I minimize the quoted text to avoid repetition and conserve space. I don't do this in an effort to mislead or misquote but rather to stay as concise as possible. The original post is (almost) always there in the thread. Some forums have explicit instructions to keep quoted text to a minimum and I think this is good practice, although I've gotten criticism occasionally for following it.
There is a common practice among companies that they put out a test model to the market which is immature and then if there is some degree of success, they follow up with a sequence of improved models. Avoiding the first models is sound practice from a consumer's point of view, irrespective of which company is making the product. The Z7 had some issues, e.g. when trying to focus on a portrait subject in low light, a large percentage of shots came out of focus, some were completely blurry (this was my first contact with the Z7). I also couldn't really time the shots because of the lag. The Z6 II which is a second-generation model, however, handles the most portrait situations with excellent results when using wide-area AF with face/eye detection ON. I spent a few months learning the camera and its quirks. In my wedding, academic events and portraits, about 1% of my images taken with the Z6 II are out of focus. I know where the Z6 II works well and what its limitations are and I don't use it for those tasks which I've found not to work. It would not work at all well for photographing approaching subjects, so I shoot those with DSLRs. However, my interest in the Z camera are in its quiet operation which makes it easier for me to photograph people at events indoors without being too noticeable. As long as the subject is not moving quickly, it can handle most situations I've encountered photographing people. I would not judge a system based on the first model irrespective of company, or even the second. As for the camera and lens sizes, the Z system includes both small and large cameras and small and large lenses, so one can put together a setup to satisfy one's needs, and the selection will continue to improve in the coming years. E.g. the Z9 and 400/4.5 felt exquisitely fun to use in the hand when I got to try it out, and the AF worked very well indeed. The camera and lens feel really balanced together even for hand-held use. Since I mainly use the Z6 II with relatively short focal length lenses for now, its size hasn't been an issue other than not having enough space for adequate physical controls. The Z9 has a similar number of controls as the D6 and those can be assigned so that one doesn't need to go into the menu as often as with the Z6 II. But a lot of people on forums complain about the size of the Z9 and don't seem to want it. A variety of products of different sizes seems the only solution to the varied needs of users.
Those lenses I have for the Z system do not rely on software corrections to produce good results (one can bypass those corrections by using a converter which is not Adobe's or Nikon's). I am aware that there are lenses in the system that do use software corrections heavily but my experience is that that approach doesn't work for me (from trying to work with the F-mount 24-120/4, a lens which I did not get along with), so I simply avoid those lenses. I frequently photograph in white interiors and 4-stop vignetting which is present in some of these lenses would not result in acceptable results (correcting is possible but this increases noise when working already at high ISO this is pronounced). With the 24-70/2.8 S I haven't run into any problems. It's become my main lens on the Z system because of the high degree of consistency and beautiful images, and the best of all, it handles shooting in rooms with large windows easily (the flare management is excellent). I still use the F-mount 24-70 lens when I am using DSLRs but so far the 24-70/2.8 S has been the lens which has given me the most incentive to use Z. I still dislike the EVF and find that I need to shoot a lot more images to catch moments because of the lag, and I find it very distracting, so I basically compensate by shooting more than usual (which would not be my preference). I am now simply willing to work within the limitations of the new system to gain from the advantages. I don't like it but alas, the characteristics of this one lens (and the pleasingly quiet sound from the camera) have motivated me to accept the situation.
Other examples of first models of a product not being very good are easy to find; Mercedes' first attempt at a small car (A-series) could be toppled over by turning the wheel and cornering too quickly, an astonishing blunder from a major manufacturer. They fixed it by developing a system which stabilizes the car but also subsequent models in the A-series had entirely different shape and don't have those tendencies and are very nice to drive. They do advice against turning ESP OFF even so. Another example seems to be Sony's Airpeak drone which got quite bad reviews for apparent problems with maintaining the connection and software issues as well as maneuvarability and even video quality. Nikon D1 which I didn't have, was reported to lose image files if the camera was turned off before the card stopped writing. Come on! Nevertheless these problems cannot tell us reliably about future success of the companies. I think Nikon will likely do well over time with Z, even though the public doesn't give them much slack for getting late into the full-frame mirrorless game.
