it doing worse than th D7200, which is more than ample.

Yesterday a made a video, in really low light (even candle lit at one time) and eye AF worked remarkably. Can’t ask for much more….

I guess I’m saying that once minimal AF needs are met, others thing become more important. Things that (for me) Sony or Canon will never deliver.

But off course I’m not very objective anymore, I’m selling my choice to my self ;-)

As a former X-T3 user, I also found that my original Z6 performed better than the X-T3 which surprised me. The overlay in the EVF certainly made me feel the X-T3 would have performed better. As far as what could be improved in the AF system, for me, a big part that is missing the customization. You don’t have the ability to set different AF modes to custom buttons. Also, the interface used for tracking is terrible and when I have attempted to try tracking, it didn’t work reliably either. With the Z9, they have a completely different interface and a lot of customization and tracking actually works. Overall, with my Z7ii I have been fairly happy with the AF performance and eye AF but i really want the interface from the Z9. I know it won’t be to the same performance level, but being able to set it to default to wider area large with eye af and have wider area small on AF-On button for example could be convenient. On the Z9, I have four different AF modes set to custom buttons. It would also be nice to have updated subject detection and I think that’s what most of the people want more. I want it too, but the interface differences make it difficult to go between the different cameras.