DL or No DL? What you need to know about the Nikon DL compacts

@eMTi
thanks, for the explanation.
I can a imagine a wide angle specific compact probably wouldn't get much traction. However a wide angle at the wide end of zoom, will undoubtedly provide greater versatility. No doubt if success follows, there will be number of manufacturers jump on board. I applaud Nikon for at least trying to break the mould

DL18-50 is totally a different story as it is really a game change for 1" or larger P&S.

It is one of the kind so far.

RX100 is for all green shooters. Awful UI (and UX).

Could it be due to the chosen ISO settings? The 18-50 samples are ISO200 and below, the samples from 24-85 go up to ISO1600. So there might be some noise reduction going on in the higher ISO shots. Or maybe it's just where the different photographers chose to focus?

I've noted this before... like when going to my daughter's chorus concerts or high school sports... the vast majority of parents are shooting with their iphones and ipads.. zoomed in from the back of the auditorium even.

I see very very few point and shoots and even less DSLRs.

I of course always bring my D750 and 70-200. lol

Forget it. Just nod and smile. They don't listen to reason or science because they're in their own echo chamber and they've locked the door to the outside.
They're just like every other cult—flat earthers, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists, Heaven's Gate, Frankie Goes to Hollywood....You get the idea.

Equivalent apertures are a very useful useful way to compare DOF and approximate low light perfomance across camera systems with different sensor sizes.

I'm not sure why it creates so much heated debate - it's not that hard to understand. DPR have an excellent article for anyone unclear on how equivalence should be applied:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

Albert, the crop-sensor is not noisier because it is smaller – it is noisier because each light gathering element on the sensor is (normally) smaller… and that assumes the same level of technology; some sensors are better than others re signal to noise ratio. If the crop sensor had the same size light gathering elements as a larger sensor (and therefore less megapixels), it should perform the same.

The arguments about total light gathered and the size of the imaging circle affecting ISO performance are nonsense. The individual light gathering elements on the sensor don’t “know” they must perform better just because they are part of a full frame sensor. They perform better because they are bigger and collect more light.

Stop being reasonable... it gets in the way of his outrage.

In terms of Nikon sues others for copying its design, if Leica is as tough as Nikon, FUJI will be in trouble.

The nikon adjstment ring controls aperture, shutter, . manual focus, WB

oh, so like the Panasonic CM1 control ring on the lens, which is also user defined

I've heard it explained as follows: These compact, collapsible f1.8-f2.8 lenses (whether from Canon, Sony, Nikon or whoever), by optical engineering necessity have massive distortion and vignetting at the wide end (like totally black corners). These require significant in-camera software-based correction to both JPEG and RAWs to create a normal image. If any of these new DL lenses were to be available for the N1 bodies, they'd have to come with the proper software to handle it. And if you've been following the Nikon 1 saga, you'd know that in the last 5 years since Nikon launched the Nikon 1, they've done precisely zero firmware updates for any of the umpteen models they've launched. So, no chance that'll happen.

I suppose it's possible that Nikon could launch new N1 models which could mount and use such optically gifted (flawed?) lenses. Many (including me) would like to see that happen. But I think that Nikon chose to launch fixed lens models suggests that their 1" ILCs are dead.

1 series is dead. deal with it, folks.

Mato34: You are correct, and I was wrong. There were in fact several bug-fix firmware releases for N1.

The spirit behind my remarks, however, still stands. None of the firmware releases (AFAIK) actually added any new functionality. They were bug fix only. Even the seemingly trivial feature addition of allowing V1 users to disable image review was never released in a firmware upgrade.

If Nikon couldn't even bring itself to do that for its earliest N1 adopters, it seems totally inconceivable that they have either the will or capability to release new firmware capable of correcting massive lens distortion/vignetting for hypothetical new wide/fast lenses across their entire line of cameras (which span 4 different processors at this point - Expeed 3, 3A, 4A, 5A).

When you shoot RAW with the collapsible lenses the vignetting isn't nearly as bad as described. If it was, and if it was corrected to the degree you suggest, you would see a big discrepancy in noise performance between the center and the corners, because the corners would have been lifted several stops to match the rest of the frame.

Imagine an ISO 1600 image. If the corners had to be corrected from "almost black", they would be blobs of color noise, while the center would look much more normal.

Definitely a built in EVF would push me to buying the DL 18-50 right away. But again, like the failed V3, the viewfinder being an add on, very fragile item, make me pause. The V1 was the genesis of what could have been a brilliant line of cameras. But they chickened out and made the V2, which was boring, and the V3, which was simply bizarre (Micro SD cards? wtf?!). Sorry Nikon, your marketing department is still rather confused. You can't make a premium compact with a superb N lens, and leave the viewfinder off. Pros don't shoot with the camera held out in front of them. Even the tiny Rollei 35 has a viewfinder on it, for chrissakes!

They don;t have mechanical shutters?!
damn they are even more flawed then i thought.

Thank god that the Nikon 1 is dead now

Same as the Nikon 1 system. And the best part is it actually works really well, holding up to the claim. 20 FPS with AF between frames overshadows every DSLR, including the pro models, but that is just one area, and you have the smaller sensor size. Nobody is going to be replacing their D4's with this thing, as they didn't with the 1-series. It's really what sets it apart from literally every other point & shoot camera on the market.

Every man and his dog claims world's fastest AF at least once a year, and nearly every time the list of caveats is huge and it is never half as good as they claim.

The Nikon J5/V5 may have great AF but thelens lineup is lousy to put it mildly and not fit for many of the potential uses. In this regard the DL with 24-500 lens may be the most interesting, as 500mm allows you do some sport/wildlife/birding.

Certainly a low DxO score is no cause for concern. Speaking of Nikon, Thom Hogan has an excellent write up on DxO's "methodology" this week.

I wouldn't say certainly myself. I'd probably look into what caused the low score and how it related to what I wanted to use the camera for.

Certainly IS the right word. I would venture to say that DXO's underlying heuristic is so scrambled that their testing produces scores that have about as much external validity as a Tarot card reading. Their scores—just like the arrangement of the Tarot cards—seem to make sense when they're in front of you but take them out into the real world and they're so meaninglessly specific that people can interpret them however they want. Why does this occur? Because DXO is measuring the wrong things.

Here's a perfect example—Canon cameras and lenses take magnificent pictures and are used by many of the most discriminating and highly paid art and commercial photographers in the world. Yet, a lot of Canon equipment scores poorly in comparison to Nikon. Clearly the people at DXO are measuring factors that have no correlation at all with making beautiful, meaningful photos, yet still we put faith in their numbers. Why?

I wouldn't know about lenses but the measurements for Canon sensors are exactly in-line with how they perform, in comparison with their peers (good high ISO performance but less DR at base ISO).

As I say, if you look at why the scores are lower, it can be useful.

Smiler - you sound like every other fellow Canon shooter bitter about DR performance. Give it a rest bud :) DXO's ratings are actually pretty accurate, and they put everyone on the same playing field if nothing else.

24-85

8.8-31.3mm is equivalent to a 24-85mm lens on a full frame camera.

"ISO 1600 will be barely as good as 6400 on a D5300, which is another stop or so behind, say, a D750."

This looks like another job for ... Captain Obvious!

You're a bit glass half empty.

You should be saying that the ISO performance will be much better than a 1/1.7 inch sensor which is what these cameras are meant to replace - ie. compact point & shoot cameras with small sensors that have dropped in sales due to mobile phone cameras.

These cameras aren't meant to replace APS or full frame cameras. Do you really think Nikon had astro-photography in mind for this camera when they designed it?

It is an option. You just have to pay extra for it.

It's much more enjoyable taking pictures using stereo vision. We don't put hoods over our TV sets and watch them with one eye closed. Besides, these DLs have an optional EVF for those times it's too bright to see. Tragic to have so many old men whining like toddlers.

An option is the best way to go about this IMHO. The most people get satisfied. Say 50% want an EVF, 50% don't. Of the 50% that want it, half of them are willing to buy the external EVF, while half of them are only interested in a built in EVF. 75% satisfaction is better than 50%. That is over-simplified but you get the idea.

Stability and glare are two reasons I could think of

"It's much more enjoyable taking pictures using stereo vision"

I can see it now:

2017: introducing the RX200, with pop up EVFs on both sides of the camera, one for each eye!

I doubt it will be that skewed. The 24-85 is also significantly cheaper and has a couple more features (except for nanocoating). If you're into portraits and such, the 24-85 is probably a better choice. The RX100 sells like hotcakes with a 24-70. For travel the 18-50 is probably the one to go with.

The 24-85 has full 1:1 Macro capability. That seems like a pretty standout feature to me.

I doubt that. While 18-50 is the one that's most interesting to me personally, there's a good reason why other manufacturers sat on their hands for years without making an ultrawide 1" compact.

"Other than the different focal length" Which is pretty major actually. Not to mention the AF will blow the socks off most anything else.

But I don't want more choices! I want just ONE perfect camera! Waaaaaaaaa!

You don't get it ! It doesn't have to be perfect for everyone. It just has to be perfect for ME !