Nikon DL 24-85 vs. Sony RX100IV

Nikon-DL-24-85-vs.-Sony-RX100IV-front
Nikon-DL-24-85-vs.-Sony-RX100IV-back
Nikon-DL-24-85-vs.-Sony-RX100IV-top
Nikon-DL-24-85-vs.-Sony-RX100IV-side
A quick Nikon DL 24-85 vs. Sony RX100IV comparison:

  • Sony Cyber-shot RX100 IV is 3% (3.3 mm) narrower and 5% (3.2 mm) shorter than Nikon DL24-85.
  • Sony Cyber-shot RX100 IV is 18% (8.8 mm) thinner than Nikon DL24-85.
  • Sony Cyber-shot RX100 IV [298 g] weights 14% (47 grams) less than Nikon DL24-85 [345 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
  • Sony Cyber-shot RX100 IV dimensions: 101.6x58.1x41 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
  • Nikon DL24-85 dimensions: 104.9x61.3x49.8 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion, via Camerasize)
  • A specification comparison between both cameras can be found at dpreview
  • Price: the Sony RX100IV costs $948, the Nikon DL 24-85 is priced at $646.95
This entry was posted in Nikon DL. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • whisky

    no contest, i think, if one is measuring superior fire-power.

  • Shutterbug

    Extremely small increase in size in return for an enormous increase in performance. Sounds like a pretty good trade off for me.

    • doge

      “enormous increase in performance.”

      You absolutely cannot say that at this point. We have zero information about the raw files the Nikons produce.

      • Shutterbug

        We know it has the same internals as a J5, we know it shoots at 20 FPS with full autofocus and a usable buffer, we know it has PDAF. So yes, we do know what performance is like compared to the average point & shoot, including the RX100 IV. The difference is night & day, as it is with the 1-series already compared to any P&S.

        I said performance, not image quality – why are you talking about RAW files? We already know Image quality will be in line with the J5 and RX100 III give or take, they are all using the same 1″ Sony sensor module.

        • doge

          The fantasy world you live in sounds pretty cool. Is there room for more of us?

          • Shutterbug

            Hello pot, this is kettle

        • Spy Black

          “…20 FPS with full autofocus and a usable buffer…”

          Do you know that the buffer fills up after…um…20 frames? Did you also know that it takes an eternity to write that buffer out? I know, because it has the same buffer as the J5, which is the same as my J4. So you only get one second of shooting before the camera comes to a COMPLETE halt.

          • Shutterbug

            You keep saying this but never link to your source. I am not aware of any reviews on the DL yet.

            Let’s pretend you are correct – a more reasonable 5fps at 4+ seconds with real, usable PDAF is still far better than any other P&S available. It also means single shot-to-shot performance will be DSLR-like in speed, which in itself would be a huge upgrade to anything else out there in the P&S world.

            • Spy Black

              “We know it has the same internals as a J5…”

            • Thom Hogan

              No, it’s not a joke. In fact the 60 fps one time focus also has a 1 second buffer and takes longer to write. But, it is NOT a joke. Try covering golf, for example. 60 fps silent during a swing? Gives you photos other pros aren’t getting.

            • Spy Black

              Well OK, so I’m being overtly harsh. 😉 On a J4 anyway, 60fps fills up at 20 frames, so you only 1/3 second shoot at 60fps.

            • Thom Hogan

              I wasn’t aware that we’re using point and shoots with spray and pray technique to take good photos these days. Guess I’ll have to try that.

          • Max

            I remember when I went to a camera shop to go look at the D7200 when it came out, the guy working in the shop said ‘why don’t you rather buy the GX7? It can shoot 10fps!’

            • Cinematism

              What? I have the Canon G7X and I think is a very good camera, and I prefer it to my Sony RX100, but the D7200 is totally another type of camera!!! By the way, the Canon G7X can shoot 1 fps in raw.

            • Photoeman

              Hey Cinematism, think Max said GX7, as in Pana GX7, not Canon G7X.

            • Cinematism

              Thanks, sure you are right!

            • Max

              Yes Pana GX7, with the flippy evf.

            • Cinematism

              Sorry, I get confused. 😉

          • Thom Hogan

            Different card type may influence that.

            Performance speculation prior to actual production cameras in use is just that, speculation.

            • Spy Black

              Dunno if there’s anything faster than the 95 Meg Sandisk card I’m using, but that’s what I get.

              I agree on speculation, but this fellow keeps making larger than life claims. At best, these cameras may have V buffers instead of J, which essentially double those numbers, but yes, we’ll have to wait and see.

        • Fry

          because nobody gives a damn about “performance” of p&s cameras

  • ZoetMB

    I don’t think those size differences are going to make a difference to the average consumer. Once it doesn’t fit in one’s shirt pocket, it will be carried in a jacket pocket, on a strap or in a case or purse and small size differences don’t really make a difference. The slightly larger size of the Nikon may make it seem more substantial. That combined with a substantially lower price could give Nikon the edge among people who aren’t already predisposed to one brand or the other and it’s such a huge price difference, it could cause Sony fans to go with the Nikon anyway.

    • Cinematism

      I think the Sony is really overpriced.

      • Spy Black

        It absolutely is overpriced, the entire RX line is. I find it odd that Sony continues to sell the older RX models while introducing updated versions. I suspect the subsequent price increases may have something to do with that.

        • El Aura

          Or they produced too many of the older models, ie, when they introduced their next model the older one still had significant stock that is now selling slowly. But they might also be keeping the older models in production to offer something at multiple price points to a get a sale from those that don’t consider the price of the newest model a fair value.

        • Cinematism

          Here, the RX100 (all prices in euros)
          IV 1059
          III 799
          II 599
          I 449

          • Spy Black

            Exactly. For what each one of those are, picture what else was available for the same price not only at the time of their release, but of course now (as they never had price drops).

      • Thom Hogan

        The Nikon would be nearly the same price and much more awkward if you bought the EVF.

        • Duncan Dimanche

          true that…

        • Cinematism

          Well Thom, I’m not sure about it. Here the Sony RX III price is 799 euros and the IV is 1099. The Nikon 24-85 is $650 USD (I don’t know the actual prices in euros) and we don’t know the kit price with the included EVF. However, since some users like me never use an EVF on a compact camera, the advantage is to buy a camera without an EVF and save money.
          Moreover, If you are interested in the DL 18-50 in particular because you want that focal length (like me), but wants a Sony with EVF, it is not possible to buy that Sony, because that Sony doesn’t exist… Yet. So you can wait the Sony version, and once realised, pay them 1399 euros.

        • Nobody Knows

          Here in the UK Thom the Nikon 18-50mm + EVF kit comes in at £799 the 24-85mm with EVF at £669. The RX100IV currently costs £760 it launched
          here at £840. The external EVF while less attractive than a built in option is tiny and weighs in at , what a couple of oz? .

          As a landscape fan and keen hill walker I wonder how the 18-50mm lens will work out it could be a real fun take everywhere option for me

      • TylerChappell

        Lol of course it is. It’s a Sony. Much over their stuff is blatantly overpriced. Just look at the RX1R’s.

        • Cinematism

          The RX1R’s are more expensive than any travel vacation to take pictures with it.

    • lupico

      One thing people tend to forget: The Sony RX100 IV has a built-in EVF. That makes a world of a difference for some users. It is not only smaller and better to carry but better to use e.g. when the screen is not usable in sunlight. Having to carry around an external viewfinder makes the Nikon DL cumbersome to carry around and less easy to stow away – and if you compare prices after adding the external EVF…Just wait for the RX100 Mark V. Should not be too long for that to be announced. Might make things even more interesting.

  • Mike

    Wow. Also remember this is Sony’s 4th gen camera and Nikon’s first. Part of it looks like Nikon went down the spec list and matched or slightly exceeded it. (Neither have headphone or mic jacks, but pack 4K video = weird). Kudos to Sony on a great product but the Nikon sets the new bar I think. Built in ND filter, built in time lapse video, ability to use flash on camera (and by extension, off camera flash [my Odin Tx can work on this it seems]). And this is before even talking about the 18-50 DL. Sony wins in the EVF convenience category. But Nikon has priced it to be about equal after picking up the accessory external EVF.

    2016 is the year of 20mp for Nikon. :-). I want this camera! (18-50)

    • doge

      I definitely agree, the 18-50 is the much more interesting camera to me.

      • Cinematism

        Me too, since I was looking for that kind of focal length. As an architecture lover, it´s a dream come true.

    • MonkeySpanner

      I don’t know why anyone would want an evf with the 18-50. Wa images are much more interesting from high or low angles and you can’t use an evf easily with either one.

      • Mike

        Agreed. At this point it’s not something that interests me. I see using this like a more ergonomic, powerful and far better IQ than a smartphone.

      • Max

        Street photography.

      • preston

        If they offered 2 versions of this that were the same size (similar to the RX100 pop-up evf design) and the only difference was 1 had the evf and the other did not, I would pay up to $100 more for the evf version. I really don’t like the add-on ones though because they are expensive, losable, and ruin the compactness / pocketability of the camera.

        • Cinematism

          Well, the optional Nikon´s EVF allows you to shoot in several angles, just like my Olympus EVF. And that is better than a fix and little EVF

          • preston

            Absolutely, some people may appreciate this feature. I personally do not tilt the evf. I own the Oly E-P5 with the add-on EVF and have never once tilted it for actual use. When I’m shooting at odd angles or whatever I’ll tilt the back screen and use that to frame/shoot.

      • Ken Elliott

        Sunlight makes an rear screen hard to use. So outside your high/low angle example, many of us find EVFs to be a must-have feature. I’ll be skipping this camera for this very reason.

        • Cinekpol

          Never had that problem you speak of with my RX100 mkII. I doubt it will be worse with Nikon DL.

        • Nobody Knows

          I agree no EVF no sale for me . I live in Scotland not the sunniest part of the world and I find the lcds a PITA in brightlight I don’t know how the folk in sunny countries do it.

      • Max

        I can’t really say why but I feel more comfortable shooting strangers (haha sorry)through a vf. When I’m more relaxed I draw less attention and get better shots. I think the extra effort of composing through an led is visible to your subjects. Whatever. Other than for hip shots I just can’t see myself using it without a vf. But I still want both the 18 and the 24 😀

      • Cinematism

        Yes, when I shoot architecture I prefer the low angles. The lack of EVF is not a deal breaker at all.

      • Cinekpol

        That EVF on RX-series is so tiny that you won’t see much anyway.

        • I was thinking about that. Isn’t the pop-up function also problematic? Meaning the EVF is small and there is nothing around it – I assume the light from around the EVF will bother my eye. Just a guess, I never used one.

          • Cinekpol

            It’s not as bad as in your description, but far from anything I would call comfortable to use. Viewfinder in an entry-level DSLR feels like a heaven comparing to RX100 EVF.
            The thing is though – in early days of RX100-series a lack of viewfinder was one of the most common complains (“so expensive, why there is no viewfinder?!”). So Sony added one. Whether it’s usable or not is a completely secondary matter.
            From my experience – Most of the people complaining about a lack of it don’t even own any large sensor compact, so… whatever.

            • Yes, typical Sony – make the specs look good, the rest is not important. Still, must give them credit for able to pack so much tech in such a small package.

            • Cinekpol

              Nah, overall it’s a very fine camera, EVF’s not great, UI got some quirks, but other than that there isn’t much I can complain about as far as using it for what it was designed goes. I love to take it for some trips or visits when I don’t go specifically to take photographs – it’s just so handy and at the same time got image quality way above smartphones.

            • Nobody Knows

              The Sony external EVF was very pricey here in the UK

          • Thom Hogan

            The real problem with the Sony EVF is that if you push it back down, the camera powers off. And the power cycle on the RX is on the slow side. So you can’t go from at-the-eye to at-the-hip shooting without big pauses.

            Note to camera makers: PAUSE is your enemy. Still photos are moments in time. If that moment passes while a user is waiting for something, your camera sucks.

            • Horshack

              The power-off behavior of the EVF is configurable on the RX100IV.

            • Spy Black

              Initial start-up time on my RX100 III is AGONIZINGLY slow, something on the order of 5-6 seconds. After that it’ll be ready in about 2 from startup. If it’s in your pocket for any prolong period of time (which of course most of the time it is) the cycle repeats. I’ve lost many a fleeting moment to that camera. Between that and it’s poor AF, I elected to use my J4 as my street camera, until my recent purchase of a GM5.

      • JXVo

        Because I’m long sighted and don’t usually take my glasses on hikes or climbs where I would use this. I can happily use a EVF without spectacles.

        18-50 will be great for cramped locations like climbing stances and dramatic scenery in steep locations.

    • Ufupuw

      RX100IV has built in ND filter

      • Mike

        Thanks for the clarification!

  • El Aura

    Camera thickness/depth:
    G9 X: ………… 31 mm — 24 – 84 mm f/2.0-4.9
    Ricoh GR: ….. 35 mm — 28 mm f/1.6**
    RX100: ……… 36 mm — 28-100 mm f/1.8-4.9
    RX100 II: …… 38 mm — 28-100 mm f/1.8-4.9 — tilting screen
    Nikon A: ……. 40 mm — 28 mm f/1.6**
    G7 X: ………… 40 mm — 24-100 mm f/1.8-2.8 — tilting screen
    RX100 III/IV: 41 mm — 24 – 70 mm f/1.8-2.8 — tilting screen — EVF
    G7 X II: ……… 42 mm — 24-100 mm f/1.8-2.8 — tilting screen
    G5 X: ………… 44 mm — 24-100 mm f/1.8-2.8 – swivel screen — EVF
    X70 …………… 44 mm — 28 mm f/1.6** …………… tilting screen
    DL 24-85: ….. 50 mm — 24 – 85 mm f/1.8-2.8 — tilting screen
    LX100: ………. 55 mm — 24 – 75 mm f/1.4-2.2** — EVF

    ** 1″ equiv. (GR, Nikon A, X70 are APS-C, LX100 between 1″ and m43)

    You generally get (lens speed & range, tilting screen, EVF) what you pay for in camera thickness but the DL 24-85 is on the thick side. You get slightly less range for a camera 8 to 10 mm thicker (than the G7 X).

    • Shutterbug

      These aren’t apples to apples comparisons, you also need to consider the speed/AF that the DL offers (that of a pro MILC), which puts it in a category of it’s own really. The fact that it’s within a few millimeters of the competition is actually quite impressive. Too small can be bad too, ergonomics start to go out the window.

      All those other cameras have standard P&S internals and CDAF only. The performance is whats really going to set the DL apart I reckon.

      • Fly Moon

        Totally agree. I wouldn’t mind adding few mm to gain image quality.

        • Fry

          half of those cameras have larger sensors than DL, so you will actually most likely give up image quality with DL.
          And the camera has yet to prove its quality against other 1″ cameras.
          My bet is it will not come anywhere near RX100 in terms of IQ.

          • Cinematism

            Don´t think the RX100 is the edge in IQ. As an owner of a couple of Sony cameras, I don´t like the metering system and the oversharpened images. I like the menu and the size. But when I really need IQ, I prefer other options.

            • Thom Hogan

              The metering system I can learn to live with, but the lens doesn’t deliver what 20mp can, and that’s one of the reasons why Sony defaults to high sharpening.

      • El Aura

        That is assuming that the AF speed requires a larger lens/camera. And I thought the on-sensor PD AF (including the signal processing) are the reasons for that.

  • Tomas Halasz

    please add tech specs too.thx

    • the link to dpreview is already there – see my post

  • Kyle

    I’d be carrying the 18mm and the 24mm versions regularly.

    • NTM

      Did you mean to say Nikon DL 18-50 and Panasonic ZS100 right?

  • MonkeySpanner

    Wow, the DL looks like a bargain next to the rx100iv. Better AF and $300 cheaper.

    • Ufupuw

      but no EVF

      • MonkeySpanner

        Doesn’t bother me. I don’t like putting tiny cameras up to my eye. To me it is more natural to operate tiny cameras like a cell phone – at arms length.

        • Ufupuw

          In bright sunny day I need it, as I can’t see the screen. So this is a big difference. Nikon has no built in EVF

          • Mike

            Maybe the OLED screen will help (?). If lack of an EVF is a deal breaker for anyone, the Sony is still a great option.

          • Shutterbug

            The tilting screen solves the sun issues, just tilt it away from the sun. Also, bright OLEDs are visible even in bright sun, much like a smartphone. If you absolutely cannot live without it, just pick up the optional EVF.

            • Thom Hogan

              No, it doesn’t “solve” the sun and reflection issues, it mitigates them somewhat. I’ll wait to see what the DL actually delivers before rendering an opinion, but to date we really don’t have a sun-worthy LCD on any camera, IMHO.

          • Cinematism

            Well, I never have problems with my compact or mirrorless cameras without an EVF but with the Sony HX60V. When you have the quality of that Sony screen, sure you need an EVF. No problems with other brands.

        • Shucks

          An arms length though is roughly the equivalent of having a 28mm to your eye and a 35mm at a full stretched arm. You will always lose fov.

        • NTM

          Do you know that the camera attached to your face is the best VR (vibration control) out here?

      • Shutterbug

        In practice, very few people actually use the pop up EVF on the RX100 III & IV. I have seen dozens of them in the wild, and not a single person using the EVF. The cameras are good enough that the vast majority of shots are more convenient to take with the rear LCD, especially wide angle. Holding such a small camera up to the eye is often awkward as well. For those that absolutely require it, Nikon offers an optional EVF. Everyone has an option.

        • Thom Hogan

          Then you haven’t seen me.

          Preferred position for a camera should be on a tripod. Secondary preference should be braced against the face. Tertiary is a good VR system and holding the camera at arms length.

  • Ufupuw

    RX100IV has builtin EVF, Nikon does not.

    • Phil

      True, but the Nikon has a hot shoe and the Sony does not. I have a Sony HX 90V with built in EVF, but I rarely use it. A hot shoe would be useful for indoor group photos.

      • Spy Black

        …but you sacrifice the hot shoe if you need to use the EVF.

        • Phil

          I have an EVF now on my sony and I’ve used it maybe once or twice. To me having a hot shoe instead of an EVF is a worthy tradeoff.

          • Spy Black

            That’s one of many reasons I bought a GM5, I have a hot shoe AND and EVF, among other features.

            • Thom Hogan

              Ditto LX-100.

        • Ande Notos

          But most people need the EVF for outdoor shooting when the sun is too bright to use the screen, so if you need a flash so bad, then it’s probably because you’re indoors, in a situation that definitely does not require an EVF.

          • Cinematism

            With my DSLR I always use the OVF, but with my mirrorless and my compact cameras I never use it, I prefer the screen.

    • Shutterbug

      It’s amazing how many people use that as their sole criteria (which is fine, each to their own). There is also an optional one for anyone who wants it. The RX100IV does’t even compete at all in other areas like AF and FPS. Good to have options.

      Very few people use the EVF’s in practice, but they are nice to have for sure.

      • Fry

        Even fewer people mount a flashgun on a pocketable P&S camera.

        • Cinematism

          With my Coolpix A I can mount an OVF or an external flash. I have used the SB400 a few times, but the OVF never.

          • hje

            same here. flash and even with cord, but the viewfinder very often stays in my pocket.

    • Sawyerspadre

      Where?

      • Mike

        It pops up, like a flash on the top left shoulder. Where the DL 18-50 has a hotshoe.

        • Sawyerspadre

          Thanks, saw it above. Is it sturdy? I guess a clip-on EVF isn’t very sturdy either.

    • Cinematism

      I have a good EVF for my Olympus Pen, but I never use it, the screen is good enough. I have the Sony HX60V and the screen is very bad, may be the in Sony an EVF is needed.

      • Spy Black

        As I’ve mention elsewhere, the RX actually has an aperture grid on the rear screen that allows it much better visibility in bright daylight. Only in the extreme conditions does the EVF come in handy. I suspect the DL screen will not have such a grid, making them as dismal in bright sunlight as the N1 cameras.

  • whereisaki

    Has it occurred to anybody that Sony can slap on a $150 rebate, if that’s an issue? Not that a digital camera would ever go down in price, of course.

    What I want to know is how sharp these are in the corners, at 18mm and at 24mm. I had 2 Sonys and neither was really good in the corners with the zoom at the widest setting. Nor were all 4 corners equally good/bad.

    • Shutterbug

      The AF system in the DL is worth more than $150 IMHO. I’m not sure everyone fully understands how big of a deal it is to have something like that in a P&S. This is the first time a fixed lens P&S has been married with this kind of FPS and proper AF. Having 1-series internals also means general shot-to-shot performance will be instant and DSLR-like (something pretty much every P&S currently has trouble with).

      The MTF charts have been out for a while now. The 18-50 is slightly better than the 24-85, and it’s sharp right to the corners at F1.8. The 18-50 is also optimized for the wide end @ 18mm. MTF’s don’t tell the whole story, but at first glance it looks very impressive.

      • Spy Black

        You’re delusional about the fps number. You’re talking about one second of shooting before the camera is brought to a grinding halt. It’s not as great as you’re envisioning it, unless one second’s worth of time is all you’re concerned with shooting.

        • Ande Notos

          I think 1 second is fine when it comes to bursts. It’s much better than all these photographers who just keep the shutter release button pressed down for 10 seconds until the buffer is full hoping to get 1 good moment.

          • Spy Black

            The problem is if you shoot all 20 frames your camera is locked up until enough data has been written out. You may get a frame or two in, but then you’re locked up again.

        • Shutterbug

          Link to objective review showing this limitation?

          Often 1 second is enough anyway, if you actually need 20 FPS it means the action is going to come and go almost immediately. Most people would probably be using it much lower, maybe 5-10 fps.

          It also means that single shot-to-shot performance is going to be instant (like the 1-series’), which is something no other P&S can claim. Even if that is the only difference, combined with PDAF, is phenomenal compared to something like the RX100.

          • Spy Black

            “Link to objective review showing this limitation?”
            “We know it has the same internals as a J5…”

        • Fry
  • AlphaTed

    Whoa! There’s a “Bird Watching” scene mode?
    Bird watchers will flock to camera stores and clear the shelves once these cameras becomes available.

    • Spy Black

      Yes, amazing. You won’t have to waste your time watching the birds yourself…

  • burnitwithnapalm

    EVF? wait, no EVF built in? Forget it.

    • Sawyerspadre

      It seems neither has an EVF. Doesn’t that make them good to compare?

      • Spy Black

        The RX has an EVF.

        • Sawyerspadre

          Ok, quite stealthy…

      • burnitwithnapalm
        • Spy Black

          I wouldn’t call it “fantastic”, but it certainly is handy, especially when you’re out in bright sunlight. Additionally, the RX has an aperture screen on the rear screen, which actually gives it better visibility in bright sunlight, reducing the need for the EVF in most outdoor sunlight condition except the extreme.

          If the DL cameras had this, it would also reduce the need for the external EVF. I suspect however that the DLs will have the same screen as the N1 cameras, which are dismal in daylight.

          • Cinematism

            I use the J5 in bright light without any kind of problems. When the screen is good, you don´t need an EVF in a compact camera.

            • Spy Black

              I’m glad it doesn’t get in your way. I don’t share your belief that the screen is good tho. You have the same screen as on my J4, and I can’t see it in bright sunlight. I have to go through contortions cupping it so I can see what I’m trying to shoot.

            • Cinematism

              Different PoV in this topic Spy. I shot a lot with compact cameras and mirrorless, and the only camera screen that gives me problems is the Sony HX60V.

            • Spy Black

              I doubt the HX has an aperture grid like the RX. I’m glad the J5 works for you tho. I’m sure it helps that it articulates unlike the same exact screen on my J4.

            • Cinematism

              Yes Spy, the HX is a lower line than the RX (with my RX I don’t have the same problem), but the HX isn’t cheap at all (400 euros).
              And yes, the J5 tilt and touch screen is a big difference. I really appreciate a tilt screen in a camera, even in a reflex (like the D750). Between the screen of my J5 and the EFV of my V1, I prefer the J5 screen. Of course, also the J5’s PASM dial over the V1’s menu

          • jonra01

            I highly doubt they have the same screen. The DLs have a touch screen. The cost of the evf for the dl still makes it less expensive than the rx. All three of the new nikons look like winners.

    • Ande Notos

      You can buy an optional EVF for less than the price difference!

      • burnitwithnapalm

        Yes, a nice clunky add-on that you have to take on and off, can easily lose, and which almost certainly doesn’t perform as well. If you’re really that strapped for cash, buy the RX100m3, which also has a fanstic EVF.

        • Cinekpol

          It’s anything but “fantastic”. I recommend you actually use some proper EVFs before making statements like that.

        • Ande Notos

          You don’t have to take it off, you don’t have to worry about losing it unless you are extremely careless, and it’s not clunky at all. The point is how well the camera performs. The EVF comes second.

  • yaley

    Is the 60 fps with full resolution??

    • Mike

      Yes. But no AF.

      20 fps 20mp, full AF.
      60 fps, 20mp, pre-focus.

      • Spy Black

        The buffer fills up at 20 frames and the camera comes to a complete halt writing it out however.

        • Shutterbug

          Link to objective DL review showing this?

          • Spy Black

            “Link to objective DL review showing this?”
            “We know it has the same internals as a J5…”

            • Shutterbug

              That’s what I thought, you don’t have an actual source for your info, just trolling. There could obviously be small changes from the J5 spec.

            • Spy Black

              That’s right, I’m trolling with YOUR misinformation.

        • Thom Hogan

          Boy, you’re like Rubio (and I guess now Trump) with the campaign line here.

          If you know that you get only a single burst and then have to wait, you plan your burst. Simple as that. And as I noted above, it’s not a joke feature at all, it’s a useful one, but limited.

          • Spy Black

            Sorry to sound like broken record, or a republican, but people really need to understand the limitation. In all honesty you’re better off using these cameras in either continuous or, at fastest, 5fps to make them practical.

  • Spy Black

    The price is what’s really going to help sell this camera. For once Nikon got it right, at least with this model.

    Strange that in that spec comparison at DPR it states the camera ONLY shoots in sRGB. Not sure if that’s a typo or not. Not that that’s a deal breaker for the most part, but even my J4 can shoot Adobe RGB.

    • Thom Hogan

      Personally, the whole sRGB/AdobeRGB thing is one of those terrible throwbacks to another era that the camera makers just can’t seem to get their heads around fixing.

      I can’t see someone shooting AdobeRGB in camera. You spread color values into too few bits (8-bit JPEG) and then compress them. That makes for downstream problems unless you’re going to view the out-of-camera JPEG as is without post processing, and who exactly is going to do that?

      If you shoot raw, every camera on the market is capturing more than the AdobeRGB Color Space. Indeed, those of us who are really working with raw files tend to only use a far larger Color Space, such as ProPhotoRGB (which is what Lightroom uses natively).

      So I’d say, who cares?

      • Spy Black

        I agree sRGB-only is not a deal breaker. I will add that Adobe RGB and, especially, ProPhotoRGB, are “fictional” spaces because, even with best of monitors, you can’t see the colors available in their specs. It could be argued if you can “see” them at all, as most people don’t realize the human eye sees “only” roughly between 5-7 million colors. Bit depths deal with aliasing computational accuracy, and really with luminosity values.

        • Thom Hogan

          No, they’re not fictional spaces. You’re stuck thinking about monitors, but that’s not the only thing that requires a color space/profile. We have printers now that easily exceed AdobeRGB.

          Moreover, you NEVER want a color to be out of gamut, and that happens a lot with sRGB.

          Arguing about whether you see something or not is the old good enough argument in yet another guise. However, in this case, what you don’t see actually has an impact on your data as you move it around, and what it can be used for downstream.

          • Spy Black

            “We have printers now that easily exceed AdobeRGB.”

            I’m curious what printers these are, what mediums they’re printing on, and what lighting conditions (color temperature, brightness levels) they’re being viewed at in order to get a subtractive, reflective medium to do so. I’d be curious to know what measurement criteria was used to substantiate those claims. Not that it can’t happen, I suppose anything’s possible, but I’m hard-pressed to believe a subtractive, reflective medium can achieve that, regardless of how many inks it printed with.

            • Thom Hogan

              I would say you need to go to a site like Luminous Landscape (now behind a paywall) and do a lot of reading to catch up if you have to ask those questions.

            • El Aura

              I am having trouble finding 2D gamut plots of real, ‘named’ printers (probably because only a 3D representation really tells the full story), but the gamut of monitors and reflective media differs in a fundamental way. The gamut of RGB monitors (as well as RGB colour spaces) forms a triangle in a CIE xy (or u’v’) diagram, whose corners are defined by the colour of the three primaries (red, green, blue). The gamut of a three-colour-ink (CMYK, ie 3 colours + black) printer also forms a triangle, but the corners are those of the (primary) ink colours which are those absorbing the colours of the three primaries of an RGB device (eg, a magenta ink which is absorbing green light). See the image below
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d5cf9d9966560d79f17cc013ca46e26a2cbf917ddfcd1be92b00054799ca8cbf.png

              This basic difference in location of the corners means that for the RGB triangle (eg, Adobe RGB) to contain corners of the CMYK triangle it needs to be fairly large. Or said differently, an RGB and a CMYK gamut will never be very close in their gamut coverage and unless one is much larger than the other one (such that it fully contains the other), neither can fully represent the colours of the other. Things get a more complex with modern high-end colour printers since they have more than three colour ink (six is quite common), which means the shape of the gamut becomes a higher polygon that can better represent an RGB gamut.

              Now this by no means proofs in any way that the gamut of high-end printers actually exceeds Adobe RGB but there is one more wrinkle that at least indicates that it should be possible. It’s called the Pointer’s Gamut, a collection of all colours found in real samples of reflective media. Like a multi-ink gamut it has a somewhat rounded shape that exceeds the gamut of Adobe RGB at the flat sides of the RGB triangle but doesn’t quite reach the pure green and blue of Adobe RGB (it does exceed the pure red of Adobe RGB). See the second image. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/23fdf976b68a7c92015b751a8a538a7abbeec1f9741299bcce3d2053d8012ac9.jpg

              Again, this doesn’t quite proof the high-end printers do have inks that exceed the Adobe RGB gamut, but it shows that materials exist that do (and the printer’s manufacturer’s job is to turn those materials into inks).

              Some starting material
              http://dot-color.com/2013/07/16/how-much-color-gamut-do-displays-really-need-part-2-how-we-perceive-color/
              http://dot-color.com/2013/07/23/how-much-color-gamut-do-displays-really-need-part-3-existing-color-gamut-standards/

              And finally a very comprehensive and detailed discussion of existing RGB gamuts and there practicality for monitor design:
              http://tftcentral.co.uk/articles/content/pointers_gamut.htm#_Toc379132058

            • El Aura

              Stupid me, I do have gamut plots for actual printers, my Epson R2880. Comparison of Adobe RGB (white wireframe) and the R2880 on Epson Premium Photo Paper Glossy.

  • Muhammed

    Keep in mind that the Canon G7x is likely to get a price drop now that the G7x II is available. G7x in just north of $400US on the Gray market. Similar feature set except it has 15mm more than the Nikon and 30mm more than the Sony on the long end. RXIII is also very similar, priced closer to the Nikon and includes the optical viewfinder.

    • Shutterbug

      The feature set is not similar at all beyond sensor size and lens aperture. The G7X uses basic P&S internals and is CDAF only. The G7X had a lot of people complaining about lens quality, hopefully they fixed that in the II.

      • Cinematism

        My G7X has a good IQ (but noise at low ISO in JPG), I have luck and got a decent copy of the lens. I prefer my Canon G7X over my Sony RX100. But the Canon AF system isn´t good. The infamous yellow square.

  • Sebastian

    Doesn’t the Sony have this super fast stacked sensor with like 1200 fps? Do the nylons have the same sensor generation? I thought there were three gens of this 20 mp 1″ sensor: front illumination, back illumination, and stacked back illumination. Maybe I’m remembering incorrectly.

    • Shutterbug

      Both cameras shoot at 1200 FPS at a reduced resolution, and it’s unclear exactly what the sensor construction differences are at the moment.

      The benefits of a stacked sensor in the 1″ variety are minimal and almost entirely speed related (primarily video FPS, bandwidth, and E-shutter speed). They often have onboard memory to help with bandwidth, and taking video can use the entire sensor area. The DL doesn’t use a stacked sensor as far as we know from the press materials – they would have likely mentioned that. The RX100IV has a 1/32,000 E-shutter, the DL has a 1/16,000 E-shutter.

  • Dewsy Sipos

    For me, EVF is secondary, i would trade it any time for a mic in or a Flat video profile (both of them are missing here)

    • Sawyerspadre

      Maybe you can use Bluetooth for Mic in. That would be cool.

      • Dewsy Sipos

        I’m hoping for a hot-shoe adapter. They said these cameras will be compatible witha lot of new accesories, and so far we saw the EVF, and i think a leather case. That’s not a lot. Maybe a paid upgrade to add flat profile? IDK.
        Bluetooth would be great also 🙂

  • Joey

    I want to like the new DL 24-85, but those dimensions are far from pocket size.

    Nikon DL24-85 is 3% (3.3 mm) wider and 6% (3.2 mm) taller than Sony Cyber-shot RX100 IV.
    Nikon DL24-85 is 21% (8.8 mm) thicker than Sony Cyber-shot RX100 IV.
    Nikon DL24-85 [345 g] weights 16% (47 grams) more than Sony Cyber-shot RX100 IV [298 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).

  • Cinematism

    For me, no question, Nikon´s autofocus is no brainer, and the Nikons metering system is the best!

  • Nikon User

    Given the size and price that Nikon asks for, there are no excuses not to put a built-in EVF like the one in the Sony.

    • Cinematism

      I dont miss it since never use it on compact cameras

  • Wally Brooks

    No view finder and in theory will work with my SB 800 and, hopefully my Nikon pocket wizards??? I think most of the public will take the Sony RX 100 with built in EVF. My DSLR is a D7200. I voted my wallet and got a Panny GX7 for a walking around camera a year ago.

    • Captain Megaton

      *Optional* viewfinder. Only a certain fraction of people care about an EVF. Seems fewer and fewer every year – but if you want you can get one. Plus the RX-100 EVF isn’t all that good.
      People can use SB-300, 500 speedlights. Better match than the high-end heavies like 800, 910.
      The only real knock against the Nikon is it is a little bigger, bulkier, and heavier. If you are dead set on “pocketable” the Sony still rules.

  • James Donahue

    I’ll Take one

  • Horshack

    One fits in a jeans pocket, the other doesn’t.

    • VanHoff

      Buy bigger Hors… jeans.

  • Duncan Dimanche

    One thing that we don’t know yet is the video frame rates that the DLs will have… Sony can shoot at some crazy fast frame rates with the rx100 IV

  • Duncan Dimanche

    I really don’t understand why the inbody lenses like the rx100 or the DL have such a small lens with huge apertures when all the Nikon 1 (or other 1″ sensor cameras) have massive lenses with very slow apertures…

    Nikon 10-30 (27 – 81 mm) Maximum: f/3.5 – 5.6
    Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 2.28 x 1.10″ (58 x 28 mm)

    I understand if they were a few % smaller but that’s just wayyy too much..

    • Horshack

      It might be because a non-ILC lens design can extend into the cavity of the camera and have rear elements very close to the sensor, like how the 35mm f/2 lens does on the Sony RX1.

    • El Aura

      Imaging you would cut out the lens including all the complete barrel (ie, such that you could hold the lens and have only a few wires connect to the camera) from the DL 24-85. That ‘lens’ would have a diameter at least as large as the outside of the lens barrel, possibly even larger (who knows where are all the motors that control zooming and focussing are stashed away and how much of what looks like the camera body actually fulfils the function of the outer lens barrel).

      Now add some sort of bayonet to the outside (there likely isn’t any space to add to the end of the ‘lens’ as it would go right up to the sensor. Than add the opposite bayonet to mount this lens into a camera body and you would end up with a camera that would be 30% higher than the current DL 24-85 is.

      The reason for the difference in size is really that Nikon 1 lenses have to be designed with a dead space between the lens and the sensor of close to 17 mm (the flange distance) as the DL lens very likely gets as close as a few millimetres to the sensor. The reasons this space cannot be used by Nikon 1 lenses is that
      (1) a lens cannot extend beyond its mount when it removed from the camera (unless you want to add lens caps that are 2 cm deep and even then, you likely wouldn’t be able to put the lens down without the cap and not run the risk of damaging the last lens element),
      (2) even if it could extend, the diameter of the cavity in the camera is not wide enough to hold the lens elements (which the closer you get to the sensor must have a diameter equal to the sensor diagonal) and the barrel around these lens elements that actually hold the lens elements and all the motors controlling focus and zoom movement. Moreover the the lens barrel and all moving parts would have to be designed more robustly if somebody might grab the lens by its rear (not a problem if that rear sits inside the body of a fixed-lens camera).

      And apart from needing a larger camera (higher essentially but likely also larger in other dimensions because the space taken up by the more robust lens barrel and the bayonet on the lens and inside the camera cannot be used for other internal stuff), it would also add about 1.5 cm in length to all lenses as well as some extra diameter (that bayonet would be needed to be added to the outside of the lens).

  • El Aura

    And the Nikon 1 lenses don’t rely on image processing to correct distortion?

    • DaveR43

      No. The zooms are in general designed to be quite well corrected by comparison with the fixed lens 1″ compact cameras, with moderate barrel distortion at the wide end and some pincushion distortion at the telephoto end.

      One can of course use image processing to provide a further reduction in distortion, e.g. with Lightroom.

  • NicP

    Hope the optics are as good as Sony (hard to believe) at least we know arent against its little sister with its coatings.

  • El Aura

    “Lenses for interchangeable cameras would be very significantly criticised if they exhibited the same barrel distortion that the compact cameras have.”
    Why? Because they cost more? That is not necessarily true. And other ILC systems, foremost m43 but also Sony with some lenses, are doing fine with strong distortion without being ostracised.

    It is DSLR systems where high distortion would be criticised because it is directly visible in the OVF (whereas the EVFs and back LCDs can show the corrected images). Another line that one could draw is whether the camera can save raw files. Because without raw files (and OVFs) it would be impossible to detect any distortion.

    • DaveR43

      But those lenses would likely be used with existing Nikon 1 cameras which support raw files. And future Nikon 1 cameras will also support Raw. So I am confused about the point you are making

  • Joey

    No EVF…no thank you! Also too bulky compared to RX100 series.

    And Sony prepares to announce the RX100 V…just the same time the Nikon DLs go on sale. Sorry Nikon, once again like Canon, a little too late.

  • RadiantFlowers

    ?No EVF?

  • Back to top