Nikon DL cameras specs comparison

Nikon-DL-cameras-comparison
Detailed specifications comparison between the different Nikon DL cameras:

 

Nikon DL 18-50 f/1.8-2.8

 

Nikon DL 24-500 f/2.8-5.6

 

Nikon DL 24-85 f/1.8-2.8

Price
$846.95 $996.95 $646.95
Type
Electromagnetic 7-blade iris diaphragm Electromagnetic 7-blade iris diaphragm Electromagnetic 7-blade iris diaphragm
Effective pixels
20.8million, (Image processing may reduce the number of effective pixels.) 20.8million, (Image processing may reduce the number of effective pixels.) 20.8million, (Image processing may reduce the number of effective pixels.)
Image sensor
1.0-intype, 13.2 mm x 8.8 mm CMOS sensor (Nikon CX format), Total pixels: approx.23.27million 1.0-intype, 13.2 mm x 8.8 mm CMOS sensor (Nikon CX format), Total pixels: approx.23.27million 1.0-intype, 13.2 mm x 8.8 mm CMOS sensor (Nikon CX format), Total pixels: approx.23.27million
Lens
NIKKOR lens with2.8x optical zoom NIKKOR lens with21x optical zoom NIKKOR lens with3.6x optical zoom
Focal length
6.7to, 18.5mm, (angle of view equivalent to that of 18-50 mm lens in 35mm [135] format) 8.8to, 185mm, (angle of view equivalent to that of 24–500 mm lens in 35mm [135] format) 8.8to, 31.3mm, (angle of view equivalent to that of 24-85 mm lens in 35mm [135] format)
f/-number
f/1.8, to2.8 f/2.8, to5.6 f/1.8, to2.8
Construction
11elements in, 8groups, (2 ED lens elements) 15elements in, 11groups, (4 ED lens elements) 11elements in, 9groups, (1 ED lens element)
Digital zoom magnification
Up to 4 x (angle of view equivalent to that of approx. 200 mm lens in 35mm [135] format) Up to 4 x (angle of view equivalent to that of approx. 2000 mm lens in 35mm [135] format) Up to 4 x (angle of view equivalent to that of approx. 340 mm lens in 35mm [135] format)
Vibration reduction
Lens-shift (still images), Lens shift and electronic VR (movies) Lens-shift (still images), Lens shift and electronic VR (movies) Lens-shift (still images), Lens shift and electronic VR (movies)
Autofocus system
Hybrid autofocus (phase-detection/contrast-detect AF) Hybrid autofocus (phase-detection/contrast-detect AF) Hybrid autofocus (phase-detection/contrast-detect AF)
Focus range
[W]: Approx.15 cm to ∞, [T]: Approx.16 cm to ∞, Macro close-upmode: Approx., 2 cm to ∞ (wide-angle position), or 16 cm to ∞ (telephoto position), (All distances measured from center of front surface of lens) [W]: Approx.30 cm (1 ft) to ∞, [T]: Approx.2.0 m (6 ft 7 in.) to ∞, Macro close-upmode: Approx., 1 cm (0.4 in.) to ∞ (wide-angle position), or 70 cm (2 ft 4 in.) to ∞ (telephoto position), (All distances measured from center of front surface of lens) [W]: Approx.30 cm to ∞, [T]: Approx.30 cm to ∞, Macro close-upmode: Approx., 3 cm to ∞ (wide-angle position), or 30 cm to ∞ (telephoto position), (All distances measured from center of front surface of lens), Super macro mode: Approx. 3 cm (1.2 in.) to 6 cm (2.4 in.). (All distances measured from center of front surface of lens)
Focus-area selection
Auto-area (auto selection from 41 focus areas), single-point, subject tracking, face-priority function Auto-area (auto selection from 41 focus areas), single-point, subject tracking, face-priority function Auto-area (auto selection from 41 focus areas), single-point, subject tracking, face-priority function
Monitor size
7.5cm (3-in.) diagonal 7.5cm (3-in.) diagonal 7.5cm (3-in.) diagonal
Monitor resolution
Approx.1037k-dot, OLED touch screen with 5-level brightness adjustment Approx.1037k-dot, OLED touch screen with 5-level brightness adjustment and vari-angle mechanism Approx.1037k-dot, OLED touch screen with 5-level brightness adjustment
Media
SD, SDHC, SDXC SD, SDHC, SDXC SD, SDHC, SDXC
File system
DCF and Exif 2.3 compliant DCF and Exif 2.3 compliant DCF and Exif 2.3 compliant
File formats
Still images: JPEG, RAW (NEF) (Nikon’s own format) Movies: MP4 (Video: H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, Audio: AAC stereo) Still images: JPEG, RAW (NEF) (Nikon’s own format) Movies: MP4 (Video: H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, Audio: AAC stereo) Still images: JPEG, RAW (NEF) (Nikon’s own format) Movies: MP4 (Video: H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, Audio: AAC stereo)
Image size
L 5568×3712; 20.6 M M 4176×2784; 11.6 M S 2784×1856; 5.1 M 16:9 5568×3136; 17.4 M 1:1 3712×3712; 13.8 M L 5568×3712; 20.6 M M 4176×2784; 11.6 M S 2784×1856; 5.1 M 16:9 5568×3136; 17.4 M 1:1 3712×3712; 13.8 M L 5568×3712; 20.6 M M 4176×2784; 11.6 M S 2784×1856; 5.1 M 16:9 5568×3136; 17.4 M 1:1 3712×3712; 13.8 M
ISO sensitivity
ISO160, to6400, ISO 6400 (NR), 12800, 12800 (NR) (available when using P, S, A, M, or U mode) ISO160, to6400, ISO 6400 (NR), 12800, 12800 (NR) (available when using P, S, A, or M mode) ISO160, to6400, ISO 6400 (NR), 12800, 12800 (NR) (available when using P, S, A, or M mode)
Metering mode
Matrix, center-weighted, spot Matrix, center-weighted, spot Matrix, center-weighted, spot
Exposure control
Programmed auto exposure with flexible program, shutter-priority auto, aperture-priority auto, manual, exposure bracketing Exposure compensation (Still images: -3.0 to +3.0 EV in steps of 1/3 EV, +3.0 to +5.0 EV/-5.0 to -3.0 EV in steps of 1 EV, Movies: -3.0 to +3.0 EV in steps of 1/3 EV) Programmed auto exposure with flexible program, shutter-priority auto, aperture-priority auto, manual, exposure bracketing Exposure compensation (Still images: -3.0 to +3.0 EV in steps of 1/3 EV, +3.0 to +5.0 EV/-5.0 to -3.0 EV in steps of 1 EV, Movies: -3.0 to +3.0 EV in steps of 1/3 EV) --
Shutter type
Mechanical and CMOS electronic shutter Mechanical and CMOS electronic shutter Mechanical and CMOS electronic shutter
Shutter speed
1/16000to, 30s, Mechanical shutter: 1/2000 to 30 s Electronic shutter: 1/16000 to 30 s Time shooting: Maximum 120 s (when m mode is set.) 1/16000to, 30s, Mechanical shutter: 1/2000 to 30 s Electronic shutter: 1/16000 to 30 s Time shooting: Maximum 120 s (when m mode is set.) 1/16000to, 30s, Mechanical shutter: 1/1000 to 30 s Electronic shutter: 1/16000 to 30 s Time shooting: Maximum 120 s (when m mode is set.)
Range
20 steps of 1/3 EV (W) (A, M mode) 16 steps of 1/3 EV (W) (A, M mode) 20 steps of 1/3 EV (W) (A, M mode)
Self-timer
Can be selected from 10 s and 2 s Can be selected from 10 s and 2 s --
Built-in flash
No Yes Yes
Accessory shoe
ISO 518 hot-shoe with sync and data contacts and safety lock, #### ISO 518 hot-shoe with sync and data contacts and safety lock ISO 518 hot-shoe with sync and data contacts and safety lock
USB connector
Micro-USB connector, Do not use any USB cable other than the included UC-E21 USB Cable.), Hi-Speed USB Supports Direct Print (PictBridge) Micro-USB connector, Do not use any USB cable other than the included UC-E21 USB Cable.), Hi-Speed USB Supports Direct Print (PictBridge) Micro-USB connector, Do not use any USB cable other than the included UC-E21 USB Cable.), Hi-Speed USB Supports Direct Print (PictBridge)
HDMI output connector
HDMI micro connector (Type D) HDMI micro connector (Type D) HDMI micro connector (Type D)
Standards
IEEE 802.11b/g (standard wireless LAN protocol) IEEE 802.11b/g (standard wireless LAN protocol) IEEE 802.11b/g (standard wireless LAN protocol)
Operating frequency
2412-2462 MHz (1-11 channels) 2412–2462 MHz (1–11 channels) 2412–2462 MHz (1–11 channels)
Authentication
Open system, WPA2-PSK Open system, WPA2-PSK Open system, WPA2-PSK
Communication protocols
Bluetooth Specification Version 4.1 Bluetooth Specification Version 4.1 Bluetooth Specification Version 4.1
Supported languages for camera menus
Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese (Simplified and Traditional), Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hindi, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Persian, Polish, Portuguese (European and Brazilian), Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian, Vietnamese Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese (Simplified and Traditional), Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hindi, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Persian, Polish, Portuguese (European and Brazilian), Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian, Vietnamese Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese (Simplified and Traditional), Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hindi, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Persian, Polish, Portuguese (European and Brazilian), Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian, Vietnamese
Charging time
Approx. 2 h 30 min (when using Charging AC Adapter EH-73P and when no charge remains) Approx. 3 h (when using Charging AC Adapter EH-73P and when no charge remains) Approx. 2 h 30 min (when using Charging AC Adapter EH-73P and when no charge remains)
Battery life of still shooting
Approx. 260 shots when using EN-EL24 Approx. 290 shots when using EN-EL20a Approx. 250 shots when using EN-EL24
Battery life of movies
Approx. 45 min when using EN-EL24 Approx. 55 min when using EN-EL20a Approx. 50 min when using EN-EL24
Tripod socket
1/4 (ISO 1222) 1/4 (ISO 1222) 1/4 (ISO 1222)
Dimensions
Approx.106, x63, x57.5mm, (excluding projections) Approx.122.5, x89.9, x138.8mm (4.9, x3.6, x5.5in.), (excluding projections) Approx.104.9, x61.3, x49.8mm, (excluding projections)
Weight
Approx.359g, (including battery and memory card) Approx.780g (1 lb 11.6 oz), (including battery and memory card) Approx.345g, (including battery and memory card)
Temperature
0°C to 40°C (32°F to 104°F) 0°C to 40°C (32°F to 104°F) --
Humidity
85% or less (no condensation) 85% or less (no condensation) --
Viewfinder
-- Electronic viewfinder, 1 cm (0.39-in.) approx. 2359k-dot OLED with the diopter adjustment function (–3 to +1 m{sup(-1)}) --
Frame coverage
-- Approx. 100% horizontal and vertical (compared to actual picture) --
Flash sync speed
-- Mechanical shutter: Synchronizes with shutter at all speeds Electronic shutter: Synchronizes with shutter at X=1/60 s or slower Mechanical shutter: Synchronizes with shutter at all speeds Electronic shutter: Synchronizes with shutter at X=1/60 s or slower
Control
-- TTL auto flash with image sensor --
Flash exposure compensation
-- In steps of 1/3 EV in the range between –3 and +1 EV --
External microphone connector
-- Stereo mini-pin jack (3.5 mm diameter; plug-in power supported) --
Supplied Accessories
-- AN-DL1 Strap, LC-DL3 Lens Cap, EN-EL20a Rechargeable Li-ion Battery, EH-73P Charging AC Adapter (A plug adapter is included if the camera was purchased in a country or region that requires a plug adapter. The shape of the plug adapter varies with the country or region of purchase), UC-E21 USB Cable --

MTF charts comparison between two of the DL lenses:

Nikon DL camera lens MTF charts

This entry was posted in Nikon DL. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • Eric Dye

    so no bluetooth then? Darn, I was really hoping Nikon would include that. It’s a feature that would have put me over the fence from “maybe if I found one cheap used” to “actively planning to buy”

    • DB

      all three cameras have SnapBridge bluetooth.

      • Yes, all new Nikon cameras will have SnapBridge from now on.

      • Eric Dye

        Oh awesome I didn’t see that. I’ll def be looking to pick one up then!

    • Wesley

      ???

      “Communication protocols
      Bluetooth Specification Version 4.1”

      • Eric Dye

        I was on mobile and for some reason the page didn’t load that far down. That’s great that it’s included

  • Eric Calabros

    Here is the size compared to Sony.
    RX wins but DL is beautiful 🙂

    • Spy Black

      Unfortunately you can’t stick that in you jeans pocket, unless perhaps you wear VERY loose jeans. My RX100 III *just* fit in my pocket. Seems trivial but it affects the camera’s true portability and ability to be with you all the time.

      They’re also cheating here because they’re not showing you the full thickness it will have with the lens caps on. Shame, really.

      • Shutterbug

        Neither are going to fit in your pocket unless you have huge pants haha. Both are more jacket pocket cameras, and valuable enough that lots of people still use them with small bags or cases. The jeans so many people wear these days can barely fit an iPhone haha.

        • Aldo

          “jacket pocket” oh so it’s winter camera? lol

        • There’s not enough room left in MY pants.

        • Max

          And they wear them in any case. Especially if it’s the latest iphone, they make sure it really sticks out so you can see the logo and everything. stupid hipsters.

        • Nimloth

          Still more pocket space than a mankini… 😉

      • Aldo

        Cellphone still fits in the pocket though 😉

        • Spy Black

          …at which point you wouldn’t be looking at any of these. 😉

      • David Weinehall

        If you’re going casual (which the jeans bit indicates) you can always wear cargo pants. No problem fitting it then. If you’re dressing up a bit more formal you can put it in your jacket (U.S. English: sports coat). If you’re going in shorts and t-shirt you can usually find shorts with nice and roomy pockets.

        • Spy Black

          I guess if cargo pants is a style you can be comfortable with, you have a point. 😉

      • HotDuckZ

        Put it to your underpants and the guy will look better.

      • Maybe if we wear jeaneeze jeans (as seen on TV), the cameras would fit…

        :-p

      • Matthew Glassman

        Hey is that a camera in your pocket or are you just happy to see me… :-p

  • Sean Parchem

    Hope that “hybrid auto focus” is better than my Current Coolpix A focusing. I’m guessing it will be at least as good as the 1 system auto focus. Still wish they would have made an update to that Coolpix A camera with PDAF and wireless connectivity. Maybe next year:-( Waiting for those non biased reviews now.

    • Cinematism

      That´s for sure, this autofocusing is in the line of Nikon 1 System if not better, which as you know is fairly better than the Coolpix A. I have a Coolpix A and Nikon V1 and J5. The autofocus is very different.

      • Sean Parchem

        Very different:-) as I replied to shutterbug. It was more of a “wish” camera. A DX sensor with PADF fixed lens, built like the A, 28mmm same current size. Just what I want. Which is different from what others want.

    • Shutterbug

      Have you used a Nikon 1 body? The AF is bloody amazing, and these have the same AF (identical specs to the J5). The Coolpix A just uses standard CDAF and is a completely different beast. It’s definitely what is going to set the DL apart from the competition. It’s hilarious that the Canon G7X II is more expensive than the DL, you can bet that price is going to drop like a rock.

      • Spy Black

        The Nikon 1 AF system is amazing, but so far the AF on my new Pana GM5 is actually faster, and better in low light. So, good to have the N1 AF in these cameras, but it certainly won’t “set the DL apart from the competition”. The competition is better than you think.

        • Shutterbug

          The GM5 is an interchangeable lens camera, shoots at 1/12 the speed (1/4 with AF), has a tiny 7 frame RAW buffer, and lacks PDAF entirely – there isn’t much of a comparison there at all, especially if your subject is moving. It also has a ridiculous flash sync speed of 1/50sec. The DL competition is the Sony RX100 series and Canon G7X II…the GM5 is a low-end MILC with a slow kit lens in a completely different segment.

          The AF system and FPS is what really sets the DL apart, both in it’s own segment (G7X, RX100) and even against MILC’s.

          • Spy Black

            …and you would be wrong. The GM5 focuses faster and more accurately than my J4, especially in low light. I’m not a spray and pray shooter, so I’m not concerned with the buffer, but that’s a RAW buffer figure you’re listing, with JPEGs it’s relatively continuous. It’s also 5fps mechanical, 10fps vs 20fps with electronic shutter (as is the Nikon), so I’m not sure where you’re getting your 1/12 figure.

            I’m also not sure how much flash sync matters to people shooting with cameras like these, as an available light shooter it certainly doesn’t to me, but 1/50 vs 1/60 doesn’t strike me as a deal breaker.

            And despite the “slow kit lens”, both the J4 (which also has an identical speed lens) and especially the GM5 focus better and allow me to get images I couldn’t get with the RX with f/1.8-2.8 lens, so don’t let that speed rating fool you.

            The GM5 has twice the surface area on it’s sensor than the 1-ich cameras, giving it far better noise and dynamic range.

            And yes, the GM5 is a ILC, but one which happens to be in the same size league as the RX, DL, and N1 series, so it’s not only a player, but a far more versatile one at that in that it is indeed an ILC.
            http://camerasize.com/compare/#664,570

            • Shutterbug

              Something might be wrong with your J4 then, as I have used numerous 1-series cameras as well as the GM5 – the GM5 is not in the same category. Try tracking fast motion toward/away from the camera.

              The 5FPS figure is how fast the GM5 will shoot with semi-continuous autofocus between frames – the only figure that matters for most situations.
              Why do you keep bringing up the J4? We’re talking about the Nikon DL. The DL gets you the Nikon 1 AF system (latest version, which is better than the J4 AF) and a really fast lens (much faster than either kit lens).

              The M43 sensors are barely better than the 1″ sensors these days, they just don’t get updated nearly as often. The larger sensor having slightly better performance though is no secret. The 1″ sensor is the trade off for having a fast aperture lens in a small package.

              You say that you don’t use RAW, and you don’t fill the 7 frame RAW buffer, or shoot faster than 5 FPS and that’s totally fine but those are severe limitations to many shooters looking to buy into the enthusiast camera segment.

              The size is similar, no doubt, but the crippled AF, buffer, and speed on the GM5 puts it in a whole other category even if we ignore the kit lens. It lacks PDAF entirely, which is tremendously useful.

              Anyways, I don’t like arguing, I don’t think we will ever agree. I’m glad the GM5 does everything you want it to. For those wanting a fixed lens, PDAF, and extreme shooting capabilities they will have the DL as an option as well.

            • Spy Black

              You may be correct about fast motion tracking. Because that is not the way I shoot, that is probably why I see no problem with the AF system. If that’s a concern you may have a valid point.

              I only bring up the J4 because it is a camera I own and have used that has the same AF system in the new DLs. The AF is fine. As a matter of fact, despite it’s inferior sensor and larger size, it replaced my RX100 III as my street camera because the RX AF and startup time are useless for getting a fleeting shot. Certainly one of the shining traits of the J4. It ALMOST makes up for the sensor. 😉

              “The M43 sensors are barely better than the 1″ sensors these days…”

              Certainly justifiable for me and the type of shooting I do with these cameras. Below are raw samples with no NR of my J4, RX, and GM5 at ISO 3200. The difference is worth it for me.

              I didn’t say I don’t shoot RAW, I was merely pointing out the continuous JPEG fps. I shoot RAW + JPEG, actually. Again, I don’t shoot continuous, so this is not an issue for me. I can see it being such for the spray & pray crowd, but I’m at a loss as to who buys a pocket camera to do that. Someone, I guess.

              You’re correct that the DLs will have a place in someone’s (bulging) pocket. 🙂 The 24-85 especially appears to be a sweet spot between zoom range and price. I think Nikon should have given the 18-50 and 24-85 the same (lower) price really. That other camera, while I could see it costing more, should have had a price more like the 18-50.

              As time goes by and these cameras are discounted, they will be more attractive. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f6289610b0c09487f113076cd8af41ba02e347e9b52e70d7ee442831a2301044.jpg

            • Cinematism

              Don´t forget two important facts: the 18-50mm is an UWA zoom, while the 24-85mm is little more than standard zoom. An UWA zoom lens is expensive, look the 18-35mm equivalent for Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, Sony, Nikon, Nikon 1 Canon, Canon M, etc. And all of those lenses are not 18-50mm, are not f/1.8-2.8 and does´t have nanocrystal, pretty useful against flares and ghost. So considering that and the price of the UWA lenses or the price of the Sony RX100 (24-70mm), then these Nikons DL are not expensive at all. That does not mean that 650, 850 or 999 bucks are not a lot of money.

            • Spy Black

              Yeah, well, at least something like $650, $750, and $850 would’ve been a more attractive pricing structure. I bet the higher price models won’t sell so well until there is a price drop, which has pretty much been the case with all the overpriced compacts like the N1 series and the Coolpix A. The 24-85 will probably do very well.

            • Jimmy Li

              “The M43 sensors are barely better than the 1″ sensors these days…”

              Only if you dont care for dof.

            • Cinematism

              The measurements on the page that you linked are clearly wrong. Its says, for example, that the new DL measures 140.9 mm in W, while the FX Nikon D750 measures 140.5 mm, so in that web the DL is not only bigger than the PanG5, it is bigger than the D750. Please!!!

            • Spy Black

              They do say a picture is worth a thousand words, don’t they? 😉

            • Cinematism

              Yes, and they are very literal about that 😉

            • Shark

              then why do you spam like mad?
              no job.. no GF… all you do is writing stuff nobody cares about?

            • Spy Black

              You care about it enough to read it. Where would you be without me? I know how lonely it gets, looking up peoples profiles and all that. That’s why I’m here, for you, so read all my stuff so you can comment.

      • Sean Parchem

        Yes, I have the original V1. It’s a fun little carry around camera and the focusing is great. I was just making a point that the Coolpix A would have been killer with the AF that is in the 1 series cameras. And I’m with Spy, I’ve used that Pana and it’s fast. Very tempting. My post was basically just a “my wish for an ideal camera for me” that I can hike and bike with and not carry my D800 w/name the lens:-) Isn’t that why people post here?

        • Shutterbug

          Agreed, Sean. The Coolpix A with 1-series would have actually made it worth it’s original $1200 price tag.

          Initial focus acquisition and overall AF/tracking ability are two very different things. All of these cameras have near-instant acquisition on a static subject. The GM5 can’t track a fast moving subject worth a damn (especially as light gets dim), shoots slow (5fps with “AF”) and the RAW buffer is only 7 frames deep before things slow down to a crawl. It suffers from all the same problems as every CDAF-only camera. I’m not saying it’s a bad camera but they aren’t really comparable I’m afraid.

      • nhz

        G7X price dropped a lot too after introduction – that’s a common Canon’s way of making money: first sell at high price to early adopters and fanboys, then gradually undersell the competition to compensate for missing feature/quality in the product.

        I agree with Sean that an updated Coolpix A would be nice (not only with updated PDAF, I also want a tilt screen or build-in EVF). There is still room for that in the market as the Ricoh GR II wasn’t much of an update, and the Fuji X70 probably is a step lower in image quality. Although these DL cameras probably take away some of the potential buyers for an updated Coolpix A …

  • That 24-85 looks like a pretty nice carry-at-all-times option. For once Nikon is coming out of the gate with something priced appropriately.

    • Cinematism

      You are right, I have paid more than 700 euros (aprox 780 USD) for my Canon G7X and about 550 euros (600 USD) for my Sony RX (no tilt-screen, no touch screen, no wifi and lens aperture f/1.8-4.9). So, UWA lens, with fast aperture and nanocrystal, or a 24-85 with 1:1 macro, 4k video, perspective correction in camara, slowmotion 120 fps FHD, 20 FPS, clean HDMI output, not bad at all.

      • nhz

        Yes, the DL cameras should have the edge in speed, ergonomics and some other features and maybe in optical quality too. I bet the DL24-85 lens is better at WA and macro than the G7X lens. RX100-3 lens may be more difficult to beat in optical quality and no EVF will be a disadvantage for some buyers, but the DL still wins on other features so I think price is about right (unlike many Nikon 1 introduction prices …).

  • purenupe1

    Whats the chances of these attached lenses being translated to the Nikon 1 line?

    • Cinematism

      I would like it, but I don´t see Nikon doing that. In my opinion, this could be the bye of the N1 System (as an owner of V1 & J5 and several lenses I don´t want to happen, but…). I see Nikon letting the 1″ inch sensor to DL cameras, and looking forward to FX or DX mirrorless. To be honest, I think the DL 18-50 substitutes my V1 & J5 and three of my lenses: the kit lens, of course, the UWA 6.7-13mm and the pancake 10mm f/2.8

    • whisky

      the chances are bigger, more expensive, but do-able. JMO.

  • whisky

    it’s interesting that Nikon’s returned to full sized SD cards.
    thank you, i think, for listening Nikon. 🙂

    • Allen_Wentz

      What is a “full-sized” SD card? So far I am not fond of SD.

      • nwcs

        As opposed to Micro SD.

    • Kyle

      I agree… I’m not a fan of microSD… to easily misplaced, plus I need to use an adapter to offload onto my latop. Just something else to have to keep up with. Much better this way.

  • steve miller

    I expect it has silent mode but none of the specs I have seen so far are listing this feature. Wish Nikon would say one way or the other.

    • Cinematism

      Yes, they can work in total silence, since they don’t have a mirror, and all the sounds can be deactivated by the user

      • istreetshooter

        Not all mirrorless cameras can work in silence because of the type of shutter used. The A6000 doesn’t have an electronic silent shutter but the A6300 does, for example. The silent electronic shutter is why I appreciate my v1 so much.

        • Cinematism

          You are right, almost all mirrorless, not all. In the particular case of Nikon, yes they can operate in total silence.

          • The majority of mirrorless cameras cannot work in silence. There are a few that can, and more recently, electronic shutters have been rolled out in a number of cameras, but certainly not a majority of mirrorless cameras.

            • Cinematism

              I don´t agree. In a DSRL, the mirror goes up and down, the shutter opens and closes, those parts are big and the movements are all mechanical, then the noise is proportional. But despite that some mirrorless do not have an electronic shutter, its mechanical shutter is smaller, so in most of them you can feel the click, but you can only hear a very weak sound. The Nikon DL as the N1 cameras have an electronic shutter, so the sound can be totally silenced.

            • It doesn’t matter that you disagree. The fact of the matter is that only electronic shutters are truly silent.

              All mechanical shutters make noise. Some, like the A7r, are louder and continue making noise longer than comparable SLR cameras.

              Silence means the complete absence of sound. There is no such thing as silence whose defining characteristic is a ‘very weak sound’.

              Mirrorless or no, mechanical shutters make noise. Some are noisier than others. A Nikon D800 is louder than a 5D2, but both are SLRs. An X-Pro 1 is louder than an X-T1, but both are mirrorless.

              A leica M240 is quieter than an M9, but both are rangefinder cameras. Whether or not you agree, mechanical shutters make noise.

            • Cinematism

              OMG Philosophy is not death. “silence means the complete absence of sound”… Don’t tell me, really? Then we have to write to all brands to tell that, and why not, to tell them also that the lens infinite doesn’t exist.

            • Lens infinite? What’s with the non sequitur? We were talking about shutter noise. I said that only electronic shutters are noiseless. You insisted that shutters that make noise are actually silent. not me.

    • Wesley

      Judging by the 1/16000 top speed for electronic shutter, I think it’s silent compared to a half mechanical/electronic shutter.

    • Eric Calabros

      Yes it does silent shooting. With mechanical shutter max speed is 1/1000 in 24-85 and 1/2000 in 18-55

    • Matthew Glassman

      Doesn’t electronic shutter = silent option?

  • Wesley

    28-85 typo for the 24-85 focal length

    • fixed

    • Marc Moore

      the typo is on the Nikon website

  • I’m buying the DL -85. I’m working with some kids learning street photography.

    It’s the same battery as the J5, my preferred street shooter.

    One thing I didn’t understand; is it a continuous zoom or are there steps? I prefer the latter for the kids to learn, but no matter.

    • Eric Calabros

      Both. Stepped and continuous.

    • Orange Elephant

      It looks to me that there’s one of those zoom buttons on the top which will give continuous & you get stepped by turning the ring on the lens?

      • Thom Hogan

        I believe that’s true.

        • Thanks Orange and Thom.

          • Max

            I think Eric also said in some other post you can manual zoom, focus, set aperture, ss and white balance on the lens ring.

    • Max

      Do you use the J5 without a viewfinder for street?

      • Cinematism

        I do

      • I do too.

        • Max

          Cool. I’m looking for something small and relatively inexpensive that I can work with to experiment with mirrorless as well as for shooting without viewfinder. Even if it doesn’t work out I can still zone focus and shoot from hip etc.

    • neversink

      My preferred street shooter is the D4 or D800. With film it is the Leica M3 or M6, Mamiya 7ii, or Nikon F3. Why sacrifice quality? But each to their own. Enjoy.

      • I prefer to be more discreet. Anyway, I’m not going to place my D810 in the hands of teenagers in a major city.

        • neversink

          I’ve never had any problems over the past 50 years with teenagers while photographing in Mexico City, Nairobi, Paris, London, Kisimu, New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Barcelona, Turino, Beijing, Shanghai, Seattle, Vancouver, Philadelphia or any other place. Sorry. I prefer the camera with higher quality. But as I said before, enjoy.

      • Cinematism

        In some places go with a D4 could be the equivalent to call the thieves.

  • SimenO

    NR you should tell the whole truth about equivalences, not just the half regarding focal lengths. This is important to show true comparisons so people can make better informed choices. Many people don’t know about aperture equivalence or just don’t hassle with converting it themselves.

    • Cinematism

      And what is that “truth”…

      • That your smartphone with an f/2,2 aperture and a lens just as wide as a 30mm lens is EVERY bit as good as the most expensive, large and dedicated camera ever made because all that matters is aperture size.

        • nwcs

          I think people are missing the forest for the trees. I’d dare say most of us only want the “equivalent” focal length because it gives us a quick idea of field of view. It’s totally unnecessary to go into details about total light, changing sensor sizes, perspective differences when framing similarly with different sensors, etc. each and every time new lenses or cameras are announced, mentioned, discussed, or discontinued.

          • Which is why stating angle of view is far more accurate. This equivalence thing is a ridiculous reduction.

            • nwcs

              But it’s quickly understood as a shortcut. It may not be precise but it gets the point across and that’s the most important thing for a shortcut.

    • hje

      🙂

      • Cinematism

        LOL 😉

    • nwcs

      Or… maybe the audience here is smart enough to understand all the issues and are only concerned with field of view instead of obsessing about equivalences every time it’s mentioned.

      • wangbu

        Is there a new Aperture Equivalence truther movement we don’t know about?

        • nwcs

          Maybe!

        • Cinematism

          LOL good point

    • This is coming up a lot. Do we compare equivalence to full frame or any other of the hundreds of form factors used in photography? Why does a company have to list some vague aperture that might give someone an idea of dof over a set known value,I.e. Ratio of focal length? Why should they convert aperture to ff and not to any other sensor size? My 2.8 full frame lens is actually f4 compared to medium format? There is no such thing as aperture equivalence as aperture is a physical measurement, my phone camera has a f2 lens, I know I won’t get the same dof as my dslr. Tony opened up a whole bag of worms in his video and suddenly the world is upset with the camera industry, it’s a non story.

      • Thom Hogan

        You compare equivalence to another format you’re considering. For example, if you were choosing today between an RX100 and LX100 you might consider the equivalence factor. If you’re choosing between an RX100 and a DL 24-85 they are equivalent already.

      • El Aura

        What you call aperture (and what is actually the f-stop) is a dimensionless number. What matters for light gathering is the actual physical aperture size. The same way we are using the focal length of lens used on FF as a proxy to describe the AOV (and AOV is probably the primary parameter when selecting a lens), we use equivalent f-stops as a proxy for the physical size of the aperture.

        Equivalent f-stops are a roundabout way, but the larger the lens opening in the form of the entrance pupil (the size of the physical aperture as viewed from the front of the lens), for a given AOV of a lens is, the more light it can collect. A larger hole = more light passing through.

        To get the entrance pupil, you start with the f-stop and multiply it with the actual focal length. The actual focal length is the equivalent focal length divided by the crop factor, eg, 85 mm equiv. divided by 2.7 = 31.5 mm, times 1/2.8 * = 11.2 mm. For a FF 85 mm lens (ie, where equiv. = actual), that number is 30.4 mm. As you can see, the ratio between the entrance pupil of a 85 mm, f/2.8 FF and an 85 mm equiv., f/2.8 1″ lens is 2.7 (ie, the crop factor).

        It doesn’t matter what sensor size equiv. you choose, it just needs to be the same when you compare f-stops of lenses for differently sized sensors. As Thom said, if you compare two 1″ cameras/lenses, than the same f-stop means the same amount of light on both cameras/lenses. If you compare a 1″ camera with, eg, the LX100, you have about a third of a stop difference, ie, f/2.8 on a 1″ sensor is equiv. to f/3.1 on the LX100 sensor (when using the same aspect ratio). What matters is not the absolute f-stop (actual or equiv.) when comparing two cameras (or lenses), what matters is the difference in equivalent f-stops. And that difference is the same regardless of what sensor size you select for the equivalent aperture. Because that difference in equivalent f-stops (as a multiplication factor) is the difference in physical entrance pupils.

        • nwcs

          While I agree with you in total light and composition I think most, if not all, of the people visiting this site are really only interested in equivalent field of view. At some point I hope there’s some agreement because it’s tiresome to see the seemingly never-ending “you’re not telling the whole story admin” lectures.

          • El Aura

            I know, I am not bringing up the topic myself. I just comment when somebody starts to butcher the basic physics. For example when somebody thinks the f-stop describes the physical size of the aperture or when somebody thinks that since a crop sensor doesn’t change the physical size of the aperture, the same amount of light is reaching the sensor.

            • SimenO

              Nobody is talking about changing physical properties. Is all about non physical properties like equivalent this and equivalent that. It means these aren’t real, but a hypothetical physical property to compare with. IE there is no one claiming the first of those cameras have a physical 18-50mm focal length or a physical f/4,9-7,6 aperture, or that such a lens exists for full frame.

              BTW, f-stops are a real physical measure, albeit difficult to measure directly with a ruler in modern lenses, but in primitive one glass lenses, its an easy measure of the diameter of the glass. Its not dimensionless. The f (focal length) in the division contains the dimension (mm).

            • El Aura

              The f-stop is the ratio between the diameter of the physical aperture blades (entrance pupil to be precise), something measured in millimetres, and the focal length, also something measured in millimetres. Last time I checked, when you divide two properties that that have the same units (millimetre here), you get a dimensionless number.

              In a single-lens element lens, the f-stop is 2x tan(alpha/2), where alpha is the maximum angle of incidence at the sensor (again for a single-lens-element lens). You can measure the angle, but you have to computer the tan of it.

            • SimenO

              But you don’t divide the to dimension numbers by each other. You divide a dimension number by a dimensionless and get a dimension number.

              Remember that the aperture is more then just IE the number 2.8. The f and division sign has to be there to make it meaningful. If f=100mm and the aperture is f/4 its easy to calculate the aperture to 25mm, but more informative to write the division without calculating it.

            • El Aura

              To quote Wikipedia:
              “The f-number N or f# is given by N = f/D, where f is the focal length, and D is the diameter of the entrance pupil (effective aperture). It is customary to WRITE F-NUMBERS PRECEDED BY f/, which forms a mathematical expression of the entrance pupil diameter in terms of f and N.”

              Thus while this mathematical expression describes the entrance pupil diameter, what we call f-stop or f-number is the dimensionless part. When we talk about the f-stop, we mean the dimensionless number but have just this odd habit of writing down a mathematical formula containing this dimensionless number. But this is just a notation habit, in spoken language we don’t say the lens has an “f-stop of f over 2.8”, we say the lens has an “f-stop of 2.8”. This is further confused by many people saying that the lens has an “aperture of 2.8”.

            • SimenO

              Ok, I agree. I was thinking that aperture = D, expressed as f/N.

        • Cinematism

          So, if the theory of the aperture equivalence has a sense, If I shot with a Nikon FX camera and f1.8 lens at ISO 6,400, and put the same lens at the same aperture on a Nikon 1, should I up my ISO to 17,280?

          • El Aura

            When you put the same lens on a Nikon 1, you are using only a fraction of its image circle and thus only a fraction of the light the it would project onto a FF sensor. You would also be shooting at very different AOV. That is the point, the amount of light a lens lets in is a function of the size of the whole (entrance pupil/aperture) and the acceptance angle (ie, AOV).

            That is why putting the same lens in front of a small sensor makes the lens ‘slower’ (as in letting less light in), because its acceptance angle is decreased (technically it is not the lens that lets less light in, it is the combination of lens + camera, with the size of the shutter ‘hole’ being the discriminating factor).

            ISO is just the conversion factor between light/area * time and in-camera jpeg brightness. If you change the sensor size, the same ISO value doesn’t mean the same amount of light anymore. Thus for everything else the being same (f-stop, scene illumination, shutter speed), the same ISO results in the same jpeg brightness. If you want to keep the same amount light being collected, you need to increase the exposure time by three stops (ie, use an exposure time that is 8x longer). The ISO that would go with that longer exposure time would then be three stops lower, ie, ISO 800.

          • SimenO

            Seems like there is a need for education on this. If you are truly interested to know, I would suggest this article:
            http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/

        • SimenO

          I disagree in that its only the difference that matters. I think we always should use the same 135-film format as the reference. This is much cleaner and easy to get our heads around then having lots of different scales. Just like any other measure, it will be confusing to have lots of different scales.

          • El Aura

            Yes, but when comparing two fixed-lens cameras directly, what matters is only the delta. Using the same reference scale makes it easier to calculate the delta but in the final discussion, it is the delta that is relevant.

            • SimenO

              Well, the difference matters, but its confusing to not have a measure you know by hart.

              IE if a class should measure and range who is most suitable for their basket team, its confusing to measure them in how many pencils high they are in stead of using the common measure centimetre. All people (except in the US) know centimetres by hart. If someone says 50 centimetres everybody can instinctively show approximately how long that is. But ask someone to show how much 3 pencils, or 15 post it notes are, it will be confusing.

              Say camera A have an ff-equivalent of 35mm/2,8 and camera B have an ff-equivalent of 45mm/4. That gives me more information then knowing that Camera B is one stop more then camera B and that camera B has almost 30% more focal length then camera A.

      • If you write 28-50mm when the lens’s actual focal length is 8-16, and that 28-50mm refers to FF, you then state equivalent aperture against the same metric.

        Easy.

        Or, you say fuck it and mention the real values only.

        • I disagree. 8-16 would mean very little to a lot of people, you could use angle of view but same again. The whole ‘it lets in less light thing’ is not true so the only thing its affects is depth of field.

          How do you relate to depth of field any way?There are too many factors, you can shoot wide open on a medium format camera but if the scene is far enough away your dof is going to be huge. I’m not saying there isn’t confusion or an issue with using FF comparisons of focal lengths, but I am saying that people don’t have to shout at companies for not multiplying their aperture values. Focal length is a measurable thing that is easy to portray and pretty much always stays the same (avoiding focus breathing) but dof isn’t.

          Therefore to state this camera has an aperture of 1.8 * crop factor is wrong, as it doesn’t it is a 1.8 lens.
          Stating this camera has a relative focal length of 24-80 or whatever, allows for people to get an idea of the angle of view without digging up charts online.

          • SimenO

            Well, if 8-16mm tell people very little, then their true apertures would also tell people very little. Both numbers have to be multiplied by the crop factor to give an easily comparable measure.

            My suggestion would then be to completely forget both the physical measures and only use FF equivalents for both. Only then can people easily relate them to something known.

            • Espen4u

              Nah, I don’t agree. Aperture does’nt need to be translated. I think Nasim wrote a good article back when Tony tried his wits on this topic.

          • El Aura

            Ferrari used to name their cars by the engine displacement per cylinder. If you don’t know how many cylinders the engine has, this is a pretty useless number (not completely, displacement per cylinder affects engine properties but this more or interest for engine designers). The same applies to the f-stop, without the sensor size, it is a pretty useless number (not completely, it tells us a bit how difficult the lens is to design).

            Another analogy could be engine output per displacement. Again something of great interest to engine designers, not so much for car buyers. Imaging cars being sold with power per displacement as the headline number describing the engine.

            • Narretz

              Good thing we always know the sensor size as it is even more important than the lenses f stop.

          • It’s total light, not just depth of field. You can have an f/0,5 lens on a smartphone and the total light let in is WAY less than the light of an f/3,5 FF lens on FF sensor.

            • Total light doesnt make any difference, the image circle is way bigger therefore it collects more light, but sensor is different size,it’s still the same amount of light per square inch otherwise exposures would vary Hugely across camera types. Any way, agree to dis agree, I don’t think it makes any difference and companies are not in the wrong to post aperture values as is.

            • Not per square inch it isn’t. It’s the same, so mute point. Ff sensors need more light as cover a larger area.
              The only thing that changes is the dof, which is difficult to describe and predict using a snappy description on the side of a box. Also if they changed the aperture to be 35 equil then exposures would be all over the place. F1.8 on my crop camera gives the same exposure as F1.8 on a ff, assuming the cameras have equally balanced sensor gain etc.

              It would make no sense to change the aperture just to keep a minority happy, dof is difficult to predict and summarise, focal length isn’t

      • SimenO

        The 135 film format is the normal reference. If we all just use the same reference its easier to get an overview of what to expect. Thats why its so useful to express focal length equivalence. We should have the same reference point for aperture so we easily can get an idea of both light gathering capability and what DoF to expect. Both equivalences are very useful when comparing different products.

    • this is how focal lengths are reported everywhere

      • SimenO

        So if everybody jumps, you do it too? I know many have the same bad habit, but that doesn’t make it right. Its always a hope to change the world for a better place and we should start with ourselves.

      • El Aura

        Imagine if cars were sold with with power per displacement as the headline number describing the engine performance. That is how fixed lens cameras are currently sold (from phones up the RX1), using the actual f-stops to ‘indicate’ how ‘fast’ their lenses are (as in how much light they gather).

  • Mike

    So now that Nikon has successfully cloned the RX100 and RX10, when will we see Nikon’s RX1 clone? A7 clone? Now that would be interesting…

    • nhz

      it isn’t cloning, they definitely did some genetic engineering as each of the DL cameras has unique traits compared to RX 10/100 series cameras 😉

    • Cinematism

      I have the RX100 and I think the Sony is a copy of Nikon J1 with a fixed lens and the possibility to use memory stick.

      • Narretz

        > with a fixed lens
        So, a completely different camera. In any case Nikon has only yo blame themselves for dragging behind as they didn’t pursue their 1 in cameras to the full extent.

  • Shark

    nearly 1000 euro for the 18-50mm nikon… yeah well.
    i get a good mirrorless system camera for that.
    ok it will be a bit bigger.. but overall the better solution.

    • Cinematism

      1000 euros in which country? The Sony RX100 IV its over 1000 euros.

      • EnPassant

        Recommended prices found on a German site:
        “Ab Juni 2016 lässt sich die Nikon DL18-50 f/1.8-2.8 für 959,00 Euro (UVP) im Fachhandel erwerben, die Nikon DL24-85 f/1.8-2.8 wird 769,00 Euro kosten.”

    • nhz

      please name a mirrorless camera with a relatively bright 18-50mm equivalent zoom (superwide to normal). There isn’t any IMHO …

    • NicP

      No its not, have an OMD-EM5i its for sale, need something smaller already have enough big cameras. Mean mirrorless zoom lenses are big.

  • neversink

    Wow – Just got back from a two week + shoot in the middle of nowhere…. And Nikon Rumors has pages and pages and pages of news.
    This new camera would be exciting, but I will wait for the Fx mirrorless…. Not for me, although I am sure it will fit someone’s needs…. And I hope this is a successful venture for Nikon, but I am not sure the demand is there, given all the competition. And doesn’t this compete with the Nikon 1 J and V series of cameras???

    • pjpo

      Since Nikon isn’t exactly supporting the 1 very well, I bet they have seen from Sony that a compact camera with its brighter, more compact lens is a better use for the 1″ sensor.

      • neversink

        You might be right, pjpo…. However, it’s important that Nikon put out a consumer-oriented camera that is a success. Their bottom line in their financial statements has been deteriorating quarter after quarter. I would love to see a few healthy quarters in a row for Nikon. However, I don’t feel that this product is what will lift them from the doldrums. I don’t see consumers rushing out to buy these. Although some birders might go for the so-called 24-500 (fx equivalent) camera.

        • pjpo

          Being the first with on sensor PDAF, Nikon was on the right track to be the right kind of larger sensor camera that families need. (That spot has been taken by the Sony a6000.) Camera stores and even Nikon didn’t know how to properly market the advantage that they had with AF speed and accuracy. Instead, Nikon was left with justifying a small 1″ sensor and answering questions about Ashton Kutcher as their store displays shrunk until they vanished. They are on the right track now with these cameras though late to the party. I believe that as phones are getting better cameras, any camera with smaller than 1″ sensor is a tough sell to consumers.

  • Kirk Marsh

    Does anyone know if there is a commander mode on these cameras? I use my Nikon P7700 all the time and use the Commander Mode a lot. This would be a great step up for me, but it needs to have Commander.

  • Dewsy Sipos

    Hy guys! I have a noobish question: So, these little cameras can output clean 8bit 4:2:2 signal over HDMI (even 4K). Wich is great! I’m reading and waching a lot of videos about ‘professional’ video producing, but now i got a bit confused. Does clean out also means flat profile (log or what), so i can color grade the files, or this only means that i can bypass the cameras compression and record a graded but non compressed video to an external recorder?
    And if so, does these cameras have any flat profile options? Thank you guys!

    • doge

      Someone mentioned, either in this post or another one, that these cameras do not have a flat profile option. I’m not sure if you can output to an external device with these cameras.

      • Dewsy Sipos

        Thank you for the awnser. The guys at the EOSHD forum asked Nikon about it, annd they got an official NO. Sad news…

  • dbltax

    Perspective Control on the 18-50?!

    That doesn’t look like a shift lens…

    • Espen4u

      Could be a shift sensor …or not.

    • Dewsy Sipos

      I think it’s pure software

  • If this is the 8800 12 years on, I guess it will be fabulous.

  • nukunukoo

    Sadly, only the 24-500m has a mic input, despite these cameras having expanded video capabilities…

  • YS

    Huh, that didn’t take long. Amazon has the DL 18-50 for $800?

  • umijin

    I’m sorry, but who is Nikon trying to impress? These are over-priced and underpowered – and with no clear market. What a waste of R&D!

    • NicP

      Have you seen competition prices lately? OMD-em5 was 1000euro with lens new, now PEN-F without lens or weather resistance 1200euro without lens, RX100iv 1100euros ……..

      Market is quite clear, I want a small reasonably priced camera within 24-85mm focal length coverage to have it on me as much as possible until new phones become smaller than they tempt to be and their cameras competitive.

  • Back to top