Why DX mirrorless will replace FX DSLR (for most photographers)

Started Nov 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP WD Contributing Member • Posts: 520
Re: observation
1

sportyaccordy wrote:

WD wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

WD wrote:

I disagree. What significant gains are there in image quality with FX?

Ability to shoot cleanly at ISOs 1-2 stops higher than DX. There may be a short period where they are able to make APS-C BSI sensors but if they can get that tech to work at that scale FX won't be far behind.

Some folks want the ultimate. Hell, some folks NEED the ultimate for their work. Anything DX can do, FX can and will always do better as far as IQ goes. It's just a matter of the user determining whether it's worth the cost/weight. If I had my way I would go FX all the way all the time as the bulk of my shooting would greatly benefit from the added speed.

Well stated, and for those people (you, perhaps) FX is ideal and needed. The key word here is "significant" when placed in the context "for whom". The reality is, for the great majority of people willing to purchase a camera rather than relying on an iPhone or compact camera, the extra bit of minimal DOF or high ISO or extra resolution of FX is not worth the cost and the skill to utilize it isn't developed in order to attain it. For many, the compact size, lighter weight, and sometimes GREATER DOF of DX is an advantage!

You could take that logic even further. 1/2.3" is cheaper, more portable, can have much faster zoom lenses, much more extravagant sensor tech and be way more portable than DX. Plus basically has infinite DOF, since any kind of DOF control is overrated. FF is fine. Just because DX is a good fit for you doesn't mean it's the be all end all of photography.

I understand and agree, what is one man's bread is another man's candy.  Actually, I don't mean to imply that DX is necessarily what I want but rather that I'm convinced, a smaller format form factor in a mirrorless design will soon replace the conventional FX DSLR as the ideal "top-end", highest performing, most desired "semi-pro" camera for true photography enthusiasts.

I think DX 3:2 dimensions allow for more capture dimensions (think 16:9, 3:2, 4:3 or square) w/o losing more of the cherished shallow DOF or total pixel area for resolution that 4:3 would, although the m4/3 cameras recently introduced such as the GX7 and EM-1 look like m4/3 is moving steadily toward my personal vision of the camera which will ultimately dethrone FX DSLRs.  One of the abilities of an EVF is to give a very accurate preview of what the sensor is capturing.  With a flick of a switch one could frame accurately at different dimensions, personally, a feature which would be appreciated, especially with HD video.

-- hide signature --

Warren

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
WD
WD
MOD Mako2011
WD
WD
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
WD
WD
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow