FF vs DX

Started Jan 12, 2013 | Discussions thread
afterburn Senior Member • Posts: 1,033

anotherMike wrote:

DX exists simply because of cost - don't think for a minute it's anything else. If Nikon had been able to produce an FX DSLR in 2003 at the same price as the D100 when it came out (the first somewhat reasonably affordable consumer Nikon DSLR), they would have done it. DX bodies today are a reasonable balance compromise between performance, usability, and cost. The thing is, in my view, FX is going down in price to the point where it's not quite as insane to get one. So I think one also has to weight how important the "getting the shot" part of the equation, as I've explained it in this post, is to their own process - as stated before, a guy shooting landscape isn't as reliant on the "getting the shot" process that a larger viewfinder and better AF system would benefit them, but a guy shooting his son in soccer, his daughter in gymnastics, his cousin in ballet and doing general event work for church would. Therefore, anyone who is considering the DX vs FX I propose has to include this aspect as well. I know if I had to rely on a D7000 to do my own studio work I'd be supremely frustrated - I probably would have punted back to the noisier/gritty D300 I had at the time because it got the shot more reliably, but now that I've been FX for a couple of years, I can't go back - I've seen the difference the usability aspect makes, in addition to the technical aspects. But I totally understand why a landscape guy might think his DX kit is good enough for what he does too.

This is soooo correct and rarely anybody realizes it. We have been shooting FX since the 30's of last century, and the ONLY reason DX exists today, is cost. Back around 2000 when the first dSLR camera's appeared on the market, it was impossible to manufacture a full frame sensor with reasonable yields at reasonable cost. Still, even today, it is very difficult and costly so only the more expensive cameras have full frame sensors.


Because from a single 8" wafer you can make as many as 200 DX size sensors, but only 20 FX size sensors. It also means that if something happens during manufacturing of your FX sensors and you lose just 1 sensor on that wafer for whatever reason, your yield just dropped 5%. It is very, very costly to make FX sensors. Ultimately, the cost per wafer is going to be the same. The more you can fit on a single wafer, the lower the cost per sensor and the less it matters if you lose a few.

So that is why we have DX, because it was (and is) a helluvelot easier to reliably and cost efficiently make a smaller sensor. Nothing else. There is no technical reason why anyone would even want to put such a small sensor in a large body camera.

-- hide signature --

Gijs from The Netherlands
Nikon D800

 afterburn's gear list:afterburn's gear list
Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow