Thom's latest: D400 would be FX but . . .

Started Apr 25, 2012 | Discussions thread
Forum ProPosts: 11,717
Re: But . . .
In reply to AF Tracker, Apr 26, 2012

AF Tracker wrote:

Antony John wrote:

When LCD monitors first came out many thought they were not, and would not, be affordable. Same as FX.

I disagree. LCD monitors were being compared to a different technology (CRT). The price of an FX sensor is being compared to the price of a DX sensor, which is the same technology. And, the price of an FX sensor will ALWAYS be more than the price of a DX sensor.

And, given that the cost of a sensor is heavily reliant upon its real estate, the cost of an FX sensor will continue to be significant more than a DX sized one.

You make some valid points, but what you can't tell us (for sure) is:

  • Whether the relative difference between FX and DX sensors is dropping.

  • Whether DX sensors, who are now becoming more dense, too, are becoming harder to produce and hence more expensive in relative terms than previous generations (or not dropping in price as fast as FX).

On that second point keep in mind that all these great DR and high ISO improvements come at a cost. If they're easier to bring about in FX than DX, DX will not be as cheap as Nikon would like it. OTOH, they just slapped a 24MP sensor on a $700 body, so we'll see how good it is, and whether any of this argumentation of mine holds any water. The original point remains, though: we don't have enough facts to support how much more expensive FX must be than DX when only the sensor is considered.


Splash page:
Gallery and blog:
Google plus:
Flickr stream:

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow