What I find the worst is the endless repetition, like they try to preach their opinion to no end.
Many have opinions about what Nikon should do (usually grounded on their personal needs, which may or may not be photographic but for example understanding what to say to get a lot of viewers, which often involves some kind of provocative claims which may be true or false), but just because one has a blog or youtube followers doesn't mean they have the knowledge to suggest a course of action for Nikon as a whole that would lead to success. A lot of these commenters make errors in their arguments showing that they don't care to do their research about the products they speak of. It seems that many people who present themselves as experts do not care about staying truthful or at least making an efforts to that end; they assume people don't care or assume that the truth is a matter of which tribe you associate with. This is quite sad, and I can see it happening in scientific publishing as well, though not as much as in social media.
I do think that the Z product line is an excellent start. I like the shape of the Z6/Z7 bodies and the design of the controls, and the viewfinder is less distracting than other EVFs, and very sharp in the outer areas of the frame (compared to many other viewfinders I've tried). I know some don't like the controls, for example, they would like more buttons or a different placement of the image zoom buttons (+/-). I think a lot of mirrorless cameras have crammed too many small buttons in too small an area, making it harder to hold the cameras. The Z6/Z7 don't have this issue. The +/- are perhaps not in a good place if you want to use the EVF zoomed-in hand-held, but the EVF is kind of jumpy in that kind of use and Nikon probably designed it with the intention that it would not be zoomed-in when using the camera hand-held. For tripod-based photography of static subjects, I think it would work fine as it is, including button placement. For me, if I shoot hand-held, most commonly, the subject is a moving one or at least a living being capable of movement and I need to follow the overall composition and framing when I'm shooting, so I wouldn't be zooming-in to focus anyway, as it would lose the oversight of the frame edges, which are really important. Thus I think the most detailed and the most stable viewfinder without zooming is what I prefer, and Nikon did well in those areas.
The lens line and roadmap are (in my opinion) really well-thought-out and the Z Nikkors I've tried have been excellent. I haven't bought into the system yet, but with the rebates currently in effect, this could change quite soon. Interestingly some people complain that Canon have f/1.2 primes and an f/2 zoom and Nikon is "far behind." But Canon don't have a line-up of f/1.8 primes and I truly believe they form a more solid and viable base for the development of the lens system than a couple of exotic primes (which I am sure Nikon are developing as well, the 50/1.2 is in the roadmap and 58/0.95 is out). I love the image output from the Canon 50/1.2 - that's not the issue - but realistically how many people can afford those lenses and how many are happy with the large lenses used with relatively small camera bodies, and for how many people such lenses would be the best choice? There are those people but I think most people want a compact, high-quality base system that isn't based on exotic apertures. While there are other advantages (eye AF etc.) to mirrorless, I think most people want the cameras and lenses to stay small (not tiny, but smaller and lighter than DSLR lenses) and Nikon are producing a set of lenses which are for the most part compatible with this customer request. The 58/0.95 obviously is not, but again that's not a lens that most people will be buying. So the thing is that if they made a lot of exotics in the beginning, Nikon would be receiving complaints that they're out-of-touch with the buyers and their financial predicaments and need to go lighter, and now that they don't and are making intermediate-aperture but high-quality lenses, they're "behind". This is really weird. I personally would never have bought the f/1.4 Nikkors I currently have if the f/1.8's had come out first and by far think the f/1.8's are the more sensible option (because of overall bag weight and budget) for most users. Some claim that the f/1.8's are not "professional" lenses, which I think is just ridiculous. They certainly produce good results, and a lot of professional photographers have knee, ankle, back and neck problems after a lifetime of lugging gear around. As for the f/1.4's, f/1.2's, and f/0.7's (or whatever they decide to make), I am sure they will come out over time. I am delighted that I don't have to spend f/1.2 or f/0.95 amount of money to set up a bag of primes to get started. Yes, I do a lot of low-light photography, but in my view (having shot with a friend's Z7 and 50/1.8 indoors) sharp and well-designed f/1.8's do quite well in such applications, especially given the in-camera VR built into the Z6 and Z7 cameras. There is a certain elegance to the f/1.8 S line IMO; the lenses are unassuming and form a compact kit while not sacrificing image quality in any way.
I will probably go with a 20/35/85 f/1.8 setup (with the 20mm coming via adapter and the two other lenses native) as my interest for this type of camera is for portraits and event photography mostly indoors with quietness as a priority (over DSLRs). Because of the comparatively low price and very high quality, the 50/1.8 is going to be hard to resist, though. Although high ISO image quality has improved over the years, I still don't think f/2.8 is "quite there" for indoor event photos without flash; if there is daytime/afternoon window light, then yes, but after the window light is gone, I need larger apertures than f/2.8. f/1.8 is what I would consider adequate and the in-camera VR does give some leeway in portraits. What is slowing me down is that the focus isn't quite reliable in this kind of very low indoor light (tried only Z7 not Z6 so far). I can get good results most of the time but sometimes the focus goes on a road trip. I think this can probably be fixed via algorithm development. I don't need subject tracking as such as I'm quite comfortable moving the focus point manually around, but of course it is nice to see the more fancy stuff developed further, as for someone entering photography it may be that they don't want to deal with manual focus points at first, and if some other camera gives better results out of the box on all-auto settings then they will probably purchase that camera. So Nikon do need to put their attention to this area, even if it won't stop me from choosing their camera. However, I have no doubt they are working on it and capable of solving it.
I disagree completely with the idea that Nikon should stop F mount system development - I love the optical viewfinders and want to continue using them, including new products. I don't see Z replacing F for me in the time span of my remaining life, even though I am likely to add it (for the quietness advantages). I think Nikon actually are on the right balanced track in pursuing to develop both systems, even though the internet commentators hate them for it. I am cynical and don't believe most of the youtuber and camera review/blog sites have the photographers' best interest at heart. Rather, they want people to be (almost) forced to buy all new gear by clicking on the advertisements to their affiliates' sites. And they want this to happen now so that they can continue "influencing" rather than getting a proper job.
