villagranvicent: Excellent video... Yucatán is amazing, including the food :)
One of my favorite places. Away from Cancun, which is just a generic modern beach resort of no charm, the Yucatan is friendly, prosperous, orderly, and fascinating. It's a great place to visit, exceptionally clean, orderly, and safe, with modern amenities and ancient culture.
ttran88: Really cool video and nicely made. Be prepared for the Sony critics to claim DPR is Sony owned.
No way! No camera review site fits in a pants pocket. A gadget site, maybe, and a consumer site easy, but not a camera site.
maximme: allows the camera to shoot at 20 fps with continuous autofocus (it can go even faster - 60 fps - with single AF).
WOWdoes it over shadow Nikon own DSLR ?
I agree the lens lineup is limited, but the quality of most of the lenses is very decent. One nice feature (there from the start) is the availability of a very good active adapter for Nikon DSLR lenses. Because of the 2.7x conversion factor you can get seriously long focal length equivalence from modestly priced lenses. Makes for a cheap system for birders.
beenthere: Nikon seems to read Thom Hogan, at least lately. First compact in a while that looked interesting.
No, but I'm sure they read Thom. He's a smart guy with a good sense of what photographers want.
Sangster: Anyone know what the hot shoe flash sync speeds are?
Agreed, the electronic shutter on my V1 works beautifully. There is very little rolling shutter (and I don't shoot video often.) Unless I have a reason, I leave it in e-shutter mode. Not so much to avoid shutter shock as for silence. Makes these little guys wonderfully unobtrusive. Leaving the mechanical shutter out of the low end models was a smart move. The people who buy that class of camera won't even notice.
ttran88: I'll start guys, No EVF no buy!!
If they had included everything the camera would have been bigger and cost more. Only Sony seems able to squeeze in everything (almost).
EthanP99: 18mm, always wanted UWA on a 1"
The Nikon 1 (CX) 6.7-13mm lens is a real honey (18-35 equivalent), so if this is of similar quality this will be a wonderful camera. If I didn't already have that lens (and others) I'd be looking hard at this camera.
casualphotographer: The DL 24-500 is what the Canon G3X should've been. I noticed a new VR mode called "Sport" on that particular model, I wonder what that's all about.
I wonder. The autofocus speed means that should be quite a decent camera for shooting outdoor sports (in the day).
funnybeingme: Nikon DL 18-50. Finally a wide angle compact camera that I can take backpacking! Why omit the built in flash that's on the DL 24-85? ugh!
A typical low-power on-camera flash would be of limited use with such a wide lens, if they made the flash coverage match the field of view. If they made it only cover from 28mm up (realistic) they'd have to warn people not to use flash when zoomed out or disable it. Awkward. I do wish it had one as this would be a very good indoor camera and carrying around a supplemental flash is a bother.
digitallollygag: Does Nikon even need the Nikon 1 camera line once these hit the shelves??
Nikon 1 is interchangeable lens and these are not. Nikon actually makes some very nice CX lenses. That's a completely different market segment. Now that Nikon has access to good 1" sensors Nikon 1 is getting more interesting.
Acrill: This is the killer feature for these cameras, imo. The number of points is exactly the same as those found in the V3 so I'm going to guess they used the same sensor.
"One of the features that may set the DLs apart from the other 1"-type cameras is its Hybrid AF system, which combines 105 phase-detect with 171 contrast-detect points. This allows the camera to shoot at 20 fps with continuous autofocus, which is, by far, best-in-class (spec-wise). If you can live with single AF, then the DLs can shoot even faster: 60 fps."
The great autofocus has always been the one great feature of the Nikon 1 models. These should be similarly amazing, though with the caveat that the af falls back to slow cdaf in lower light. Fortunately these lenses are fast enough it should keep working as long as the sun is up. My old V1 slowed down if the day was cloudy. I'm guessing these may support shooting full res stills while shooting video (probably not during 4K), like the Nikon 1s do. That's also a super handy feature. If the autofocus is as good as is likely these will be the easy choice among compacts for shooting active kids or the like.
ajay0612: it would have been better if they had lauched at least one cam with 100mm (35mm equi) prime with f1.0 (or wider) rather than launching 3 cam none of which is good enough for shooting portraits (a primary usage).
For typical casual family portraits the 24-85mm should be just fine. Serious portrait photographers are not the market for a pocket-sized camera. Either of the two little guys would make a very appealing vacation camera, the wider for the landscape lover and the other for a bit of everything.
ybizzle: Wait 6-8 months and pick up any of these for 60% of original cost. Remember the $1100 Coolpix A? I bought mine a year after release for $400. And that was Canadian dollars!
Sony tends to be more realistic about list prices and discounts less. Nikon does have sales pricing with some regularity and drops prices a bit if products aren't selling. I expect the mainstream 24-85 will be under $600 before you know it. In specs it falls somewhere between the RX100 II and III, so the price is close to where it should be.
Jorge Bayonas: I don't know who is buying those compact cameras in times of Smartphones...
Serious photographers? People who want a good lens, fast autofocus, and high quality video. From the price it's clear these aren't intended as simple cell phone alternatives.
TheDarmok74: How good is the J5 sensor compared to the RX100 or FZ1000?Unfortunately it's not been tested here. The original Nikon 1" sensors were clearly inferior to the RX100 if I'm not very much mistaken.
Luckily, the J5 sensor is much better than the sensors in other Nikon 1 models. There was informed speculation that it is made by Sony, though I don't know what current thinking on this is. These sound like very nice cameras, but maybe a little pricey. Gives room for sale prices. In features these make the superficially similar Canon GnX models look very weak (OK, they already did).
It looks like a nice camera, but the price is simply absurd. I think the GX8 is seriously overpriced, too, but it offers more than this does, especially for the video fan. This looks like less camera than an A6000 at over twice the price (and the Oly doesn't even have a kit lens at that price) . Yeah, I know I'm comparing Sony's current street price with the Oly list price, but that's what the Oly is selling for now and they haven't dropped prices quickly in the past. I guess if you value style, think IBIS is essential, and love the great build quality this is better than an A6000, but the Sony has a bigger sensor, more capable autofocus system, and probably better video performance. And with the money you save you can buy several lenses. I want to take Olympus seriously, but they keep doing this.
justmeMN: I look forward to your review of the Canon G9 X. If nothing else, it should get the Most Pocketable Award, for cameras with a 1" sensor. :-) It costs significantly less than the Canon G5 X too.
Half the price of what? The basic RX100 is going for $400 in my neck of the woods, while I've yet to see the G9X for under $450, and typically it is still at $500. The only RX100 model that goes for twice the Canon is the IV, and it is an exotic sports car inside that modest body. The G9X isn't even in the same class.
That said, I think the G9X may be the most appealing of these new Canons, especially if the price drops down to match the base RX100. It will be slower than the Sony, but basically similar in features, though the Canon will have WiFi and the touchscreen to its advantage. In such a small camera with a modest number of buttons the touchscreen is a big advantage I wish the performance and battery life were better (judging by the poor performance of others in the line), but in a modestly priced and very tiny camera some compromises are to be expected. For the casual users who are this model's target it won't feel especially slow and most of those users don't shoot hundreds of pictures per day. Many never shoot action shots or use subject tracking. It will handily outperform their phone or p&s.
For those casual shoiters, the G9X may be the second best pocketable compact for under $500. For people who already find the RX100 a bit of a chunk in their bag or pocket, the G9X may even be the very best. For enthusiasts it will be a non-contender, but not every camera should be designed for them.
The Squire: "For photographers who care about speed and ultimate image quality, the RX100 III is the way to go."
Beaten by a year-and-a-half old Sony...
The II may not have added much in the way of new technology, but it added quite a few features your average person finds useful or desirable, like the tilting rear tscreen and WiFi. And a hot shoe, not heavily used by most buyers, but nice to include as it also supported accessories like an optional EVF. I think the II was Sony recognizing they had a hit on their hands and broadening the line's appeal by adding just about every popular feature they had omitted short of an evf (had to leave something for the III). The last two models have pushed the technology beyond what seemed possible for a pocketable camera. I can't even guess what a 5 could add, though my wish would be for increased zoom range, but without an increase I size or decrease in lens quality that's probably not going to happen.
Catalin Stavaru: I actually think that the more interesting camera (outside this enthusiast forum) from the Canon 1" sensor offerings is the G9X. It has only 80% of the volume of the *original* Sony RX100, and 70% or less of the volume of the recent RX100 versions. There is no point in making a large, sophisticated camera with small sensor, unless reading these forums too much. A large camera is a waste without la large sensor.
Hmm, I'm not the only one thinking that. The bigger/pricier/more ambitious Canons in this line are let down by their slow performance/poor battery life/soft lenses, none good enough for enthusiasts and inexcusable at the price.
The same compromises are less likely to bug casual buyers of the G9X, who get that great sensor in a exceptionally small, light camera. For a camera in that class the limited battery life and modest speed are easier to forgive, as is the plastic body. As something like an S120 with much better low light image quality the G9X is a reasonable prospect, though it needs to compete on price with the original RX100, which I see regularly for $400. OK, maybe slightly more for the touchscreen and Canon name.
The G5X makes a lot less sense. It's too limited for enthusiasts and too expensive for everyone else. The RX100 M3 is better in most ways and its lesser compromises are easier to accept in a pocketable camera. In the G5X the limitations just look like penny pinching, not necessary compromises. At least it doesn't look as foolish as the G3X, where the missing EVF looks even more like penny pinching.
NAwlins Contrarian: The real question is how the quality compares between a top-quality JPEG that is then compressed in JPEGmini and a JPEG created in Lightroom (or whatever) with the parameters set so that the file size is the same as the JPEGmini output. IOW, is it really significantly better than just using a higher level of compression in Lightroom? Call me skeptical.
Also, especially for something offered as a Lightroom plugin, there's a real head-scratcher in the inability to use it to create JPEGs in the first place (from processed raw files or TIFFs of scans or whatever).
FWIW, years ago I did extensive testing of JPEG compression with GIMP, which offers a good level of control of JPEG creation / compression. The very best quality settings gave me maybe 50% compression, but in many cases I could easily get 90% compression or more while maintaining very good quality. By degree of compression I mean, compared to pixels x 3 bytes / pixel, which is about what an uncompressed 8-bit TIFF takes.
It may give the same results,but the main market for this will be Web site managers who are not creating their own jpegs from a raw file, but instead receiving them from various sources. With this product they can compress all the jpegs they get without a noticeable loss of quality and achieve significant bandwidth reductions, which is still a very big deal. People complaining that this only works on jpegs are not the true intended market. They may be hoping photographers buy a few copies, but they aren't who it was designed for.