Nikon releases a pair of firmware updates for its Z6, Z7 mirrorless cameras

Z50 has better eye AF than 6/7 .... so yes, it can be done :/

It tells you absolutely nothing and if you had a basic grasp of update nomenclature you’d realise a point release on most platforms is a bug fix. Now you may well be correct in your baseless assertions of underpowered hardware (care to share proof?) but this update proves nothing beyond what it is.

Ask yourself then why else would Nikon have limited this to a mere point release. They clearly know the Z’s lag far behind Sony’s C-AF & Eye-AF and they’ve just seen Canon release a v2 firmware that brings the R’s Eye-AF up to the A7Rm3’s performance. Are Nikon satisfied with Z’s AF ranking dead last among mirrorless bodies?

The fact that they didn’t prioritize more AF improvements for their firmware knowing full well that it is needed is what’s telling here. Either they couldn’t improve it or they don’t care.

Because different features of any operating system can have different development times and the different teams working on the system will lead to different realise schedules. You seem to think that it’s one homogeneous process and everything should be released at the same time which to be frank is ridiculous.

Your statements again and again are baseless suppositions without a shred of proof and are borderline conspiracy nut territory - you go on about underpowered processors hindering AF (proof?) and then make another ridiculous assumption that they don’t care.

All this from a simple firmware update...

This update makes some new Nikon lenses work properly with the camera. Plus it adds a feature and fixes a few bugs.

None of that dismisses the possibility of a larger project going on to improve AF performance or features.

As for why they wouldn’t wait for that hypothetical project to be ready: I’d argue people expect Nikon Z mount lenses to work properly on a Nikon Z body, more so than that they expect AF improvements. That’s exactly what they are delivering here. That plus an extra and regular bugfix work.

It is not telling at all. All it tells you is what you want to read into it. And your agenda is to read negativity in it and broadcast that in this forum. I am sure readers can see that for themselves.

Those are baseless assumptions especially as there is a larger update coming up.

@Mariano I don’t know about that. But given their situation, Nikon has to do something.

Starbased, Nikon has to do something because Canon is rumored to introduce mirrorless pro not to compete with Nikon but to compete with Sony.

There's always going to be those that vehemently defend Nikon even though facts smack them right in the face. Nikon gave Z owners a mediocre attempt at Eye AF and that's all you're going to get. Nikon will make those who want a better AF system to pay through the nose for another Z camera to be released next year. Meanwhile the Sony AF and Eye AF runs circles around the Z especially in AF-C mode. The many ways of customization of my a7RIV is only something Nikon can only dream of doing.

@Veloster75 There's always going to be those that won't stick to the facts but instead make predictions about what will happen, based more on their perceptions than on anything factual. You are no different in that regard than Mariano Pacifico or CaPi.

So unless you actually have something to bring to the table, I will ignore you and those others and just stick to facts.

@Velostar You forget that Sony made those wanting a workable AF pay through the nose for 4 cameras.

@starbase218 Ignore all you want while Nikon is left in the dust with "Updates" that basically ignore the big elephant in the room: AFC Tracking. @A Owens Oh and Nikon didn't make people pay through the nose for the first Z when it came out at $3300? $3300 for a camera body that at the time had no Eye AF and a subpar AFC mode. Come on A Owens at least sound like you know what you're talking about before responding with nonsense.

@velostar - I just rechecked my math. I still get 4 cameras costing more than one.

@A Owens. Go away. You don't know what you're talking about.

@Velostar - yes, looks like you have not response so that is all I can do. Bye.

These updates are just for show that Nikon is working on constant improvement and improvisation that they care about you and me and the rest of Nikon Z owners.

Remember Nikon Z owners ask for adapters? Nikon gave it to them free. Nikon will soon give out free battery grip with two batteries to boot just like X-H1 and drop the price.

Would you rather they don't fix any bugs?

Mariano Pacifico - sorry, but all that you are saying is a lie. These are not constant improvements, these are bugfixes, meaning Nikon staff has cut corners. Second, FTZ are not for free! Even now I can see listings for Z6 and Z7 that clearly have separate price for body only and FTZ included.

They don't care for me and you, they care about taking our money. Otherwise the would have allowed other manufacturers to provide us with lens choices and to have a better way of using Ai lenses.

Since you seem well informed - how is Nikon planning to lower the QXD cards price to SD levels?

"these are bugfixes, meaning Nikon staff has cut corners."

All software has bugs. Especially the more we move away from purely mechanical to more electronic devices. Nature of the beast. The severity matters - and on the consumer side how much money and effort a company puts in to fix them.

In theory, you are right.

The difference between theory and practice is that, on theory, there's no difference.

It's not only about how much money you put on chasing bugs, it's also how do you build your software not to allow these to go into production to begin with...

But bugs are part of life now. I just don't agree that having a firmware update that patches up stuff should be considered an improvement. Patch is a patch, period! It's not an improvement, it's just the thing that you promised to deliver, past due date.

"it's also how do you build your software not to allow these to go into production to begin with..."

You are asking for something impossible. Especially the more complex software becomes. And it's not a new thing - remember the y2k bug, that required loads and loads and loads of man hours to fix, just due to a simple oversight.

Firmware updates are a good thing. There used to be hardware that NEVER could be updated - and having a bug on those meant you had to either re-invest or stick with something suboptimal. Humans are humans and errors happen. Better to be able to fix them, then seeking ideological perfection.

#2 Software and hardware are different. Hardware is fixed once delivered, software can be improved upon, made more efficient afterwards. So again - why not use that ability? Yes, what Nikon did from a marketing perspective was crap - but alas. That's a different topic, still.

What was promised to be delivered from the beginning has nothing to do with whether a fix counts as an improvement or not. To improve something means that you make it better. A bug fix does make the firmware work better, otherwise the fix wasn't really necessary. So, a bug fix is an improvement of the actual product, even if it's not an improvement of the ideal product that you think should have been delivered.

So If I promised to deliver a good product, but give you a bad product and later issue a patch that will make the product in line with I have originally promised, according to your logic, I will now have improved my product, so it's not just good, it's better. As a customer, you should be delighted, no matter what the initial gap has caused you in terms of missed opportunities, time, and money?

You are correct - this is how the modern world works - everyone lies and fails to deliver what they have promised in the first place. The most recent example can be found in the Luminar 4 announcement several articles below this one.

"according to your logic, I will now have improved my product, so it's not just good, it's better."

Not according to my logic, but according to the actual meaning of the word "improve". Your claim that a bug fix is not an improvement amounts to saying that the bug fix doesn't make the camera work better, which is clearly false.
I'm not expressing an opinion on whether it's a good or bad thing to release a product that needs to be fixed later, I'm just arguing against your semantic point that fixing something can't be described as an improvement.

Yes, because in my point of view, a certain feature was not working until it was fixed. So, before that moment, the camera was actually worse that it should have been to begin with.

So while the previous updates, tuning up the AF, were real improvements, these are not. The current ones are just patching up the mess.

@sirkhann: will you post this to every technology product? Because thast the way it is for all of them.

@sirkhann Someone mentioned you have a Z camera. If so, did you ever encounter these bugs? Did you know they existed? If not, why do you say the firmware design is bad? And why do you play the part of the drama queen? If Sony fixes twice as many bugs in their next release, suddenly is their firmware design also bad?

You know nothing about their software development practices, test approach, test coverage, etc.

Btw, are you a software engineer in the first place, making these claims?

Several things, especially in comparison to a D500; no cross-type AF points, for example. The subject tracking interface is close to useless and doesn't couple tracking and AF like everyone else (3D-tracking didn't make it in, and Sony's subject tracking interface is both faster to operate and more intuitive, as is Olympus'). There's only a rough equivalent to 9-point dynamic AF, and it's a fairly wide area D-9. No Group AF. Eye/Face AF is pretty good, but it's not as bulletproof as the A7II/IV. So if you're shooting BIF with a D500, the Z 6 won't replace it.

Wow. It sounds like there is nothing technically wrong with the Z6 autofocus -- other than the controls to actually use the thing.

Why not just take the exact same controls from the D500 that everyone likes and put them on the Z6?

I Agree with that as I own both cameras and shoot BIF. Z6 doesn’t come close to the AF and Tracking of the D500. I wish it did because the image quality is so good.

It would seem that way, but if you compare NIkon's tracking interface to its competitors, you can see that subject tracking and eye/face AF is not integrated into the AF system in a similar (intuitive) way. In the Nikon subject tracking system, you actually start and stop tracking independently of focusing...and if you stop focusing, the camera keeps tracking the subject. Multiple button presses are required. The basic eye/face AF is good, but it's not embraced for anything but auto-area AF; in Nikon's competitors, it's an always-watching option for all user-targeting modes. For example, if you're using Sony's equivalent of dynamic-AF, if the camera spots a face/eye in the frame and you compose to make that eye/face the subject, the system will automatically focus on the eye/face. That's not done in Nikon's system.

So much more integration work is needed, not just a few button press codings.

mosswings: You sound like someone who does not really shoot but reads stuff around the net and then c/p it here. I realize it does not make any sense to argue with you but here is what I can say to the rest.

I am a happy user of Z6, with the kit zoom and the four Z 1.8 primes, and the AF works just great with all of them. The Z6 makes incredible shots in almost complete darkness without any flash. I do not care about the animal-eye AF of Sony, with its funny ergonomics and messy menus, or the hypothetical professional Canon which is probably coming but not quite clear when and at which price. It is highly disputable if it is better to have a full set of class-leading F1.8 primes as Nikon did, or the 2 times biger, 2 times heavier and three times more expensive F1.2 Canon lenses. I prefer Nikon's approach, hence I am with them. What I have is perfect for me and I can happily recommend Z6 to everyone - it offers all I need and a bit more.

I think maybe he meant something like differentiating between, say, a service update and a feature update. Not sure it would make much difference in reality though.

Sorry, I'm not trying to join the parade of complaints on every article. Wasn't meant to be snippy, though I can see how it came out that way.

@whumber hit it pretty much exactly. This update basically reads like a monthly Windows Patch Tuesday, or an Android security update. That is, if anyone actually read the text of those outside of the IT guy who needs to make sure it doesn't break compatibility with some Rube Goldbergian software contraption they've been running since Windows 95...

@Androole: Fair enough. My apologies for being overly snippy back.

As for changing how we cover them, we tend to note any notable features (when they are included in an update) in the headline. If it's a minor update such as this one, we tend to keep the headline fairly simple, as there aren't many major differences.