Do you think DX will disappear in the future?

I've been saying it on these forums for a couple of years. I believe that DX will be used on entry level plastic cameras well into the future. You need only look at the type lenses Nikon has released for DX in the past few years. We get a new 18-200 and then an 18-300 do anything but not well zooms. We get extended range with the 55-300 DX to get passed Canon's nice 55-250. We get an 18-105 VR as a great kit lens. We also get three cheap DX primes, the 35 f/1.8, the 40 f/2.8 Micro and the 85 f/3.5 Micro. That's it. All these lenses are more suitable for your point and shoot upgrader and on inexpensive cameras. They're good optics because that's what Nikon does, but they are designed for those people who are just moving into SLRs. They stock the shelves of Best Buy.

Where's the new pro-grade DX lenses? They just don't exist because pros no longer really use DX anymore. Why bother? The pro-grade FX lenses will work but usually at zoom ranges where the field of view is not as usable. For example a mid zoom for DX ought to really start at 15, 16, 17 or 18mm, not at 24 or higher.

The thing that held FX back in the past was the considerably higher cost and higher failure rate in the production of larger sensors. That era is gone. FX sensors now cost very closely to the cost to make a DX sensor and as the need or desire of higher pixel density increases, DX might become more expensive to make. I don't know. The point is that a large cost differecial is no longer there. Sony can make FX sensors reletively inexpensively and Nikon who makes some of the most advanced steppers can also with the LBcast technologies coupled with CMOS have an in with low light ability.

So what it boils down to is do we still need DX? I don't think so but I believe Nikon and Canon will continue but only on those entry levels. I could be totally wrong and we'll see if some D400 extends the life of DX a little longer in SLRs. Nikon would also have to rethink it's DX lens strategy. Why pay $1800 for a DX D400 when the good glass is FX and the body price is so close? For that matter, why consider a $1299 D7100 for the same reasons? Why not just buy a D5200 24 MP DX model and have done with it if you want DX for some reason? If you want serious crop, get the Nikon 1 line.

I've already made the total move to FX with three bodies now, a D700, D3S and a D800. My poor D300 spends too much time on the shelf. I'd never consider any less of a build so there you have it. I don't think I'm alone.
--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

How surprised would you be to know that at least 90%, probably much higher, of the population has no ideal what any focal length looked like on 35mm.

LandoftheCleves said:

There's already a 15mp DX camera inside the D800. How long before every FX camera can say the same, and more?

At that point, combined with advances in cheaper & more compact designs, what's the point of DX?

I have a bit of a hard time understanding how anyone who learned photography on a 35mm film camera would see DX as anything more than an awkward transitional phase into digital photography for Nikon, Canon, etc.

Click to expand...

--
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44

LandoftheCleves said:

I have a bit of a hard time understanding how anyone who learned photography on a 35mm film camera would see DX as anything more than an awkward transitional phase into digital photography for Nikon, Canon, etc.

Click to expand...

It is simple- different photographers have different needs
For the majority on a budget FX cannot compete

For those into macro or wildlife the 1 stop faster shutter speed or 1 stop more DOF combined with 50% more working distances are often important DX advantages

12 MP is easily good enough for better 16x12 prints than film - and at 1600. Try matching that with film

With 24 MP (same as D600) being the likely Nikon DX standard by early next year the short term FX MP advantage is going to evaporate.

I would rather have a 24 MP D400 with better FPS, AF, top shutter and flash sync speeds than a D600.
I have the D800 for highest resolution and the D3s for highest ISO work.

It is surly as crazy to suggest that a photographer should use only one format as it is to suggest a photographer should use only one lens
--
Leonard Shepherd

Many problems turn out to be a lack of intimate knowledge of complex modern camera equipment.

I totally disagree.

You wrote about cheap DX lenses and you forgot new DX 10-24, relativelly new 16-85 VR. 17-55/2.8 is still in the production and yes, the facelift is not so urgent due to FX pros, but new version of the 17-55/2.8 is the only one DX pro lens which would be fine for new semi-pro D400 body. DX would need AF-S DX 24/1.8G and AF-S DX 16/2G, but they can come in the future. Now Nikon has to make full FX lens line which is incomplete still. Pro FX teleobjectives are DX teleobjectives too, but better, longer. ;-)

The cost of FX sensor is not closely to DX sensor, but the FX sensor is about 10-times more expensive than DX sensor. It is due the technology of silicon waffers production.
The price of FX lens Nikkor AF-S 24-120/4 VR is $1300.
The price of DX lens Nikkor AF-S 16-85/3.5-5.6 VR is $660.
24-120 has very big sharpness difference center-edges in the range 60-100mm.
16-85 has not very big sharpness difference center-edges anywhere.
16-85 is lightweight lens and 24-120 is not lightweight lens.
The price of DX AF-S 10-24/3.5-4.5 is $820.
The price of FX AF-S 16-35/4 is $1300.
The price of DX AF-S 17-55/2.8 is $1300.
The price of FX AF-S 24-70/2.8 is $1900.

I would agree with Leonard on this one. I would rather have an 18-24 MP DX 400 camera in a pro body for $2000, than a handicapped D600 in a plastic body for the same price. If both were equivalent in build, frame rate high ISO and AF then yes the FX body makes more sense. Just don't compare the price point of the two formats when one has limited features and the other would be a top of the line camera for sport and wild life shooters.

pavi1 said:

How surprised would you be to know that at least 90%, probably much higher, of the population has no ideal what any focal length looked like on 35mm.

Click to expand...

Not surprised. But a good chunk of that 90% should at least be able to appreciate the limits of 35mm lens design, no? That if an FX user wants a wide fast prime, for example, that FX user will always have options that the DX user won't. And, again, the DX advantage on the long end disappears as FX cameras (and their DX crops) gain more and more resolution.

Leonard Shepherd said:

For the majority on a budget FX cannot compete

Click to expand...

I get that, but before long I assume we'll be saying "for the majority on a budget DX cannot compete (with improved compact camera designs)."

I have 10mm on DX, fish eye and Sigma 10 - 20 and can not imagine needing or wanting wider but for those who do there is FX.

I just do not see $2,000 FX ever replacing the DX line and I never see FX at sub $1,000.

LandoftheCleves said:

Not surprised. But a good chunk of that 90% should at least be able to appreciate the limits of 35mm lens design, no? That if an FX user wants a wide fast prime, for example, that FX user will always have options that the DX user won't. And, again, the DX advantage on the long end disappears as FX cameras (and their DX crops) gain more and more resolution.

Click to expand...

--
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44

Potentially: size, cost, 1.5x crop factor.

Cheaper and cheaper FX sensors will make the cost factor irrelevant. DX sensors will always be cheaper than FX sensors, but if an FX sensor is $20 who cares?

FX lenses will always be larger but there really isn't that much difference between the DX and FX lenses (consider the 17-55/2.8 DX vs 24-70/2.8 FX or the 35/1.8 vs 35/2).

Higher resolution makes the crop factor less important. Now I am using two D800s and no DX camera, relying on cropping instead of a smaller sensor for wildlife and sports. I'll let you know how it all works out. My first mountain bike race with this set is this weekend.

I think DX will disappear. The only thing that would keep it going is if Nikon came out with excellent cheap 500 or 600 DX lenses. They would have to be much cheaper than the FX versions.

maljo

FX sensor will never cost $20. FX sensor is made from the same amount of the silicon as about 100 processors in PC.

If you wait for $20 FX sensor, you can wait for $20 ounce gold too. ;-)

Long term, who knows what will happen, but I don't think Nikon can afford not to do APS-C. I can see enthusiast APS-C drying up as FF becomes cheaper and - even if some of us are content with APS-C - manufacturers simply focusing their r&d efforts on FF.

But these companies compete like crazy for entry level buyers, and while most of the camera buying market is using cell phones and superzoom digicams, the market for entry level DSLRs and ILCs is huge. And while it may be moving away from DSLRs towards ILCs, these systems offer tremendous IQ in small (and inexpensive) packages. I don't think Nikon and Canon could afford to not be selling APS-C cameras. And if they're selling APS-C mirrorless, they'll always have a path available for using DX lenses. No idea on screw drive lenses ... maybe this is all doom & gloom and Nikon has so many users out there that they'll continue with DX bodies for the next 20 years. One way or another, I think there's life in these lenses for a long, long time.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

I think that the split between DX and FX will be the same as today:

• range of low-cost DX bodies for entry-level and to fend off mirrorless
• an enthusiast DX body not much more expensive than the low-cost bodies
• the same enthusiast body with an FX sensor more expensive than the DX version

Without the enthusiast DX body the jump in price between the low-cost bodies and the first FX body is too great.

Look at lens releases. Nikon continues to develop the enthusiast DX line (18-300VR released this year). But there hasn't been a pro DX lens released in years..

There will always be a market for DX cameras IMO. They will always be less expensive to make for one. Second, there will always be a market for a smaller, less expensive camera.

--
Good cyclists are:
Visible, Predictable, Alert, Assertive and Courteous

They also use the five layers of protection available.
Layer 1: Control your bike (Don't fall or collide with others)
Layer 2: Follow the rules (Don't be the cause of traffic crashes)
Layer 3: Use Lane position (Discourage other drivers mistakes)
Layer 4: Hazard Avoidance (Avoid other drivers mistakes and road hazards)
Layer 5: Utilize passive protection (Use protection when all else fails)

Chris, Broussard, LA

Tomas_X said:

Pro FX teleobjectives are DX teleobjectives too, but better, longer. ;-)

The cost of FX sensor is not closely to DX sensor, but the FX sensor is about 10-times more expensive than DX sensor. It is due the technology of silicon waffers production.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, the technology of silicon wafers has narrowed the price gap to close to 10%-20% difference in cost of manufacture in the higher pixel density units and the failure rate which used to be one of the biggest contributors to the price gap has narrowed to about zero. If you check, even the higher density steppers used to make them has become lower to the point that there is little difference. That's my very point. Larger full frame sensors no longer cost much more and may shortly be the same.

As far as long lenses go and crop factor, there is no reach advantage. It's just a smaller crop of a larger image. You can do that in photoshop. With the 24 and 36 mp FX sensors, the pixel density is high enough that they can put as many or more pixels on the target at range than a DX sensor so that crop factor creates not much advantage with a long lens. In fact, the better IQ at higher ISOs contributes to the better use of longer glass in the early morning and late evening when wildlife are more likely to be out if you use an FX camera. In fact, that's what your more often seeing on the birding trails these days.

You named several older DX lenses and they are good glass, but nothing much new in recent years. Moreover, lenses like the 17-55 f/2.8 hold no size and weight advantage and very little price advantage. You see too many higher end DX shooters using FX combinations to overcome this lack. You mention a couple of wide primes for DX but that's a pipedream at this point. They don't exist. The widest DX prime now is 35mm and that's not wide. No, Nikon is concentrating on FX for a reason and it's not just to fill it out. It's because that is the future for this type of camera, IMO.

Even now and not counting the aging D300s, there is only entry level DX cameras and I count the D7000 right there too. So does DPReview if you look at the forum where the D7000 resides along with the D40 and higher. It's still loaded up with scene modes and a green auto position. That's entry level.
--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

westcoasthd said:

I would agree with Leonard on this one. I would rather have an 18-24 MP DX 400 camera in a pro body for $2000, than a handicapped D600 in a plastic body for the same price. If both were equivalent in build, frame rate high ISO and AF then yes the FX body makes more sense. Just don't compare the price point of the two formats when one has limited features and the other would be a top of the line camera for sport and wild life shooters.

Click to expand...

When you say top of the line camera for sport and wildlife shooters, why do you suppose that means DX? When looking at professional sports shooters, I see almost the exclusive use of Full Frame FX cameras. Why don't they make a DX professional sports camera, or wildlife for that matter? There's a reason for this. The reason is that amoung professionals and most highly advanced amateurs it's known that a smaller sensor does NOT provide "reach." Focal length is focal length. It used to be that a DX camera put a lot more pixels on the target, but even that isn't true or doesn't matter much anymore. Sensor size does not have anything to do with magnification. None. Zero. Nada.

Now you can simulate reach by using a small sensor to crop the larger image then enlarge that cropped image in post and indeed is the way it's done with DX cameras, but that's the same as a digital zoom. The same can be done with an FX sensor and to better effect. The only advantage a DX camera has is size and price. There is nothing else.

If one used a 100mm lens to take a picture of a bird on a fence with an FX camera, let's say there was 12 inches or so of space surrounding that bird that was sky, fence on other background components. From the same place and using the same lens shoot that same bird with a DX camera. What happens is that the bird stays the same size. The space around it is cropped. You might only have four inches of space around the bird now and the overall image is smaller. That's why it is more properly called "crop factor." There's no additional reach or magnification.

This is one of the reasons the use of DX is limited if price and size are not considered, and price is becoming less of a difference as FX gets cheaper. When you look at several DX lenses, you also notice size isn't that big of a deal with the best glass.

Now, I agree that the build of a D300 is better than a D600, but that would just move me to a D700 or D800. I just see no real reason to buy a D400.

--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

So u believe $500 FX is just around corner? How long before sub $2,000 FX at 7 fps?

Guidenet said:

Tomas_X said:

Pro FX teleobjectives are DX teleobjectives too, but better, longer. ;-)

The cost of FX sensor is not closely to DX sensor, but the FX sensor is about 10-times more expensive than DX sensor. It is due the technology of silicon waffers production.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, the technology of silicon wafers has narrowed the price gap to close to 10%-20% difference in cost of manufacture in the higher pixel density units and the failure rate which used to be one of the biggest contributors to the price gap has narrowed to about zero. If you check, even the higher density steppers used to make them has become lower to the point that there is little difference. That's my very point. Larger full frame sensors no longer cost much more and may shortly be the same.

As far as long lenses go and crop factor, there is no reach advantage. It's just a smaller crop of a larger image. You can do that in photoshop. With the 24 and 36 mp FX sensors, the pixel density is high enough that they can put as many or more pixels on the target at range than a DX sensor so that crop factor creates not much advantage with a long lens. In fact, the better IQ at higher ISOs contributes to the better use of longer glass in the early morning and late evening when wildlife are more likely to be out if you use an FX camera. In fact, that's what your more often seeing on the birding trails these days.

You named several older DX lenses and they are good glass, but nothing much new in recent years. Moreover, lenses like the 17-55 f/2.8 hold no size and weight advantage and very little price advantage. You see too many higher end DX shooters using FX combinations to overcome this lack. You mention a couple of wide primes for DX but that's a pipedream at this point. They don't exist. The widest DX prime now is 35mm and that's not wide. No, Nikon is concentrating on FX for a reason and it's not just to fill it out. It's because that is the future for this type of camera, IMO.

Even now and not counting the aging D300s, there is only entry level DX cameras and I count the D7000 right there too. So does DPReview if you look at the forum where the D7000 resides along with the D40 and higher. It's still loaded up with scene modes and a green auto position. That's entry level.
--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

Click to expand...

--
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44

LandoftheCleves said:

There's already a 15mp DX camera inside the D800. How long before every FX camera can say the same, and more?

At that point, combined with advances in cheaper & more compact designs, what's the point of DX?

I have a bit of a hard time understanding how anyone who learned photography on a 35mm film camera would see DX as anything more than an awkward transitional phase into digital photography for Nikon, Canon, etc.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Except for having a couple of quality DX lenses and possibly future dramatic FPS increase, there is little further interest for me.
(D300 and D7000 sit quietly in the drawer now.)

Please read carefully. You extracted from my text only that parts, which you like to negate. I wrote:
The price of FX lens Nikkor AF-S 24-120/4 VR is $1300.
The price of DX lens Nikkor AF-S 16-85/3.5-5.6 VR is $660.
24-120 has very big sharpness difference center-edges in the range 60-100mm.
16-85 has not very big sharpness difference center-edges anywhere.
16-85 is lightweight lens and 24-120 is not lightweight lens.
The price of DX AF-S 10-24/3.5-4.5 is $820.
The price of FX AF-S 16-35/4 is $1300.
The price of DX AF-S 17-55/2.8 is $1300.
The price of FX AF-S 24-70/2.8 is $1900.

The differences are not small.

maljo