Nikon DL and Coolpix cameras pre-order options

Nikon-DL-cameras

  • Nikon DF-E1 EVF: B&H

Shipping will start on April 29, 2016.

The new Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art lens is also available for pre-order: B&H  | Adorama.

This entry was posted in Nikon DL, Nikon Point and Shoot and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • Eric Calabros

    “Focal length can be set in steps or adjusted fluidly across the zoom range with the lens’ precision zoom ring, while the control ring allows precise adjustments of aperture, shutter speed, manual focus or even white balance.”

    I want this camera. right now.

    • Mike

      Ditto. There has been a lot of very well thought out small details made with this camera design. Almost as if a photographer designed this where as it seems compact cameras are often designed by marketing departments that have no clue. It a world where compact cameras have to really differentiate themselves from cell phone cameras….. this is a grand slam. Well done Nikon.

      • Eric Calabros

        I dunno if it can change white balance during video recording or not. Imagine what creative clips you can make with that 🙂

    • Max

      When I first looked for a control dial everywhere I had this crazy idea “what if they put it on the lens like the canon powershot s100” but then abandoned the idea..

    • Eric Calabros

      4k bitrate is 76Mbps. 5min.
      HDMI out is 4:2:2, 8 bit, 1080p only.
      there is no 24p.

      • Eric Calabros

        here is MTF for DL24-85

        • Eric Calabros

          and here is Creative modes.

          • Eric Calabros

            MTF for DL18-50

            • Eric Calabros

              ” The DL series also incorporates 6400 (NR)* and 12800 (NR)* ISO options, which reduce noise by combining multiple exposures to produce a single, extremely highdefinition image.”

              a.k.a DxO SuperRAW

            • Eric Calabros

              “By setting manual-priority AF on the control ring, the focus mode can be instantly switched to manual focus by rotating the ring, even after focus is achieved with AF. When this happens, the monitor display automatically switches to manual focus operation screen and the central area is magnified, letting you make finer focus adjustments intuitively using the control ring”

            • iamlucky13

              I noticed they’re measuring at 20 lp/mm and 60 lp/mm, where as with their SLR lenses, they measure at 10 and 30.

              Which I suppose is not unreasonable with such smaller lenses.

              And I’ve got to remember not to let myself get distracted by looking at charts instead of real images.

            • Eric Calabros

              Yes, but we can compare Nikon’s apple1 with Nikon’s apple2. Both generated with same software and same standard, whatever they are. So we can say 18-50 is sharper than the other two.

      • vin

        Wow…that’s just sad. My interest in this camera just went to zero. I hope your source is incorrect.

    • wangbu

      Is the control ring the one on the lens barrel? Dpreview says its not programmable.

      • Eric Calabros

        I don’t see another ring.
        It have to be programmable, otherwise how can you change white balance or shutter speed with the same ring?

    • Shutterbug

      Where did you see that info?

    • Davo

      This definitely helps the fact that there’s no control dial but does make it a two handed UI.
      A control dial on the right side either front or back would make quick setting changes with one hand easier.

  • Micha Quär

    I want to know if there is something like in Sonys RX100IV and RX10II, i mean the super-slowmotion with good resolution. Should be atleast 500fps in 720p with this BSI-Sensor. Does anyone know about it?

    • RX100IV, same for RX10II
      NTSC/PAL Selector: [NTSC] mode

      XAVC S HD:60p 50M (1,920 x 1,080/240fps), 60p 50M (1,920 x 1,080/480fps), 60p 50M (1,920 x 1,080/960fps) / 30p 50M (1,920 x 1,080/240fps), 30p 50M (1,920 x 1,080/480fps), 30p 50M (1,920 x 1,080/960fps) / 24p 50M (1,920 x 1,080/240fps), 24p 50M (1,920 x 1,080/480fps), 24p 50M (1,920 x 1,080/960fps)

      NTSC/PAL Selector: [PAL] mode
      XAVC S HD:50p 50M (1,920 x 1,080/250fps), 50p 50M (1,920 x 1,080/500fps), 50p 50M (1,920 x 1,080/1,000fps) / 25p 50M (1,920 x 1,080/250fps), 25p 50M (1,920 x 1,080/500fps), 25p 50M (1,920 x 1,080/1,000fps)

  • Don’t understand why 3. Why not only 2, 18-85 and 24-500? Or even only one, 20-500?

    • Mike

      The 24-85’s “specialty” is macro. It can focus much closer than the other two. And it has a few less features and some others that the 18-50 doesn’t. Also, 18-85 would not be a fast lens. Keeping the zoom ranges small allows for fast apertures, albeit variable. 18-85 and keeping it the same size would probably yield a variable aperture zoom lens in the 1.8-4.9, or worse, range. Then you’d hear people complain. Having 3 models, 3 specialties, 3 price points is actually quite excellent.

      • Duncan Dimanche

        yes correct… it was a silly comment.. But Nolivfr will probably answer by saying ” this was sarcasm guys” lol

        I whish that it would have all the video features that the sony rx100IV has ! it’s pretty insane

        • Why would it be a silly comment? And it wasn’t sarcasm.

      • I didn’t hear people complain about the lens in the RX100RX100II 😉

        • preston

          Which only goes down to 24mm, and therefore doesn’t compete with the 18-50 model from Nikon, so what’s your point?

          • I was comparing it to the 28-100/1.8-4.9 (not 24) of the RX100/RX100II, like I said, I never heard a complain about this lens.
            So having a wider variable aperture is not a deal breaker.

            • preston

              First of all, at f/2.8-5.6 the 24-500 is a much slower variable aperture than the other 2 models (which are f/1.8-2.8), so that right there justifies more than just a super zoom. And secondly, 18-50 is already a unique range from ultra wide to normal. It’s kind of silly to say “why didn’t they bother to go out to telephoto while they were at it?” as if it wouldn’t have had significant ramifications to the size and speed.

            • Like I said, a 18-50 doesn’t interest me. If I want a good one, I’ll rather pick an A6000 with the 16-50 and it will be as pocketable. And it’s APSC.
              I’d rather have a 18-85, even slower at the long end.

            • Duncan Dimanche

              nolivfr you are a very confusing person… and apprently you have a lot of time to spend here. Once again you CANNOT compare the sony A6000 with the 16-50 to the 18-50 of the Nikon.

              BECAUSE the sony is the equivalent of a 24-74mm in 35mm terms…. the NIKON is the equivalent of a true 18-50mm wide.

              And it’s not because you haven’t heard anyone complaning about the Sony not so wide 28mm and slow aperture at the long end that people haven’t complained..

              They even upgraded their new ones with a wider lens and brighter one…

            • Shutterbug

              You aren’t getting an A6000 & 16-50 in any pants pocket.

            • preston

              Oh, read that too quickly and assumed you were referring to the current RX model (IV), which actually competes with this new DL series, not the older RX models that don’t compete at all. If people weren’t complaining about the super slow telephoto of the original RX100 then they wouldn’t have changed it to a faster aperture with less reach!

            • They didn’t change anything, it’s like the 3 DL, each have different functionalities and prices. Want a cheap great compact? RX100. Want wifi? RX100M2. Want EVF? RX100m3. want 4K and HFR? RX100M4. Each model doesn’t replace the other one, see they are still selling the 4 models.

            • preston

              I never thought of those that way. Guess it makes sense. But now I’m confused because your original comment said we should consolidate the DL models and now you’re saying that the 4 different RX models are justified even they they are much more similar to each other than the DL models are?

            • Yes, because you can see it as one model (at different prices and functionalities): they have the almost exact same lens and more, they were not released at the same time. At least I see it like that.
              That’s not the case with the DLs. There is 3 models and all 3 with lens overlap (almost). I would have make 2: a 18-85 to compete with the RX100 and a 24-500 (or whatever) to compete with the RX10 (the DL24-500 feels more like a bridge than a compact camera…). But I think they are more targeted at the Canon GxX offer than the RX100.
              I don’t know if it’s more clear now…

            • preston

              Ok, I guess if you think 28-100 f/1.8-4.9 is almost exactly the same as 24-70 f/1.8-2.8 then we’re never going to agree on a middle ground.

            • I don’t care about aperture (for the third time…), I was only talking about the range.
              But nevermind… I still find more useful to have a 18-85 and a 24-500 than a 18-50, a 24-85 and a 24-500, aperture set to whatever possible. But again, it’s to compete with Canon so 3 models.

            • preston

              I get that you don’t care about aperture in practice, which is fine. But even 24mm is noticeably wider than 28mm, not “almost exactly the same”. And likewise, 18mm is WAY wider than 24mm (and especially 28mm), so it is really not competing with the RX100. The 24-85 model actually does have similar specs to the RX100’s and therefore will compete with them.

              And, as I brought up before, 18-85 does not exist. Nobody has made it before. So saying they should have made that instead of what they did is just fantasizing. You can’t assume that Nikon had the option of making it 18-85 just by making the aperture more variable, say 2.8-5.6 or whatever. If it was that easy we would surely have 18-85 f/3.5-5.6 for full frame and 12-55 f/3.5-5.6 for DX. But those don’t exist which should be a sign that it is not easy to accomplish.

            • Please reread my first post. I was not talking about competing, you did bring up the competition. It was just a question as to why 3 instead of 2. I found the answer: because Canon made the G3X, G5X and G7X.

              For the range, that’s why it would have been great if they made it!

            • preston

              Yes, it would have been great if they combined it. It would also be great if they combined the Nikon 18-35mm (full frame) with the 24-85mm to make an 18-85mm. But this isn’t going to happen, just like your request.

            • Duncan Dimanche

              nolivfr you are a very confusing person… and apprently you have a lot of time to spend here. Once again you CANNOT compare the sony A6000 with the 16-50 to the 18-50 of the Nikon.
              BECAUSE the sony is the equivalent of a 24-74mm in 35mm terms…. the NIKON is the equivalent of a true 18-50mm wide.
              And it’s not because you haven’t heard anyone complaning about the Sony not so wide 28mm and slow aperture at the long end that people haven’t complained..

              They even upgraded their new ones with a wider lens and brighter one…

            • Shutterbug

              They aren’t still making all 4 models, what you’re seeing is leftover stock. The lens change was quite significant after the II.

            • Duncan Dimanche

              the last model does everything that the model before does… so it DOES replace them… they are still selling the old ones cause they still have stocks.. i’m pretty sure that they are not still making them

              Cheers

            • Lex Cross

              RX100iii/iv have LESS focal ranger. The DLs don’t compete with the old ones. The 3 doesn’t have 4K anyway. There is nothing comparable to what you want that actually exists. At all.

        • Shutterbug

          Lots of people did, which is why it’s now F1.8-F2.8 on the III and IV models 🙂

        • KnightPhoto

          Well yes both Thom and DigLloyd complain about the resolving power of the RX100 lens not delivering on the full 20mp of the camera…

  • [sp]

    Marketing trick: “18-50mm f/1,8-2,8” Oh really? It’s written on the lens 6,7-18,5mm f/1,8-2,8, so if you convert focal length multiplying by 2,7x, don’t forget to convert aperture. So in FX terms it is: 18-50mm f/4,8-7,5 – not so cool.

  • [sp]

    Marketing trick: “18-50mm f/1,8-2,8” Oh really? It’s written on the lens 6,7-18,5mm f/1,8-2,8, so if you convert focal length multiplying by 2,7x, don’t forget to convert aperture. In FX terms it is: 18-50mm f/4,8-7,5 – not so cool.

    • Mike

      DOF yes. Light transmission/shutter speed is still equivalent to fast apertures. People know it’s a 1″ sensor. It’s not the same as 36x24mm FF. People know this. But people “think” in FF terms so listing it’s FF equivalent zoom range normalizes it. One does not get any compact camera fixed lens thinking it will compare to a DSLR. I use 2 FF DSLRs for work and don’t feel like using them for leisure. But I want something better than my iPhone and different than shooting film and pocketable. This is perfect.

      • [sp]

        i’m not saying it’s not a nice camera, just that there is no such thing as “18-50mm f/1,8-2,8” here 🙂 They should just find other way to explain without lying.

        • Why are they lying? The camera I’d 1.8-2.8 as that’s the ratio of the aperture to the focal length. Do you have to multiply the aperture on ff to compare with medium format?

          • [sp]

            if you ask, yes, you have (I guess you know that 2,8 in 6×7 doesn’t look the same as 2,8 in FF) You always have to multiply both by crop factor to compare properly. As you said, f is a ratio of focal length to aperture, and if you convert one part of this ratio and don’t convert other, it’s not correct.
            One more thing I’d like to draw your attention to, is that on the camera it is still written 6,7-18,5mm f/1,8-2,8 and 18-50 is for marketing only 🙂 If such convertion wouldn’t been half true, they would write it just on the camera.

            I’d also like to add, that:
            When we convert, it’s always “to imagine”, to compare FOV and DOF. Actual speed and mm remain the same, crop factor convertion lets us compare only vield of view for focal length and only DOF for aperture.

          • [sp]

            if you ask, yes, you have (I guess you know that 2,8 in 6×7 doesn’t look the same as 2,8 in FF) You always have to multiply both by crop factor to compare properly. As you said, f is a ratio of focal length to aperture, and if you convert one part of this ratio and don’t convert other, it’s not correct.
            Also, on the camera it is still written 6,7-18,5mm f/1,8-2,8 and 18-50 is for marketing only 🙂 If such convertion wouldn’t been half true, they would write it just on the camera.

            I’d also like to add, that:

            When we convert, it’s always “to imagine”, to compare FOV and DOF. Actual speed and mm remain the same, crop factor convertion lets us compare only vield of view for focal length and only DOF for aperture.
            So if you formulate this as “camera has 1′ sensor, 18-50 FOV and f/1.8-2.8” alltogether, you would be right 🙂

          • [sp]

            if you ask, yes, you have (I guess you know that 2,8 in 6×7 doesn’t look the same as 2,8 in FF) You always have to multiply both by crop factor to compare properly. As you said, f is a ratio of focal length to aperture, and if you convert one part of this ratio and don’t convert other, it’s not correct.

            Also, on the camera it is still written 6,7-18,5mm f/1,8-2,8 and 18-50 is for marketing only 🙂 If such convertion wouldn’t been half true, they would write it just on the camera.

            I’d also like to add, that:

            When we convert, it’s always “to imagine”, to compare FOV and DOF. Actual speed and mm remain the same, crop factor convertion lets us compare only vield of view for focal length and only DOF for aperture.

            So if you formulate this as “camera has 1′ sensor, 18-50 FOV and f/1.8-2.8” alltogether, statement is correct 🙂

            • There are many sensor sizes and to think that we have to change all aperture listings to compare to ff is nonsense. It wouldn’t properly adjust for dof any way and it’s very difficult to visualise any given dof for any given camera. It makes far more sense to label a lens by its physical aperture. No one is saying this would have the same dof as a ff in the same way no one assumes ff would give the same results as medium format, but do we list ff cameras to adjust for crop factor? No that 70-200 2.8 isn’t 2.8 as you haven’t adjusted for it only being ff and not medium or large format, it’s actually f4, er no one does that and it would be pointless.

        • preston

          f/1.8-2.8 is EXACTLY what it is. The aperture is a physical property of the lens. In this case it is 1.8-2.8.

          The focal length is a physical property as well, but defining it in terms of full frame equivalents is just for our convenience to put it in terms we are familiar with. This is ok because making this conversion does not change the performance characteristics of the lens. You don’t convert aperture because that would unfairly change it from a fast lens to a slow one, which it is not. Depth of field is subjective so it makes no sense to convert aperture to for that.

          • IronHeadSlim

            I couldn’t agree more, thanks!

        • Shutterbug

          I don’t think you understand aperture very well. It’s simply a ratio. It is a true F1.8-F2.8, and is not affected by sensor size. DOF is obviously different than a FF sensor (2.7X to be exactly) but that is something entirely unrelated.

    • Not that all over again! Aperture is aperture and yes less light will travel through a smaller lens but the sensor is smaller, so per square inch it’s the same. Aperture is a ratio of the focal length, that’s all it is.

      • Plug

        Right. But there are DOF consequences.

        • Duncan Dimanche

          yes of course we all know that

        • Aperture doesn’t measure depth of field.

    • Clubber Lang

      Like Fast food clogging ones arteries and making you over weight, we don’t need a disclaimer for such things.

    • wangbu

      Of course its marketing, they are telling the customer that the camera has a field of view and exposes similar to 18-50mm fx lens on a fx camera.

  • Duncan Dimanche

    The prices are good in my opinion. If the image quality is as good as the Lumix lx100 then it would make sens to buy the 24-80 but it will be a tough fight considering the bigger sensor of the lx100 but the exact same focal and aperture…. AND the Lx100 has an EVF integrated….

    I can’t stop but think that the version II of those two cameras will have the integrated EVF… just like sony did…

    • Eric Calabros

      If that upgrade will make it jump to $1000 price, no thanks.

    • pedantic_brit

      I just checked the UK preorder prices at WEX Photographic and see that both the 18-50 and 24-85 are offered in “EVF kits” for just£120.00 more than the cameras alone. Since UK prices include VAT at 20% that is a pre tax add on of only £100 or <$150. I hope we see the same in the US.

  • Taro Ikai

    Why the 1/60 sec X-sync speed? Are they not leaf shutter cameras?

  • doge

    Admin, your link to the A300 takes you to the A900 page.

  • doge

    That A900 might become my personal camera for work. It’s hopefully much better quality than their current lower end coolpix we’re using.

  • Scott

    Worth noting the 700 breaks some interesting ground at $500 with UHD 4k video.

  • 247th

    Nikon has delivered quite a respectable response to the Canon Gx7 and the Sony RX100 series.
    I’ll be purchasing the DL 24-85mm f/4.9-f/7.6 as a daily camera (because of Snapbridge), 4K blogging, and dedicated macro lens.
    I can see it complimenting my current Nikon system very well.

    • Mike Gordon

      “cheap aperture marketing ploy” = industry standard, why pick on one manufacture?

    • Eric Calabros

      It’s not marketing. It’s physics

    • Quadrupel

      “I can see it complimenting my current Nikon system very well”
      Yes, this looks like a very talkative camera indeed.

  • Shutterbug

    The LX100 also only uses a portion of the M43 sensor, not the whole thing.

  • Duncan Dimanche

    thanks for the link mike

  • Back to top