Will DX Format be squeezed out???

PepsiCan · Jul 9, 2010

RecalcitrantRon said:
The most expensive single component of the camera is the sensor. Greater efficiencies in producing FX sized sensors will also apply to DX sensors so the cost of DX will continue t be substantially less thus allowing a market for both formats.

--
'The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone
else when we're uncool.' Almost Famous

Ron
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/recalcitrantron
FCAS Member No. 68
pbase supporter

On top of that, as far as Nikon's offering is concerned, it will likely not be the APS-C format but a smaller format. This means that the expected low-light performance will also be less than for APS-C (in theory anyway).

So, although there will probably be fewer offerings in the DX format, it will not get squeezed out. The question is however, what happens to the lenses for DX. If there will be fewer models and the sales are to some extend cannibalised by the new mirrorless formats, then will we still be able to count on good DX lens offerings? After all, there is already a gap or two in the offering now (no dedicated primes, bar one, no fast superwide zoom).

pavi1 · Jul 9, 2010

cary smith said:
Manfred Bachmann said:

DX ist the future, not FX! 95% do not need FX, so FX is a niche product.....outperformed by MF.

Click to expand...

Right you are. DX is the new FX!!!

cary

So you are saying that if Nikon has a D91dx and a D91fx selling for $999.95, you will buy the dx version and believe most others will also.

nikonjohn · Jul 9, 2010

changes in the sensor technology that would discontinue the use of wafer-type sensors with pixels?

John

nikonjohn · Jul 9, 2010

legacy 35mm system. However, the technology to get a FF DSLR is so different it's almost impossible to compare the two. The smaller formats may rule the consumer marketplace of the future but until there is a technology breakthrough that gives small sensors virtually the same capability as large sensors, I'd be willing to bet that there will continue to be a strong market from photographers who want to achieve the highest quality results, e.g., landscapes, weddings, etc. It may end up like the medium format market now but it will still be there and will probebly flourish. Of course, I've already been wrong a couple of times today.

nikonjohn · Jul 9, 2010

they are based on what the public wants and whether they are willing to fork over the money to get it. You may be right though, Sony has a $2000 FF DSLR and it hasn't seemed to improve their sales or market share much. Also, the leading DSLR in Japan is the D90 and we know what format that is.

freddyNZ · Jul 9, 2010

nikonjohn said:
changes in the sensor technology that would discontinue the use of wafer-type sensors with pixels?

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/25363/page1/

I've read of others too. Image sensing perhaps an afterthought to solar power generation and/or other electronic applications, solid state lighting etc.

nikonjohn · Jul 9, 2010

to whether they can drop the costs further and whether it will outperform the current technology enough to replace it. At one point I thought that the foveon chip held real promise but it evidently didn't make the grade. Anyway, thanks again. The article was interesting. Technology definitely moves on.

HSway · Jul 10, 2010

if D91dx was £ 1500 and D91fx for 1000, I’d buy dx.
But don’t know what others.. and honestly don’t care actually at all.

And, I like fx very much as I like pretty broad scale of cameras. If I am not buying it, i don’t have to hate it. My next cam is going to be dx n probably 2.

Seems to me though, Cary didn’t say none of it, just a general view. Big heavy things do tend to be getting smaller in our world in course of time. For some 3 million years or so.

Hynek

pavi1 said:
cary smith said:

Manfred Bachmann wrote:

DX ist the future, not FX! 95% do not need FX, so FX is a niche product.....outperformed by MF.

Click to expand...

pavi1 said:
Right you are. DX is the new FX!!!

pavi1 said:
cary

pavi1 said:
pavi1 said:

pavi1 said:

pavi1 wrote:

So you are saying that if Nikon has a D91dx and a D91fx selling for $999.95, you will buy the dx version and believe most others will also.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.sunwaysite.com

jfriend00 · Jul 10, 2010

If both D91dx and D91fx are available for $999.95 (the hypothetical posed earlier), I'll probably buy one of each. I need DX to make the reach of my 200-400 f/4 work for wildlife and full field soccer. I'd love to also own FX for incredible wide angle and high ISO performance. Each has it's own advantages.

If I had to only buy one, I'd by the DX version because reach is more important to me than wide angle or high ISO. If I was an indoor basketball or volleyball shooter, I'd have to have the FX version for high ISO. Neither is better than the other - they each have advantages. If the advantages of one can be mostly usurped by the other, then the smaller and less expensive format typically wins because size or $$ can be used in other places to make the camera excel and because lower priced/higher volume models can be produced.
--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio

fastglass · Jul 10, 2010

cary smith said:
Manfred Bachmann said:

DX ist the future, not FX! 95% do not need FX, so FX is a niche product.....outperformed by MF.

Click to expand...

Right you are. DX is the new FX!!! cary

Manfred & Cary,

I love it.

I didn't use to think so - but, DX really is - the dSLR sweet spot.

Look what Leica (& to a lesser extent, Sigma dp) has done with a DX sensor in a semi-compact camera. 43 has little on that with apx 1/2 a full DX sensor.

Nikon (& everyone else except Leica/ Sigma dp) hasn't nearly taken full advantage of DX's sensor advantages - smaller form, lighter weight, & lower price - especially with dedicated, fast DX prime lenses, & fixed aperture f2.8 (or so) DX zooms.

The 35G f1.8 - is an excellent example of what they can do - if they want to ...

Cheers.
--
Vaya con Dios
imo
(c) 2010 fastglass

colinadams · Jul 12, 2010

Cytokine said:
I think yes, if the D400 was FX with DX crop would you turn it down?

I would have too. I need to crop greatly, so I can't afford the loss of pixels (assuming it would be like the D3, where DX crop gives you little more than half the pixels).

This worries me, so i think it is an interesting question.

pictureted · Jul 12, 2010

I see them co-existing happily for a long time. I currently shoot with a D90 and love the smaller, less expensive, highly capable DX zooms and smaller camera. There are no FX alternatives to the 16-85 and 10-24. Wide zoom ranges, take filters and don't intimidate others when street shooting.

I also like the crop factor for macro and long lens shooting.

Currently the quality of my D90 is more than acceptable. Do I need more MPs? No, I have no intention of reproducing billboards or cropping heavily. Do I need better ISO performance? No, having shot previously with Kodachrome or Velvia, ISO 200 is fast!

What would FX do for me? Let me use my old AIS lenses, which have been supplemented with new DX lenses that have fast AF, modern optical technology (more sophisticated coatings, exotic glass and more difficult to cut lens elements) and VR is some cases. But, it would be fun to use them again and see what they would do.

Years ago 35mm was not a serious medium for landscape photographers, you needed a view camera or medium format. I shot 35 because I neither could afford to buy or carry medium or large format and I feel the same way now, DX provides me with what I want.

Don89 · Jul 12, 2010

Not when you can consider full frame is really 2 1/4 inch format.

Or maybe because full frame is considered 4x5

No wait, make that 8x10....

and so on...

Joe Sherwood · Jul 12, 2010

pictureted said:
I see them co-existing happily for a long time. I currently shoot with a D90 and love the smaller, less expensive, highly capable DX zooms and smaller camera. There are no FX alternatives to the 16-85 and 10-24. Wide zoom ranges, take filters and don't intimidate others when street shooting.

I also like the crop factor for macro and long lens shooting.

Currently the quality of my D90 is more than acceptable. Do I need more MPs? No, I have no intention of reproducing billboards or cropping heavily. Do I need better ISO performance? No, having shot previously with Kodachrome or Velvia, ISO 200 is fast!

What would FX do for me? Let me use my old AIS lenses, which have been supplemented with new DX lenses that have fast AF, modern optical technology (more sophisticated coatings, exotic glass and more difficult to cut lens elements) and VR is some cases. But, it would be fun to use them again and see what they would do.

Years ago 35mm was not a serious medium for landscape photographers, you needed a view camera or medium format. I shot 35 because I neither could afford to buy or carry medium or large format and I feel the same way now, DX provides me with what I want.

Good post, I hope your right!

Search

Will DX Format be squeezed out???

PepsiCan

Leading Member

pavi1

Veteran Member

nikonjohn

Senior Member

nikonjohn

Senior Member

nikonjohn

Senior Member

freddyNZ

Veteran Member

nikonjohn

Senior Member

HSway

Veteran Member

jfriend00

Forum Pro

fastglass

Senior Member

colinadams

Forum Enthusiast

pictureted

Leading Member

Don89

Guest

Joe Sherwood

Forum Enthusiast

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts