I'm still waiting for the entry level DX dSLR for $299 with kit lens. DX has some life left, yet. A DX sensor will be cheaper to make than an FX sensor for many product generations to come. Only when the production numbers get so slim will FX be "cheaper" because of volume. That's a ways off yet.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
She's Dead, Jim. DX with a fork in it:
- Thread starter ThomasMiller
- Start date
The reactions are always funny. In other words; "How dare you think you know what's going on." But better still and leading by a nose is still, "How dare you know!"
Ya' see Thomas, that's the problem. You think you know everything, when in fact you don't "know" squat. Just like the rest of us. It's your highminded approach that just rubs everybody the wrong way. You are really kinda' sad. A person that needs to validate him/herself by constantly trying to prove they are better and have better "things" because of it have a deep rooted psychological problem. You have already been booted once, why not just play nice and stop all of your subconscious begging for help?
--
Matthew Scott
Ya' see Thomas, that's the problem. You think you know everything, when in fact you don't "know" squat. Just like the rest of us. It's your highminded approach that just rubs everybody the wrong way. You are really kinda' sad. A person that needs to validate him/herself by constantly trying to prove they are better and have better "things" because of it have a deep rooted psychological problem. You have already been booted once, why not just play nice and stop all of your subconscious begging for help?
--
Matthew Scott
dave veneri
Senior Member
i asked the same question at the show and was told factually that nikon had NO plans to abandon the dx format in the near future. reason? MOST of their lower to mid prosumer cameras have the sensor and the next generation lower end cams will use the most recent dx sensors. Also, 12mp is a VERY comfortable working size and will be useful for years to come. lastly I was told that the dx format and crop factor continues to be a USEFUL tool for professionals to this day! that is why the left the ability for the d3 to still do dx format! The next generation d400 will incorporate the same dual mode and my hat goes off to nikon for bringing a sensor to market that can do BOTH formats.
Actually it's not like saying that at all.
Not too familiar with optics, are you? I'm not sure you could build a successful "point and shoot" around even a tiny DX lens like the 18-55. And the only way you're ever going to fit a 10, 12 or more zoom ratio lens/camera into your pocket is if it uses a 1/2.5" sensor.
I actually own exactly those three. Going back to the optics thing - the 70-300VR is full frame!!
Ok, third time with the optics confusion. It's not that Nikon can't make a 28-300VR full frame lens. I'm sure they could. Canon HAS one (28-300IS) and it costs $2200 and weighs 3.7 pounds. Suddenly the 18-200VR combined with a DX sensor is an outstanding achievement for $750.
Certainly this is a potential issue but after seeing the D3 samples and looking at plenty of 100% crops, I wouldn't be surprised if a high ISO print in DX mode from a D3 had no problem competing with a D300 at the same ISO. A D1X is about the same res as a D3 in DX mode and the D1X is capable of some outstanding prints. The D3 should improve upon that so while I wouldn't expect a pro to shoot an entire wedding in DX mode, it's not the issue that some are making it out to be. Of course we won't know until the cameras start to ship.
ThomasMiller wrote:
I have 7K in camera bodies on order and
I have 7K in camera bodies on order and
What exactly do we own these days
Could it be pompous egos?
Steve Bingham
Forum Pro
And a reasonable gym subscription!
I can actually carry a 400mm f2.8 . . . and afford one.
IF they even made a 600mm f2.8 I could neither carry it nor afford it.
The 1.5 factor makes for cheaper and smaller lenses! Like a 600mm f2.8. So useful for nature and sports!!!! Also great for some fashion shots. Of course food photograhers wouldn't need a 600mm f2.8.
Then there is Olympus with their 2.0 factor.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
I can actually carry a 400mm f2.8 . . . and afford one.
IF they even made a 600mm f2.8 I could neither carry it nor afford it.
The 1.5 factor makes for cheaper and smaller lenses! Like a 600mm f2.8. So useful for nature and sports!!!! Also great for some fashion shots. Of course food photograhers wouldn't need a 600mm f2.8.
Then there is Olympus with their 2.0 factor.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
Myself I prefer dx at this point, and see how it will save me money. I fear all cameras going dx! However I can imagine sensors/cameras getting so good and so advanced (and prices coming down) that the dx crop mode on a fx camera wll be 12 pixel and perfectly acceptable to almost all of us. At that point I guess I could be happy. You'll buy a fx camera (that will be all that is available), you'll use the dx mode most of the time and you'll be satisfied. That point hasnt come yet - buy who knows what will come in 5-10 years? Look how far it's come in the last 5-10 yrs. How many GB did your CF card hold 10 years ago?
--
Larry
--
Larry
If the consumer wants it, they will produce. DX will be/are more popular because people want the reach. We have sufficient wide angle with DX, but need more telephoto.
The quality is is not a problem either. I can't find any film produced photos that look better than DX digital. If you want DX in Full Frame, Pixel size is reduced.
If you want to debate whether pixel size in FX will be sufficient, even with a 50% cut for DX shots, then show me a computer that can handle the size and speed we require.
This post reminds me of all the garbage "Compact Flash is dead" posts. Pros want compact flash cards, so they will get them- end of story.
The quality is is not a problem either. I can't find any film produced photos that look better than DX digital. If you want DX in Full Frame, Pixel size is reduced.
If you want to debate whether pixel size in FX will be sufficient, even with a 50% cut for DX shots, then show me a computer that can handle the size and speed we require.
This post reminds me of all the garbage "Compact Flash is dead" posts. Pros want compact flash cards, so they will get them- end of story.
Here's the one thing you're missing: "As the FX sensors get cheaper to build...", they are still going to cost substantially more than a 1.5x cropped sensor. As has been pointed out many times, it is the physical size of the sensor that dictates the price more than anything, since this size has a tremendous effect on manufacturing yield (read: "supply"). Thus, they are not going to automatically become affordable simply because sensor technology becomes more advanced.
--
I see your schwartz is as big as mine.
Jan Sobieski
Forum Enthusiast
The question is: what time frame are we talking about? For the short term, DX sensors have a cost advantage over the FX. Once pixel density of the FX sensor approaches that of the DX at a reasonable cost with no trade off in noise or DR then DX will be dead. The only reason for the DX sensor is the cost advantage. Sure, we've learned to live with it and in many cases like or love the DX format. But ultimately, it will fall by the wayside in professional grade cameras and then in consumer grade cameras.
For the record, I'm not quite sure why this post has garnered so much spite. It surely is no worse than many others.
For the record, I'm not quite sure why this post has garnered so much spite. It surely is no worse than many others.
PeteZ28
Forum Enthusiast
Simple. It's the same uninformed, speculative BS that is posted EVERY DAY. The D300 isn't even on the shelves yet and already the Nostradamus posts and threads about what is going to happen 2, 3, and 10 years from now are out of control.
Yes I understand this is a hardware forum, but when the entire forum is filled with posts about the same day after day after day what good does it do anybody?
Lets just worry about the hardware we have, ask questions about it, learn how to use it better, and take some darn pictures with it already!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/_pete/
NeilCam
Leading Member
The 1.5/1.6 crops provide a wonderful effective increase in focal length for those of us who shoot sports or wildlife. Funnily enough, I believe that may constitute a significant percentage of the photography market. Who knows maybe even a higher percentage than those noisy few who bemoaned the lack of a full-size sensor camera from Nikon.
Just because some moron only shoots wide and has no use for the crop, doesn't mean he's the only one who does. Nor does it give him any insight nor make him right.
Seriously, this whole thread is too f* ing silly for words. The fact that some are choosing to support such stupidity and ignore some rather basic marketing factors is even more baffling.
Neil
--
http://www.motifwebs.com/gallery/
http://www.competitionimages.com
Hummingbird Hunter #10
Just because some moron only shoots wide and has no use for the crop, doesn't mean he's the only one who does. Nor does it give him any insight nor make him right.
Seriously, this whole thread is too f* ing silly for words. The fact that some are choosing to support such stupidity and ignore some rather basic marketing factors is even more baffling.
Neil
--
http://www.motifwebs.com/gallery/
http://www.competitionimages.com
Hummingbird Hunter #10
ThomasMiller
Senior Member
Ya' see Thomas, that's the problem. You think you know everything, when in fact you don't "know" squat. > > > >
I see. Well, I guess you told me!
Actually....I guess we'll see if any of what I wrote is correct.
Cheers,
Thomas
I see. Well, I guess you told me!
Actually....I guess we'll see if any of what I wrote is correct.
Cheers,
Thomas
ThomasMiller
Senior Member
Dont you have anything else to do?> > >
Yes, I shot a series of boat interiors for a broker this morning while some folks trolled this thread. It's a lot easier than real estate shooting and pays better too. The best part is all I need is the camera and a 12-24 with the remote flash. Download the pics to mu laptop, run a quick fix on NX and hand the card over to the broker. Doesn't get much easier than that.
Now I'll spend the rest of the day with my son, who is loads of fun to be with.
Hope your day was/is as profitable.
Thomas
Yes, I shot a series of boat interiors for a broker this morning while some folks trolled this thread. It's a lot easier than real estate shooting and pays better too. The best part is all I need is the camera and a 12-24 with the remote flash. Download the pics to mu laptop, run a quick fix on NX and hand the card over to the broker. Doesn't get much easier than that.
Now I'll spend the rest of the day with my son, who is loads of fun to be with.
Hope your day was/is as profitable.
Thomas
michaeladawson
Forum Pro
There are what I really think of as P&S cameras and these are the ubiquitous cameras you can put in a purse, shirt pocket in some cases, throw in a brief case. Then there are the advanced cameras that are a lot bigger in size, culminating in the non-interchangeable lens SLRs.
So which P&S are you referring to. You can't put APS-C sensors in that first class of P&S without losing one of the major selling factors of that class... size.
--
Mike Dawson
ThomasMiller
Senior Member
So which P&S are you referring to. You can't put APS-C sensors in that first class of P&S without losing one of the major selling factors of that class... size.> > >
Mike, I was referring to cameras like the upper end models like the Canon G9 and such. I doubt that such sensors will appear in 150 dollar Casio models. But a bigger snazzy rangefinder? Why not?
Thomas
Mike, I was referring to cameras like the upper end models like the Canon G9 and such. I doubt that such sensors will appear in 150 dollar Casio models. But a bigger snazzy rangefinder? Why not?
Thomas
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
That is the number 1, most significant fact that you have missed. The growth in the dslr camera market doesn't come from folks that already own dslr's. It has to come from folks that will not pay current prices and won't buy big cameras with big lenses. For DSLR market growth, all of the makers have to contend with that issue. Incremental updates in cameras won't sustain and grow the market. At some point, the MP race will be beyond stupid.
Bigger is better in photography? Well yeah, that's pretty much the way it has always been, but that didn't stop 35mm from becoming the most widely used format. That's why MF and LF film is going the way of the dodo bird.
And what has changed with the 486 processors and computers along with other similar consumer goods? Everything has gotten smaller, not larger.
Nikon and canon kept the FF lenses because of the large film base that would buy their new offerings. The same is true now that both have FF dslr's. That ensures the largest market for new lenses. That doesn't guarantee that future cameras and lenses will continue to be that size.
The same could be said for FF when compared to MF digital. Obviously, that doesn't wash.
Not only is there logic to keeping DX, the most logical approach to future growth would be to make everything smaller than DX. It is illogical to assume that growth will come from making cameras and lenses larger than DX. The only significant strength of FF is lower noise, which is a technology issue. Technological progress will continue to make improvements in that area, further reducing the benefit of FF. At some point, DX sensors will be good enough that even though FF would be better, it won't matter to the masses.
Smaller size, lower weight and cost will always trump the larger, heavier, more costly systems in the market place. Eventually, smaller, lighter, cheaper lenses will be coupled with smaller, lighter and cheaper bodies that will produce better photos than we can get today. That's my prediction.
I'd gladly throw all of my gear in the dump, in exchange for gear that would produce better photos at half the cost, size and weight. It is the same thing that has already happened with a lot of folks that have abandoned LF and MF cameras for dslr's. I rather doubt that there would be many that wouldn't do the same.
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
ThomasMiller
Senior Member
For the record, I'm not quite sure why this post has garnered so much spite. It surely is no worse than many others.> > >
Because I presume to infer I know something others don't. You might not imagine how funny it all is or the irony involved. In forums like this you can surely see mob mentality at work.
Secure folks responded calmly, of course, and they are the only ones worth having a discussion with.
Cheers,
Thomas
Because I presume to infer I know something others don't. You might not imagine how funny it all is or the irony involved. In forums like this you can surely see mob mentality at work.
Secure folks responded calmly, of course, and they are the only ones worth having a discussion with.
Cheers,
Thomas
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum