Do you think DX will disappear in the future?

pavi1 said:

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

Click to expand...

Come on. You can't have read what I wrote and come away with the above. No, I didn't say FX will totally replace DX. What I said was that DX will be relegated pretty much to where it is now, entry level cameras. I could very well be wrong too. It's just my guess. I think we will see FX at the $1000-$1200 mark in the next two years. Also remember inflation affects all this. What sells for $600 today might be $800 in three years.

I have no on earthly idea about 7 fps cameras and when they will arrive at a particular price point. I'm not sure it would even be part of this discussion. What are you getting at?

Also, if Nikon actually does release a D400 DX camera, I'd be totally wrong on the short time basis. I'd still think FX is the future, but it would take longer to happen. I think to keep a D400 user satified with DX, we'd have to have a rethinking on DX glass from Nikon, something we've not been seeing.

Have fun.
--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

I hope so. Never liked it. My brain is wired for 35mm and how the lenses work on that format.

All the FX bodies will shoot with DX lenses at lower MP so at least they are not all a total waste.

ErikkaSmith said:

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but I want some current inputs from you guys since the D600, an 'entry-level' full-frame camera, has already been released.

I understand that Nikon made a lot of DX lenses so it'll be a waste if they terminate their DX lineup but do you think Nikon will focus more on delivering more FX cameras, and just have like a couple or one DX camera in the future?

Click to expand...

--
Jim

I didn't negate anything. I ignored parts I didn't disagree with but felt didn't impart much to my overall opinion. Most of the DX glass you mention are older models that came our when DX was still quite viable. Some came out when that was all there was even in the pro-grade cameras like my D2H and D2X.

You also made comparisons that fit where you were coming from. The Zoom ratios on DX lenses tend to be larger than what's on FX. A standard zoom on FX might be the new 24-85 while on DX might be 16-85 and 18-105, totally different ratios. There is no 18-300 equivalent and for a reason. So comparing various equivalent fields of view doesn't add much to our conversation. It doesn't even say that much about the optics or IQ.

There is no doubt that DX is cheaper. I never said it wasn't. There's not a $1200 FX camera at this time either. Looking towards the future might be an entirely different story though. Who knows what lenses might be available for an $800 FX camera? It's all just a guess. Look at the verable 50 f/1.8 AFD at around $140 brand new. Nikon made cheap FX for a long time for entry level full frame cameras. Look at the Series E lenses as an example. Remember, DX has only been popular for a very short time in the history of SLR cameras.

I promise I'm not tryig to make DX owners angry. It's just a personal opinion at best.
--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

I find it hard to believe DX will disappear any time soon. Here is my logic that is either correct or not...

• Silicon technology is improving constantly and exponentially, and the amount of IQ you can get from a DX sensor is improving as a result. DX sensors today are showing low light capabilties not that different from FX only few years back. And that should continue to happen.
• If the sensor is the IQ stopper for DX and lens quality is the IQ stopper for FX, I would guess that sensor quality will increase much faster than lens quality - perhaps even exponentially.
• Going from DX to FX brings you several benefits, but the cost per benefit seems to be diminishing. Lets take these one by one.
• Low light - yes, you can expect just above 1EV better IQ in low light, due to the 2.5x larger sensor. So at really high ISOs you get a difference. Up to 800-1600 ISO though you dont. So for what seems like the great majority of cases, you get the same IQ (or just a bit below) for 1/2 the price, say D7000 vs D600.
• There is nothing "absolute" in 35mm sized lenses. In full frame, lenses are used "as they should be" instead of being cropped. I dont buy that at all. Indeed, FF look the same as they did in 35mm film. But there's nothing more "real" or less cropped about 35mm than APS-C. I remember 35mm being looked at as the cheap lower IQ version of medium format. A 50mm "normal" lens looks tele for APS-C, normal for 35mm and FF, and wide-angle for medium format. Neither is more correct than the other. Just somewhat different. The big difference here is that for the same aperture you get a 1EV wider area of focus in APS-C vs FF. So you would need a lower aperture (say f1.4 instead of f2.0) to get that nice out-of-focus portrait in APS-C, but you also don't need to go as high to get that widely focused landscape image (say f8 instead of f11).
• High IQ in low light isn't a 35mm thing either. I remember really high ISO film being anything but high quality. Seems like the IQ of APS-C in high ISO is that much better than film used to be.
• To that end, I dont understand why APS-C inherently should have worse wide-angle experience than FF. You already have great lens such as the 10-24 nikon or 12-16 Tokina, you dont have to use as wide an aperture to get a eally wide focused area, so you theoretically don't reach the len's limits as fast. And it costs so much less than good FF wide angle lens.
• I dont get how a full frame sensor can cost x10 times more that a APS-C. 2.5x larger sensor should be around 2.5x higher cost. If not right now than in the really near future. Dont know what I am missing otherwise.
• Another biggie is viewfinder size. Sure FF is larger. But its not that big a jump. D600 has 70% magnification while D7000 has 63%. 10% for sure. But the D600 is so much smaller than film-era viewfinders (75%-85% were common), and the D7000 is so much larger than lower level crop cameras. So it would make sense to me if you could engineer up to 70% for APS-C as well.

Bottom line, if you can get 99% of the image quality except for specialized needs for 50% the cost, and can do so with identical camera functionality otherwise (1000$ difference D7000 vs D600), and can buy and use cheaper lenses that provide great results, and if you can afford as a result to get a wider selection of lenses due to the lower cost of cameras+lenses and experiment and work, and if all of this ends up lighter to carry, and if people have been doing just that and have bought significant amounts of lenses and have been using this either for hobby or profession or both, people will not only continue to use it, but it should get more and more popular.

I will find it quite odd that companies will not keep providing advanced tools for APS-C. Including semi-pro high FPS full magnesium for those that need that in their APS-C work.
Hope I'm right...

All this talk is just in fun. I understand, but some of the things you mention really don't hold true, at least to my way of thinking and I too could be wrong.

Let's look at a few. I'm not going to address the whole thing.

tald said:

Silicon technology is improving constantly and exponentially, and the amount of IQ you can get from a DX sensor is improving as a result. DX sensors today are showing low light capabilties not that different from FX only few years back. And that should continue to happen.

Click to expand...

Ok, very true, that those same advances apply to FX as well and maybe more so in that there's more room for additional technology. Higher pixel density will reach maximums faster for DX obviously.

tald said:

If the sensor is the IQ stopper for DX and lens quality is the IQ stopper for FX, I would guess that sensor quality will increase much faster than lens quality - perhaps even exponentially.

Click to expand...

Here a real problem. The IQ stopper as you put it is more affected by the pixel density than the size of the sensor. Sure the larger sensor requires a larger image circle but high densities show all the flaws. A D7000 is just as hard on glass as a D800 because they both have close to the same density. So, following your thoughts, DX has two stoppers. You've got a smaller sensor with less dim light capability and just as hard on good glass.

tald said:

Going from DX to FX brings you several benefits, but the cost per benefit seems to be diminishing. Lets take these one by one.

Click to expand...

What you forget is the cost differential between DX and FX is getting smaller and smaller. The cost to make FX isn't much greater than DX. As densities increase, DX might be more expensive than FX soon enough.

tald said:

There is nothing "absolute" in 35mm sized lenses

Click to expand...

Yep, we agree with this whole paragraph pretty much. No problem.

tald said:

I dont get how a full frame sensor can cost x10 times more that a APS-C. 2.5x

Click to expand...

It doesn't anymore. It is just marginally higher.

tald said:

Another biggie is viewfinder size. Sure FF is larger. But its not that big a jump. D600

Click to expand...

Oooo. my friend. Go look through a D700 or another FX viewfinder and see. Way nicer.

tald said:

Bottom line, if you can get 99% of the image quality except for

Click to expand...

99%? Where'd that come from. I'll counter that with FX does 500% better than DX and I'd be no more correct than you. I also made mine up. I now shoot only FX and I find my output has really done much better. I'd never go back. Just saying.

tald said:

I will find it quite odd that companies will not keep providing advanced tools for APS-C. Including semi-pro high FPS full magnesium for those that need that in their APS-C

Click to expand...

Why is it odd, if it turns out FX isn't really much more than DX in the long run?

Anyway.. all just fun. Be good.

--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

tald said:

• There is nothing "absolute" in 35mm sized lenses. In full frame, lenses are used "as they should be" instead of being cropped. I dont buy that at all. Indeed, FF look the same as they did in 35mm film. But there's nothing more "real" or less cropped about 35mm than APS-C.

Click to expand...

So at the limits of 35mm wide + fast, we have the 24mm f/1.4 lens.

Would anyone honestly consider the act of putting that lens in front of a DX sensor an act of using that lens "as it should be"?

Guidenet said:

All this talk is just in fun. I understand, but some of the things you mention really don't hold true, at least to my way of thinking and I too could be wrong.

Let's look at a few. I'm not going to address the whole thing.

Guidenet said:

Silicon technology is improving constantly and exponentially, and the amount of IQ you can get from a DX sensor is improving as a result. DX sensors today are showing low light capabilties not that different from FX only few years back. And that should continue to happen.

Click to expand...

Ok, very true, that those same advances apply to FX as well and maybe more so in that there's more room for additional technology. Higher pixel density will reach maximums faster for DX obviously.

Guidenet said:

If the sensor is the IQ stopper for DX and lens quality is the IQ stopper for FX, I would guess that sensor quality will increase much faster than lens quality - perhaps even exponentially.

Click to expand...

Here a real problem. The IQ stopper as you put it is more affected by the pixel density than the size of the sensor. Sure the larger sensor requires a larger image circle but high densities show all the flaws. A D7000 is just as hard on glass as a D800 because they both have close to the same density. So, following your thoughts, DX has two stoppers. You've got a smaller sensor with less dim light capability and just as hard on good glass.

Guidenet said:

Going from DX to FX brings you several benefits, but the cost per benefit seems to be diminishing. Lets take these one by one.

Click to expand...

What you forget is the cost differential between DX and FX is getting smaller and smaller. The cost to make FX isn't much greater than DX. As densities increase, DX might be more expensive than FX soon enough.

Guidenet said:

There is nothing "absolute" in 35mm sized lenses

Click to expand...

Yep, we agree with this whole paragraph pretty much. No problem.

Guidenet said:

I dont get how a full frame sensor can cost x10 times more that a APS-C. 2.5x

Click to expand...

It doesn't anymore. It is just marginally higher.

Guidenet said:

Another biggie is viewfinder size. Sure FF is larger. But its not that big a jump. D600

Click to expand...

Oooo. my friend. Go look through a D700 or another FX viewfinder and see. Way nicer.

Guidenet said:

Bottom line, if you can get 99% of the image quality except for

Click to expand...

99%? Where'd that come from. I'll counter that with FX does 500% better than DX and I'd be no more correct than you. I also made mine up. I now shoot only FX and I find my output has really done much better. I'd never go back. Just saying.

Guidenet said:

I will find it quite odd that companies will not keep providing advanced tools for APS-C. Including semi-pro high FPS full magnesium for those that need that in their APS-C

Click to expand...

Why is it odd, if it turns out FX isn't really much more than DX in the long run?

Anyway.. all just fun. Be good.

--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

Click to expand...

Craig good fun indeed, and great debate.
Here are my thoughts:

• FX may indeed at some stage cost just marginally higher than DX. We are no-where near there if the cost of adding FF to a D7000 without anything else to get D600 is double the camera price - a whopping 1000$. If it were indeed marginal then I guess all would jump.
• Sure the same advances apply to FX as well as DX. But how much further advances do you really need from FX tomorrow ? It is already only at the very high ISO that the sensor advances really make a difference. In contra, advances in DX will touch areas that are use more widely - areas where FX is better today .
• I definitely agree that viewfinders of current FX cameras are nicer than DX. I also think the F3HP viewfinder size (around 75% maginification) was nicer than the current FX. The thing is that since they already got the best DX viewfinders to be within 10% of the size of FX viewfinders (despite the x1.5 crop), then there's a pretty good chance the same viewfinder magnification can be engineered without crazy cost in the near future. That's the point I was trying to make.
• You say your output is now much better after moving to FX for general use (and definitely not 99%). In terms of what? (Where do you see it? Which cameras are you comparing?...) Care to elaborate? That's the most important thing after all...

Cheers
Tal

LandoftheCleves said:

So at the limits of 35mm wide + fast, we have the 24mm f/1.4 lens.

Would anyone honestly consider the act of putting that lens in front of a DX sensor an act of using that lens "as it should be"?

Click to expand...

Not sure about "as it should be" but I can not at any price think of a situation where I would want a16mm 1.4 lens on my DX camera. I would however love a 24mm 1.4 on my DX.

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

No.
--
Ed

LandoftheCleves said:

tald said:

• There is nothing "absolute" in 35mm sized lenses. In full frame, lenses are used "as they should be" instead of being cropped. I dont buy that at all. Indeed, FF look the same as they did in 35mm film. But there's nothing more "real" or less cropped about 35mm than APS-C.

Click to expand...

So at the limits of 35mm wide + fast, we have the 24mm f/1.4 lens.

Would anyone honestly consider the act of putting that lens in front of a DX sensor an act of using that lens "as it should be"?

Click to expand...

"As it should be" depends on the actual need, doesn't it?

• If I needed a really fast 24mm SWA lens (say for interior architecture) then it would be this 2000$ one for FX or a 16mm one for DX. If I needed this planning to use it with super high ISO, the FX for sure. If Nikon would decide to make a 16mm DX 1.8 it would probably cost significantly less, and be very popular.
• If I needed a really fast 35-36mm wide angle, then it could be an almost same price 35mm f1.4 for FX, or this 24mm f1.4 lens for DX.
• If I needed a 24mm SWA wide angle but did't need anything that fast (say for landscapes or street) , there is a host of f2.8 primes and zooms for both FX and DX that could give really great results for much less.

Personally I'd make much more use of that f/1.4 used as a 35mm for street on a DX camera than as a super wide angle on FX. And if I needed a fast super wide angle for interior artchitecture then I would prefer a 14-24mm f2.8 for FX or 11-16mm for DX since those wider angles could be so useful...

tald said:

LandoftheCleves said:

tald said:

• There is nothing "absolute" in 35mm sized lenses. In full frame, lenses are used "as they should be" instead of being cropped. I dont buy that at all. Indeed, FF look the same as they did in 35mm film. But there's nothing more "real" or less cropped about 35mm than APS-C.

Click to expand...

So at the limits of 35mm wide + fast, we have the 24mm f/1.4 lens.

Would anyone honestly consider the act of putting that lens in front of a DX sensor an act of using that lens "as it should be"?

Click to expand...

"As it should be" depends on the actual need, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

No, I don't think it does, at least not in a practical sense of the phrase. If I design a really great hammer and you choose to sharpen the back end and use it for shaving your face, I'm not likely to entertain philosophical questions like "but who's to say what hammers are REALLY for?"

If I wanted a 35(ish)mm FOV and the DOF control of the 24/1.4, based on a quick scan of ebay it'd cost me less than $200 to get that on FX with a 35/2.8 lens, so there goes our DX cost advantage, I guess.

LandoftheCleves said:

tald said:

LandoftheCleves said:

tald said:

• There is nothing "absolute" in 35mm sized lenses. In full frame, lenses are used "as they should be" instead of being cropped. I dont buy that at all. Indeed, FF look the same as they did in 35mm film. But there's nothing more "real" or less cropped about 35mm than APS-C.

Click to expand...

So at the limits of 35mm wide + fast, we have the 24mm f/1.4 lens.

Would anyone honestly consider the act of putting that lens in front of a DX sensor an act of using that lens "as it should be"?

Click to expand...

"As it should be" depends on the actual need, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

No, I don't think it does, at least not in a practical sense of the phrase. If I design a really great hammer and you choose to sharpen the back end and use it for shaving your face, I'm not likely to entertain philosophical questions like "but who's to say what hammers are REALLY for?"

If I wanted a 35(ish)mm FOV and the DOF control of the 24/1.4, based on a quick scan of ebay it'd cost me less than $200 to get that on FX with a 35/2.8 lens, so there goes our DX cost advantage, I guess.

Click to expand...

Why stop at FF? You would get even better DOF control with medium format and a great lens wouldn't you? Sure it's al least twice costlier and heavier and lens cost more but how can you compare the quality? What a great hammer that is...

It all boils down to what "good enough" is, DX is "good enough" for many serious users, and has the potential to continue improving exponentially. Reminds me of 35mm of yesteryear more than FF does. That doesn't sound like something to disappear any time soon.

Can you cram any more pixels into a APS-C size sensor without image degradation?

tald said:

Why stop at FF? You would get even better DOF control with medium format and a great lens wouldn't you? Sure it's al least twice costlier and heavier and lens cost more but how can you compare the quality?

Click to expand...

Well, sure. Hence, the one advantage DX has over FX: cost.

A little disingenuous to compare the cost difference between DX & FX to FX & MF, I think, but still, sure, that's the issue.

Regardless of who's right about DX's future, I think you'll still be happy. Either it continues to have a strong place in the market as is, and you're happy, or it's replaced by something of comparable quality in an even more compact form, and we're both happy, because a compact camera with DX performance would certainly be on my wishlist too.

I consider putting it on an FX camera a waste. I need an 800 f5.6 for FX.
--
Jim

I started on 35mm film. Now after using a DX body for about 18 months or so now and becoming accustomed to the fileld of view of both FX and DX lenses on my camera I can't imagine changing to FX. It would drive me batty!!!! I am currently using also a Nikn N75 film body and the difference in field of view between it and my D80 drives me crazy when I use it because that is not what I am used to. I happen to like very much how both my FX and DX lenses work on my crop sensor camera. Would I like more than 10mp? Sure, but 24mp or 36mp is WAY overkill for my needs. 12mp is likely enough and 16mp is for sure more than enough even with aggressive cropping on those rare occasions I need to.

Until there is a "small and light" FX camera with a kit lens with a reasonable zoom range available for under $800 retail, it seems unlikely Nikon would dump DX "soon." There are TONS of people that buy a basic crop sensor camera with a single kit lens and they don't know about FX or the difference between FX and DX nor could they could give a rip. What they do know and care about is that $800 starter DSLR absolutely smokes the P&S it replaced. And they will not tolerate the weight, size and expense of FX bodies or lenses. Many of us that participate in the forums care about such stuff and are willing to tolerate the weight, size and expense of FX gear but we are not the (buying) majority.

As someone else mentioned, all things will disappear eventually. All technologies are "interim" solutions. Some just last longer than others. Nikon offers a very large selection of DX lenses. I don't think we need to be too concerned about the DX format vanishing too soon. My D80 needs upgrading and my next body will be a DX body. I know about FX and th differences between it and FX but FX provides little if any advantage for my needs, and certainly not enought that I can justify paying an extra $1k for something that is simply a fun hobby. I suspect, I am not alone here.

Schaffer

tald said:

Craig good fun indeed, and great debate.
Here are my thoughts:

• FX may indeed at some stage cost just marginally higher than DX. We are no-where near there if the cost of adding FF to a D7000 without anything else to get D600 is double the camera price - a whopping 1000$. If it were indeed marginal then I guess all would jump.
• You say your output is now much better after moving to FX for general use (and definitely not 99%). In terms of what? (Where do you see it? Which cameras are you comparing?...) Care to elaborate? That's the most important thing after all...

Click to expand...

Hey Tal, here's the thing. The D7000 is closer to the end of it's cycle and the D600 just came out. I'd suspect the D600 will fall in price considerably over the next year. That said, the price Nikon charges for the D600 over the D7000 is more marketing than cost to manufature, I would guess. Moreover, it's not just the sensor but other things like the pentaprism viewfinder which is more expensive on an FX camera.

As far as how much better is my output, that was sort of my point too. You can't quantify it. It might even be hard to qualify, but I use my cameras daily and even the workflow time is less than it used to be with DX. The raw image file just has considerably more headroom and doesn't require nearly the work to get it ready. It's also far more forgiving in my opinion and I work with both, or have until more recently when I've gone all FX.

As far as what I use, I own and use a D700, D3S and a D800 in FX. I've retired my D300 pretty much, but still love that camera. One of these generally stays in the studio and two go on location. I've also retired a D2h and D2x and sold older models including a D80 I never really cared for and a D200 I liked. I also still have some of my old film cameras like the F3hp you mentioned with an MD4 motordrive. I switched to Nikon in 1968 but no longer have but one camera prior to the F3hp and that's a Nikomat EL (Japanese spelling).

I can tell you seriously, the switch to all FX has been a good one and smart one for me. The larger viewfinder is easier on the eyes and the faster workflow is important. Another thing you can't measure is that they are a pleasure to use in the field. Old glass shines again and new glass never looked so good. I know that's just a feeling but it's truly nice to have your wides be wide again.

--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

Guidenet said:

tald said:

Craig good fun indeed, and great debate.
Here are my thoughts:

• FX may indeed at some stage cost just marginally higher than DX. We are no-where near there if the cost of adding FF to a D7000 without anything else to get D600 is double the camera price - a whopping 1000$. If it were indeed marginal then I guess all would jump.
• You say your output is now much better after moving to FX for general use (and definitely not 99%). In terms of what? (Where do you see it? Which cameras are you comparing?...) Care to elaborate? That's the most important thing after all...

Click to expand...

Hey Tal, here's the thing. The D7000 is closer to the end of it's cycle and the D600 just came out. I'd suspect the D600 will fall in price considerably over the next year. That said, the price Nikon charges for the D600 over the D7000 is more marketing than cost to manufature, I would guess. Moreover, it's not just the sensor but other things like the pentaprism viewfinder which is more expensive on an FX camera.

As far as how much better is my output, that was sort of my point too. You can't quantify it. It might even be hard to qualify, but I use my cameras daily and even the workflow time is less than it used to be with DX. The raw image file just has considerably more headroom and doesn't require nearly the work to get it ready. It's also far more forgiving in my opinion and I work with both, or have until more recently when I've gone all FX.

As far as what I use, I own and use a D700, D3S and a D800 in FX. I've retired my D300 pretty much, but still love that camera. One of these generally stays in the studio and two go on location. I've also retired a D2h and D2x and sold older models including a D80 I never really cared for and a D200 I liked. I also still have some of my old film cameras like the F3hp you mentioned with an MD4 motordrive. I switched to Nikon in 1968 but no longer have but one camera prior to the F3hp and that's a Nikomat EL (Japanese spelling).

I can tell you seriously, the switch to all FX has been a good one and smart one for me. The larger viewfinder is easier on the eyes and the faster workflow is important. Another thing you can't measure is that they are a pleasure to use in the field. Old glass shines again and new glass never looked so good. I know that's just a feeling but it's truly nice to have your wides be wide again.

--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

Click to expand...

Craig - great post. Understood. Thanks!

One question though: did you also have experience with a D7000 vs these last gen FX cameras? I am asking since the D300 is two generations behind (vs a camera "at the end of its cycle"), with on-paper significantly better low light and dynamic range than the D300, and the main point I am making is significant improvements between generations.

tald said:

Craig - great post. Understood. Thanks!

One question though: did you also have experience with a D7000 vs these last gen FX cameras? I am asking since the D300 is two generations behind (vs a camera "at the end of its cycle"), with on-paper significantly better low light and dynamic range than the D300, and the main point I am making is significant improvements between generations.

Click to expand...

No, and good point yourself. I have not had the pleasure of any extended use of a camera with the wonderful sensor carried in the D7000, K5, K30 or D5100. I know the Dynamic range and dim light charactoristics of these has improved incredibly. For many, there will be less need to move to FX. I know that as well. Comparing to the newest of the FX, I don't believe it is close enough really. I could be completely wrong.

But, and there's always a "but," LOL I think DX will be phased out of the enthusiast market and be only offered in the entry level ranges over the next few years. We're seeing that now. A new D400 may slow that trend but I think it will still happen. For this reason mostly, I believe enthusiasts and advanced amateurs need to prepare. The professionals pretty much have already done so.

--
Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile