My Z8 does everything I want, having just one weakness. And for that weakness I have a work-around. It is the short battery life. So, I carry two extra batteries in a little LensCoat belt pack. Problem solved.
I love the Z8. It's taken me a long time to customize the menus for my needs, but now I've got it just about the way I want it. And I've been developing video skills with my Z8. I've got plans for that.
Sure, there is a crop mode but I never use it. I crop the FX file. 45 mpx is perfect for me, but it's also all I want to fool with (hate post-processing). My Z8 is a tool to help me do what I love most - documenting nature.
No matter what gear you have there is a place for more pixels. Noise is nowhere near the problem it was in the D500 era and more pixels is better for AI. There are also many times where a large lens is not so practical, though I'm more inclined to want extra reach for small critters and birds failrly close where even a big tele may be marginal. A "Z500" to me has two purposes, one as an extra reach body for the person that already has a pretty nice gear kit, and two for the person that is not so capable of hauling a large kit around or not at that financial investment. A 100-400/5.6 and a 33MP cropper with a fast-read sensor would go a long way.
EB-1 wrote:
I would not count on an R7 II or any rumor.
EBH
True. Very true. And sometimes rumors or "manufacturer-leaked" specs are some free advertising and hype-train generation tools. There is some merit to rumors when the same rumors keeps coming up many times, over a long period of time. You can only cross you fingers and hope/pray/beg. And sometimes you lose. Or win.
Superscroll wrote:
That nikon has a well built body in the z50ii and charges $1k for it when Fuji is getting 2x or more in the apsc market is crazy to me. were I nikon I'd get ibis in that thing, add $1000 to the price and work hard on getting a good lineup of lenses out for it. Ditto the zfc
This. Nikon has the amazing teles that would work wonderfully with a high MP APS-C body. 39 MP APS-C sensor in a Z8 with everything else the same, $2500-2800 done. The wildlife folks who already have the big teles could easily justify purchase of such a body for more reach/crop ability. Above and beyond the current Z8.
EB-1 wrote:
The problem is that the Nikon (Sony) FX sensors are only 45MP so you only get 20MP with the crop.
We had the 24MP DX Nikon D7100 13 years ago, so 20MP reach in 2026 is quite lame.
A 33MP sensor would be huge. I think they do a good enough camera for about $1800-2000.
When you are searching for reach the cost of an extra camera is nothing compared to the cost of bigger, longer lenses.
EBH
Yes this. Every time this discussion comes up a bunch of people write: jUsT BUy a z8 aND uSe It iN cRop MoDe. And I say YES. A Z8 in crop mode is an AMAZING 20 MP APS-C camera. But 20 MP was 10+ years ago. Some of us want more MP especially the small bird shooters.
The notion that if you put a crop sensor in a camera, you have to crop the price, BY A HUGE AMOUNT, just doesn't make sense to be. A Jack-of-all-Trades Z8 @ $3500 (current sale price) Vs a 39 MP APS-C Z8 at even the HIGH price of $2800?? For wildlife, especially if I'm never going to be able to afford $6-16k glass, the APS-C wins that battle and would get my money.
If I also shoot landscape, portrait, low-light event, etc, then yeah, if funds were tight I'd want the Z8.
jUsT BUy a z8 aND uSe It iN cRop MoDe - unless you're cropping aggressively, 20mp has been plenty of resolution for at least a decade, nobody will care that your bird photos aren't at the absolute bleeding edge of resolution, and Z glass is so sharp you actually have more detail in a lower MP Z body than a higher MP DSLR.
EB-1 wrote:
No matter what gear you have there is a place for more pixels. Noise is nowhere near the problem it was in the D500 era and more pixels is better for AI. There are also many times where a large lens is not so practical, though I'm more inclined to want extra reach for small critters and birds failrly close where even a big tele may be marginal. A "Z500" to me has two purposes, one as an extra reach body for the person that already has a pretty nice gear kit, and two for the person that is not so capable of hauling a large kit around or not at that financial investment. A 100-400/5.6 and a 33MP cropper with a fast-read sensor would go a long way.
I agree. I want more pixels. The hummers and other small birds are tiny in my D500 viewfinder with my 200-500/5.6E lens. And getting a bigger lens isn't always the answer. The minimum focus distance of the 800 PF is more than twice that of the 400/4.5 so that huge-assed-amazing-i-want-it-lens doesn't auto-magically help with small birds.
And as mentioned up thread Nikon has to rely on Sony for sensors. Sure they design, modify, enhance, etc, the sensors they can buy but if they can't get a sensor at a price that makes sense for Nikon, the High-MP APS-C camera won't be coming anytime soon. Now if Canon, with their rumored R7ii, had a 600mm lens that was cheaper or not f/11.................................
The difference is, no one is making you use a Z8 in DX exclusively. If you put a little glass on your subject you can easily get a 33mp file after a crop.
It’s still cope, largely.
M_XG1_82 wrote:
True. Very true. And sometimes rumors or "manufacturer-leaked" specs are some free advertising and hype-train generation tools. There is some merit to rumors when the same rumors keeps coming up many times, over a long period of time. You can only cross you fingers and hope/pray/beg. And sometimes you lose. Or win.
This. Nikon has the amazing teles that would work wonderfully with a high MP APS-C body. 39 MP APS-C sensor in a Z8 with everything else the same, $2500-2800 done. The wildlife folks who already have the big teles could easily justify purchase of such a body for more reach/crop ability. Above and beyond the current Z8.
Yes this. Every time this discussion comes up a bunch of people write: jUsT BUy a z8 aND uSe It iN cRop MoDe. And I say YES. A Z8 in crop mode is an AMAZING 20 MP APS-C camera. But 20 MP was 10+ years ago. Some of us want more MP especially the small bird shooters.
The notion that if you put a crop sensor in a camera, you have to crop the price, BY A HUGE AMOUNT, just doesn't make sense to be. A Jack-of-all-Trades Z8 @ $3500 (current sale price) Vs a 39 MP APS-C Z8 at even the HIGH price of $2800?? For wildlife, especially if I'm never going to be able to afford $6-16k glass, the APS-C wins that battle and would get my money.
If I also shoot landscape, portrait, low-light event, etc, then yeah, if funds were tight I'd want the Z8....Show more →
I still stand by the statement that the R7 and other cameras like it bring something to the fight that Nikon doesn't have, and while small, there is a market for it.
While the market for "cheapo" telephotos is also niche, it's clearly there.
ISO1600 wrote:
I still stand by the statement that the R7 and other cameras like it bring something to the fight that Nikon doesn't have, and while small, there is a market for it.
While the market for "cheapo" telephotos is also niche, it's clearly there.
No camera manufacturer can cover every niche of the camera market, they each specialize and focus on slightly different things.
Some parts of the camera market are important to every major manufacturer while there are differences in other areas.
For example, Nikon has a really great coverage of lenses in the advanced amateur / professional-grade intermediate aperture lenses and the high end also (but not quite to the same degree as the upper intermediate level). Canon emphasize the very top end lenses and then somewhat consumerish lower-end offerings with large gaps in between those two sub-lineups. Sony has probably the broadest coverage in lenses thanks to their intentional collaboration with third-party manufacturers that allowed them to fill up the lens line in a comprehensive way and they've also been making their current mirrorless system for a longer time than Canon or Nikon. Over time the most important gaps in each lineup will be filled up. The solutions are not identical, however, otherwise they would just making the same products with different brands, and that makes little sense (duplication of use of resources). I'm quite happy with Nikon's lens lineup options although I think a 300/2.8 is a clear hole.
For me personally f/5.6 on full-frame is already a bit too slow, and often I end up with somewhat noisy and thin-toned images which are a bit like ghosts, not as "full" in terms of tonal and color and also the details suffer because of the noise as well. f/2.8 for mid/longer telephoto is ideal in terms of imaging options but too expensive in the current Nikon lineup (400/2.8 TC mainly, with 300/2.8 missing), so I use the 300/2.8 F-mount for these things, and 400/4.5 on Z-mount as a bit more affordable and practical (mainly the 400/4.5) options than the big 400. The Z8 gives enough resolution for all subjects and also fits fast-moving subjects and doesn't require a separate landscape body from the action body, although there may be people who would like more specialized products for each category. The Z8 because of its versatility ends up being a good value for people who photograph varied subjects even if a bird specialist might want something like a higher-end DX cameras, the problem then is what do you use for landscape, if you don't want to compromise on that? Is carrying two specialized camera bodies going to make your bag lighter or cheaper than just one?
While AI-based noise reduction and sharpening algorithms can sort of salvage the most desperate low-light images, it doesn't and can not add information to the original raw file, the post-processing can only reduce the amount of scene and subject information in the image, or in the best case keep it the same. It can make the image look less noisy but in doing so it either smears details or "guesses" them, which can result in a less faithful reproduction of the subject's true appearance. I will demonstrate this with an example once I have time. In real-world images there are imperfections in features and tonal and color variations that are more nuanced than what can be deciphered from an ultra high ISO image, and there is nothing the AI-based algorithm can do to recover what was not recorded. People with untrained or just very forgiving eye/brain might not be able to tell but really the AI doesn't make the image look like it would have been at a low or medium ISO.
jlafferty wrote:
jUsT BUy a z8 aND uSe It iN cRop MoDe - unless you're cropping aggressively, 20mp has been plenty of resolution for at least a decade, nobody will care that your bird photos aren't at the absolute bleeding edge of resolution, and Z glass is so sharp you actually have more detail in a lower MP Z body than a higher MP DSLR.
So if something if good enough for you and your wants/needs it's auto-magically good enough for everybody else? If you like to shoot small birds you can't get enough resolution. My photos are for my enjoyment only. I'm not a pro. If I was shooting to print and sell for financial gains then the cost/return equation comes into play. And yes the Z glass it amazing.
RoamingScott wrote:
The difference is, no one is making you use a Z8 in DX exclusively. If you put a little glass on your subject you can easily get a 33mp file after a crop.
It’s still cope, largely.
As I mentioned up thread I have a D500 w/200-500/5.6E lens. If Nikon released a high-MP Z90 (32-40 MP) I could adapt my current lens and get started right away with more MP on subject for only $2500'ish (assuming a "high-end," or "pro/prosumer" Z90 body.
If I went Z8 w/200-500/5.6E lens I'd be at same 20 MP crop. But like you mentioned I'd have the flexibility put a little glass on my subject to capture more MP. I agree. What lens should I use? 600 PF on the Z8 would get me a bit more pixels, guessing 25 MP maybe? I would need to use the 800 PF to get significantly more MP on subject. Also minimum focus of the 800 PF is twice that of my current 500 mm lens so that would be another possible issue as well.
And yes the IQ of the Z8 & 800 PF would be better than my current 200-500. But at what cost. $10,000.
I don't want to spend, potentially, thousands of dollars for a minor upgrade. $10k would be needed for a healthy upgrade. And $10k is probably out of the question for a long time.
So spending $2500 is cope. But spending $10,000 is the smart/only way to do things?
ISO1600 wrote:
I still stand by the statement that the R7 and other cameras like it bring something to the fight that Nikon doesn't have, and while small, there is a market for it.
Agree. When I mentioned I want a higher-end, high-MP, APS-C body last year everybody was poo-pooing the idea as nonsense. It seems that Canon is going to deliver something very close to what I desire. So maybe the idea isn't so crazy after all.
Now the discussion on if Nikon is able to deliver such a camera if perfectly valid, as expertly mentioned up-thread. No arguments with those points.
I think while you can use an F-mount lens with a Z camera to reduce the immediate cost of transition but in the mid to long term you would want to use native Z lenses as a lot of the advantages of going with a mirrorless camera have to do with the lenses, and Z cameras simply work better with Z lenses; there is less noise as the lens is racked back and forth to focus, and the VR systems of the camera body and lens work better together. Advantages of Z lenses include also typically lower weight and better weight distribution so the lenses are easier to point and hold. The 200-500 is very front-heavy and has a quite stiff zoom ring, and the lens extends while you zoom it. The Z 180-600 by contrast is internal zoom so it requires only a light torque to adjust the zoom and you can do it quickly. The balance of the camera + lens rig stays fixed during zooming so it stays balanced on tripod. If you just think you will be happy with a new D500-like Z camera and adapter and won't be buying new lenses, you are probably not being realistic. Calculate the cost of new lenses to your cost of switching. You will get them anyway, it's better to have a clear vision about the future gear you need if you do decide to get a Z camera. I know spending money is painful and thinking about making a bigger investment involving a whole new system can be unbearable. But at this point there is not much that we can do, other than choosing to go to the new gear (accepting the costs and benefits) or sticking to F mount (potentially taking advantage of very good second hand deals on higher-end lenses).
To make good use of higher pixel densities (of a potential Z mount high-resolution DX camera) you will probably want a higher-quality lens than the 200-500. It's not just about pixels per bird but also the lens MTF, CA etc. that will affect how detailed the bird is in the picture.
The Z8 (and Z9) have a huge advantage over any APS-C model and that is its fast electronic shutter, resulting in less rolling shutter distortion of moving subjects compared to those other cameras in electronic shutter mode and less vibration and less sound noise than if a mechanical shutter camera is used. You'll find that you can shoot for a longer time without disturbing the subject with the electronic shutter. If Nikon makes a DX model with similarly fast sensor read time than the Z8/9, probably the cost of the camera will be similar to or close to the Z8, which most DX customers won't be happy about.
My main point is that increasing the pixels per bird by merely increasing sensor pixel density without also changing to a much higher-resolution lens might not be the most effective way to improve results. Fast read time silent shutter combined with a higher-quality lens would probably be more beneficial. Yes, these things cost more money but it would IMO be the right way to go. When you have a silent or nearly silent camera, you can use a hide to photograph subjects closer to the camera and not spook them so easily, and having the subjects closer rather than cropping long-distance photos will probably do more to improve picture quality than anything else that you can do.
M_XG1_82 wrote:
So if something if good enough for you and your wants/needs it's auto-magically good enough for everybody else? If you like to shoot small birds you can't get enough resolution. My photos are for my enjoyment only. I'm not a pro. If I was shooting to print and sell for financial gains then the cost/return equation comes into play. And yes the Z glass it amazing.
As I mentioned up thread I have a D500 w/200-500/5.6E lens. If Nikon released a high-MP Z90 (32-40 MP) I could adapt my current lens and get started right away with more MP on subject for only $2500'ish (assuming a "high-end," or "pro/prosumer" Z90 body.
If I went Z8 w/200-500/5.6E lens I'd be at same 20 MP crop. But like you mentioned I'd have the flexibility put a little glass on my subject to capture more MP. I agree. What lens should I use? 600 PF on the Z8 would get me a bit more pixels, guessing 25 MP maybe? I would need to use the 800 PF to get significantly more MP on subject. Also minimum focus of the 800 PF is twice that of my current 500 mm lens so that would be another possible issue as well.
And yes the IQ of the Z8 & 800 PF would be better than my current 200-500. But at what cost. $10,000.
I don't want to spend, potentially, thousands of dollars for a minor upgrade. $10k would be needed for a healthy upgrade. And $10k is probably out of the question for a long time.
So spending $2500 is cope. But spending $10,000 is the smart/only way to do things?
Agree. When I mentioned I want a higher-end, high-MP, APS-C body last year everybody was poo-pooing the idea as nonsense. It seems that Canon is going to deliver something very close to what I desire. So maybe the idea isn't so crazy after all.
Now the discussion on if Nikon is able to deliver such a camera if perfectly valid, as expertly mentioned up-thread. No arguments with those points....Show more →
The cost of super telephotos is not insignificant. If you can justify fully switching to Z for improved balance, quieter focus, and better IS, then you could probably also afford any other system. At that point it's not so clear-cut on going with Nikon imo.
I still really think that Canon has a unique chokehold on affordable and lightweight with good lens options. Yes there's tradeoffs, but it's an option that does not exist natively with any other current systems.
I had R7, 10-18, 18-250, and 100-400. That kit was incredibly flexible for travel and nature, so long as I had halfway reasonable lighting and realistic expectations, and the total cost was under $2k. No other system can touch that. I miss the reach and flexibility, but overall prefer the images and experience of the ZF.
Superscroll wrote:
Is the consensus here that one would get the same iq from a z8 with say 400mm in dx mode as z50ii (or other 20mp apsc) with the same lens?
The Z50II has a little better photographic dynamic range than the Z8 cropped to DX especially from ISO 100 to 400 (according to photostophotos dot net), but at higher ISO the difference is small (still, in favor of the Z 50II). This reduced dynamic range per sensor area is likely caused by Nikon using different spectral sensitivities in the CFA (optimizing color accuracy over signal-to-noise) in the 45 MP sensors and the extra noise due to the fast read time of the stacked sensor. It's also possible that the smaller sensor runs a bit cooler than the larger sensor which could also contribute to a slight difference in noise.
If a DX camera is made with a stacked, fast read time sensor, I would expect some reduction in dynamic range and increase in shadow noise compared to the slower read time sensor currently used in the Z50II. The mechanical shutter has some benefits (a better dynamic range sensor with a slow read time can be used for stills) although not in sharpness.
A faster read time has clear benefits for video and silent photography, but it does compromise shadow noise slightly. I find the difference between D850 and Z8 subjectively noticeable in landscape photos; the Z8 can take advantage of better lenses while the D850 produces better tonality and dynamic range at low ISO. Life is full of tradeoffs!
It doesn't matter what the DR is like if the Z50II can't adequately track a fast subject though! The slight DR hit isn't worth losing the AF stickiness, high frame rates, and burst buffer performance of the Z8 if you're serious about this stuff.
M_XG1_82 wrote:
So if something if good enough for you and your wants/needs it's auto-magically good enough for everybody else? If you like to shoot small birds you can't get enough resolution. My photos are for my enjoyment only. I'm not a pro.
Of course I'm not saying what I do should be law for everyone, just that... realistically, you're not a pro. You're not leveraging photos (dependent on them) for income. What does any of this speculation matter? 20mp vs. 25mp? 600 vs 800mm? How many of your photos do you actually go back and look at, let alone share with others? What's the live or die scenario where an extra 5mp would matter?
Frankly I say just save yourself a ton of money and buy some really sweet binoculars and *enjoy the birds*. I love birds. I love photography. But I see no sense in chasing a fantasy camera or wringing my hands about things that don't exist. In short, I don't value crossing my passions and inviting aggravation because of some last tiny percentage that my photos could be, "if only..."
OTOH a used Z8 and the 180-600 should do everything (nearly) anyone needs for birding for the foreseeable future. You're coming from a D500, the sooner you get into the Z series the better, rather than waiting for some speculative next camera. It's going to take you 6 months or more to understand the entirely new AF routines and handling anyway. And you're going to work to get settled in to and reap the rewards of all the creature comforts of the new cameras. And you're going to have to remap your understanding of how to CC the raw files. But on the other side of that I promise you'll look back on all of this empty forum speculation as a waste of time. The new cameras, the new glass... so excellent, so forgiving. Even if you had to spend ~$5k to get the "same" resolution as your D500, but in the process pick up the workflow, handling and design of the Z8? Worthwhile for me.
I briefly had a Canon R50, that when paired with the RF 100-400, was astonishingly good at just "point and shoot" nature/wildlife shots. Insanely good AF, sticky and fast. SO much better than the AF in the R7, but other than that the camera was worse in every way lol.
Lance B wrote:
But isn't the RF 100-400 an f5.6-8 lens? I wouldn't say that was comparing apples to apples.
The m43 ones are f6.3, so you're only talking 2/3rds of a stop, less than the total illumination differences between the two sensors. Which is totally acceptable when you consider the size advantage of the RF lens (plus you are getting either 32.5MP APS-C or cropping down to 20MP at 2x crop/m43 equivalence).
Note this really is 'closest equivalence' rather than 1 for 1. Plus the fact the Canon combo is both cheaper and smaller than the m43 options despite offering a smaller sensor (AF is notably better on an OM-1 though)
mawz wrote:
The m43 ones are f6.3, so you're only talking 2/3rds of a stop, less than the total illumination differences between the two sensors. Which is totally acceptable when you consider the size advantage of the RF lens (plus you are getting either 32.5MP APS-C or cropping down to 20MP at 2x crop/m43 equivalence).
Note this really is 'closest equivalence' rather than 1 for 1. Plus the fact the Canon combo is both cheaper and smaller than the m43 options despite offering a smaller sensor (AF is notably better on an OM-1 though)
You seem to be targeting a specific use case that you are very concerned about but most other's aren't that concerned with it all. In this particular "quoted" set of posts that I am replying to, there seems to be a comment attributed to your quotes as far as I can tell but I can't find the original - maybe you changed the original post? Whatever the case, in this string of quotes it seems you stated:
"Nikon currently has a TON of awesome telephotos for Z, but nothing that directly competes with that RF100-400. That tells me they are taking tele options very seriously."
I don't know how you can make the accusation that Canon are somehow "taking tele options very seriously" when they made a 800mm f5.6 which is a 400 f2.8 with a welded on 2x TC (wow - how cheap and stop-gap can you get) and yet Nikon made a dedicated 800 PF, A dedicated 600 with TC and a dedicated 400 with TC, a 600 pf a 400 f4.5 that no other lens makers have done.
Yes, Canon have made an RF 100-400 or whatever and is small, but that is ONE specific lens from a company that is probably 5 times (maybe more) the size of Nikon and sells way more lenses and cameras. You are asking Nikon to be putting out lenses on the same scale as Canon in every department which is simply not possible. Let's be a little realistic here, it's one lens that you seem hung up on because Nikon hasn't met your one specific need. The RF100-400 seems to be a "cheaper, smaller, lighter" consumer grade lens with it's slow-ish max aperture and Nikon has decided to be go with the more advanced amateur and pro spec with larger max apertures lenses for the short term.
A guy I chat with in the nature preserves just got an R7 with the cheaper 100-400 as a really nice birthday gift. He let me try it out. I could not believe how light it is. How do you not forget that combo is around your neck?
I think if you are primarily a crop sensor shooter and you have to buy new glass anyway, especially if size-weight and cost are a concern, it's probably worth looking at jumping off the Nikon ship.
Lance B wrote:
You seem to be targeting a specific use case that you are very concerned about but most other's aren't that concerned with it all. In this particular "quoted" set of posts that I am replying to, there seems to be a comment attributed to your quotes as far as I can tell but I can't find the original - maybe you changed the original post? Whatever the case, in this string of quotes it seems you stated:
"Nikon currently has a TON of awesome telephotos for Z, but nothing that directly competes with that RF100-400. That tells me they are taking tele options very seriously."...Show more →
Please read the comment chain more closely. That was ISO1600's comment (and it clearly shows that in the chain). Bernardl responded to it with a comment that suggested that the 100-400S competed directly with the RF100-400. My response was clearly to Bernard's comment and it's pretty clear since I addressed both which Canon lens the 100-400S actually competes with and the value that the RF100-400 brings to the line for more serious shooters (and in fact only Bernard's comment shows in the actual display of my comment....probably because that was the one I was addressing)
I don't know how you can make the accusation that Canon are somehow "taking tele options very seriously" when they made a 800mm f5.6 which is a 400 f2.8 with a welded on 2x TC (wow - how cheap and stop-gap can you get) and yet Nikon made a dedicated 800 PF, A dedicated 600 with TC and a dedicated 400 with TC, a 600 pf a 400 f4.5 that no other lens makers have done.
That's because I never made such an accusation, ISO1600 did. Nikon and Canon's strategy in this space have been decidedly different. In fact if you read ISO1600's full comment (which Bernard trimmed, not me, I quoted Bernard's full post including the attached quote from ISO1600) you'll discover that Bernard was the one who trimmed the full context of ISO1600's comment, the latter actually agrees with you that Nikon is taking telephotos more seriously, but also that the RF100-400 fills a specific gap in terms of small/light/reach/cheap that Nikon hasn't addressed.
Yes, Canon have made an RF 100-400 or whatever and is small, but that is ONE specific lens from a company that is probably 5 times (maybe more) the size of Nikon and sells way more lenses and cameras. You are asking Nikon to be putting out lenses on the same scale as Canon in every department which is simply not possible. Let's be a little realistic here, it's one lens that you seem hung up on because Nikon hasn't met your one specific need. The RF100-400 seems to be a "cheaper, smaller, lighter" consumer grade lens with it's slow-ish max aperture and Nikon has decided to be go with the more advanced amateur and pro spec with larger max apertures lenses for the short term. ...Show more →
And you're missing the value that having a small, light, close focusing and optically excellent lens brings to the line. It's not just one use case this lens solves for.
The RF lens offers a size & weight capability that nothing else on the market offers, including the two systems who actively market their superiority here, and an inexpensive but still remarkably good optically option for those looking for either a cheap way to 400mm (largely consumers) or a light tele for the more wide oriented shooter who is weight limited (like when hiking). It simply fills a lot of gaps and Nikon doesn't even offer a consumer FX telephoto in Z mount, let alone a sub-$1k offering that's good.
Nikon's strongest bodies vs the market right now are in the prosumer space (particularly the Z5ii which is by far the best body in its class) but their consumer FX zoom lens lineup continues to be pretty dire aside from the overpriced Tamron rebadges which limits sales of the sub-$2k FX bodies. Admittedly Sony has the same issue (and it's one I've been complaining about at least since the OG Z5 launched, if not before, I first noted it back when the A7II was new) while Canon actually offers a full set of consumer zooms covering 15-400mm, one of which is decent (the 15-30) and one of which is actually rather good (the 100-400). Panasonic offers a 2 zoom 20-300mm setup here.
The RF100-400 is both an excellent prosumer lens and an excellent lens for the serious photographer who wants a lightweight lens with reach. Nikon's sole offering short of a pro zoom is the decent enough 28-400, but that's both significantly larger and significantly more expensive for a lens which is optically inferior to the RF100-400.
Nikon doesn't need a consumer 100-400 necessarily, but they do need a consumer something in this range, and if it is something comparable to the 100-400 in cost, size and performance, it will sell quite well.
