the future of dx format

[bkrownd]

Beyond that, all this talk about "investment" is, of course, a bit
misguided. Lenses hold value better than your car does, but they are
not an investment.

I scratch my head every time I see the word "investment" here. My only lens that I can see still being useful in 5 or 10 years is my Sigma 10-20mm, and who knows if it will last that long. A $500 lens is no 'investment'. For all the others, especially telephoto lenses, technology advances and they become obsolete, broken or worn out soon enough. Manual non-telephoto primes might last a long time, if you have a use for that sort of thing. I wouldn't consider anything an investment unless it's heavily used as part of a money-earning business.

--
FZ7 + TC-E17ED, D80 + 80-400 VR + 18-135 + Sigma 10-20
I don't do tripods, Jack.

 

[sbruno]

My prediction: DX cameras will eventually be relegated solely to consumer-level bodies, while the prosumer and pro lines will be exclusively FX. What does this mean, exactly? It means that the D300 or it's predecessor will eventually be replaced by an FX body in the same price segment (a big "if"), while DX will remain the standard for consumer bodies (e.g., D80, D60, D40).

Whether this actually happens or not is the $64 million question, but note that we've already seen the D2X-level pro body displaced by an FX model... and it's aimed as much at sport-shooters (who dig telephotos) as anyone.

My only two DX lenses are a 12-24 and 16-85. I'm not selling them anytime soon, but I'll be keeping an eye out as FX bodies become cheaper so as not to lose too much value on them. Meanwhile, they give me incredible results, so I have no complaints. However, in the next couple of years when I get ready to make a move, a used 17-35 could take over as my mid-range zoom, allowing for full FX compatibility.

Steve

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sbruno/

 

[Hemidart]

My prediction: DX cameras will eventually be relegated solely to
consumer-level bodies, while the prosumer and pro lines will be
exclusively FX. What does this mean, exactly? It means that the
D300 or it's predecessor will eventually be replaced by an FX body in
the same price segment (a big "if"), while DX will remain the
standard for consumer bodies (e.g., D80, D60, D40).

Whether this actually happens or not is the $64 million question, but
note that we've already seen the D2X-level pro body displaced by an
FX model... and it's aimed as much at sport-shooters (who dig
telephotos) as anyone.

My only two DX lenses are a 12-24 and 16-85. I'm not selling them
anytime soon, but I'll be keeping an eye out as FX bodies become
cheaper so as not to lose too much value on them. Meanwhile, they
give me incredible results, so I have no complaints. However, in the
next couple of years when I get ready to make a move, a used 17-35
could take over as my mid-range zoom, allowing for full FX
compatibility.

Steve

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sbruno/

I have to agree....FX will never fit into a D60 sized body, so DX will stay alive in that segment. And when it comes to the future, DX will run out of MP steam just as the compact cameras are now. 24MP+ on a DX might become as noisy as todays 10MP+ compact at high ISO. Nikon saw that MP wall and had to go the FX route to deliver what the pro's and pixel peepers demanded.

 

[malch]

Nikon saw that MP wall and had to go the FX route to deliver what the
pro's and pixel peepers demanded.

This wall isn't really a "wall". Walls don't normally move!

But this one is, and rapidly.

Despite numerous predictions to the contrary, Moore's Law has yet to hit the "wall". The long term trend is clearly towards smaller sensors. FX is just a blip along the way -- a fashion and marketing issue really.

Photographers will benefit not only from the advances in the microelectronics. They will also continue to see the advantage due to the fact that smaller sensors require smaller lenses. That's a huge cost advantage -- if you make a lens larger, the cost rises exponentially.

At some point, DX will likely become obsolete. But I predict it will be replaced by something smaller than DX, not larger like FX.

 

[Bob GB]

I strongly believe the DX format will stay for many years. But at the same time, I would not for a second worry about my "investment" in lenses and cams. First of all, they are not investments, well, perhaps in accounting terms, if I earned my living from using this equipment. Secondly, there will be a constant stream of new products which will improve over old equipment in one or more areas.

The most remarkable thing is how long the SLR design has lived and still shows a strong standing among professionals. The SLR was patented in 1943 but production started in 1948 with the Contax including a pentaprism out in 1949. So it makes this design 60 years old. I wonder how long it takes before a better solution takes over. To be more precise, when will an electronic viewfinder (EVF) be good enough to replace the mirror and pentaprism? The almost soundless cam, with an incredible frame rate, lighter and smaller - - and cheaper.

I believe, EVF cams using the same lenses as today’s DSLRs, will show up some day. They will be using DX and FX type of sensors, because the lenses are designed for these sensors. The investment in lenses, from the vendors, is a major barrier for format changes. The live view LCD is in fact, the first signs of this EVF cam, IMHO. In comparison, I think the rangefinder is dying; no other company will ever make a rangefinder to compete with the Leica. So, we will have the DSLR and perhaps the EVF cam, and of course all the smaller types.

In the mean time, enjoy your DX (or FX) DSLR, enjoy the lenses you have already. Enjoy new lenses as the show up; enjoy new camera models with numerous improvements. Forget about investing. Don’t be afraid of changes, they will happen even if you don’t fear them.

 

[garyosborne]

While i think DX will be around for some time, i believe if you invest in DX you will be severely limiting your upgrade options in the future. The future is FX and Nikon may take a number of stances:

-DX will still be deveoped for the consumer end, FX for the pro
-Phase out DX over 10 years, e.g no revisions to current DX lens

One thing for certain I think Nikon will tread carefully as 99% of it's customer base is DX. I thought about this issue when buying my D300 and as a result only bought FX glass - 14-24mm, 50mm F1.8, Sigma 150mm macro

 

[ExposureMeter]

it is about having cameras at all price points. At the moment there is around $1,500 difference betweeen FX and DX. If that price difference reduces to zero (not likely to happen) then DX may disappear.

Coolpix cameras with tiny sensors will always be around because of their price.

DX cameras will always be around because they will be cheaper than FX cameras.

People forget that a 12MPixel DX camera in a professional body is very usefull for telephoto shooting.

Nikon needs to have cameras at all price points and for all applications.

--
Geoff
Gold Coast, Australia
http://photography.alldigi.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14042476@N08/

 

[craig57355]

I think your question might be worded "near" future))))

I wonder when D3's and such, are going to be considered like shooting with tintype cameras)))

come to think of it, I would love to learn the tintype process!

Anyway, happy shooting!

Craig

------------------------------------------

http://www.pbase.com/crs

http://www.craigsadler.com

 

[debunix]

My macro lenses are both FX, and so is the p/c 24mm. The 10.5 DX fisheye is a fun lens, and should yield nice images on a FX body, which, by the time this is an issue, will have plenty of megapixels to spare to crop off the vignetted parts and still give me enough to play with.

And the 18-70 DX kit lens is not something I will be sad to replace someday.

--
D Brown in Los Angeles
http://www.pbase.com/debunix
http://www.flickr.com/photos/debunix

 

[Oliver reid]

There seems to be an assumption here that the evolution will be towards cheaper and higher quality FX sensors. But tele user will still need bulkier lenses to exploit them.

What if the push of the envelope is towards lower noise and higher DR from SMALLER pixels?

Imagine a DX with true 16 bit DR and 16 MP plus 12 fps and 1.8 (say) crop factor. Think of the advantage this would offer sports and wild life photographers who could get fantastic IQ with easy to manage lenses.

 

[digitalnoise]

it is about having cameras at all price points. At the moment there
is around $1,500 difference betweeen FX and DX. If that price
difference reduces to zero (not likely to happen) then DX may
disappear.

Also, consider the cost of a camera and a couple lenses together:

The difference between the all dx route (d300, 12 24, 17 55) and the all fx route (d700, 14 24, 24 70) is about 2500 bucks, fx adding more than 2/3 on top of the cost of dx.

That was enough for me to hang in with dx for a while and be happy I have a slightly lighter though also lower performing setup.

I suspect more performance will be rung out of the dx format for a while to come.

 

[stromaroma]

when I saw your username I knew it had to have something to do with fish.....

Just buy DX lenses for your FX D700, they should be coming out with some good ones later this year.
--

Nikon D300, D40x; Nikkor AF-S 18-55 mm, AF-S 70-300 mmVR; Canon Powershot A620 & underwater housing

 

[capanikon]

35mm-sized sensors aren't fully taking advantage of the lens. They're just a rectangular crop of a larger circular image area. A true "full" sensor would be circular in shape, not 36x24mm.

In short, DX is a "cropped" version of FX, and FX is a cropped version of what 35mm lenses can fully deliver.

Check the D1/D2/D3/D700 forum ... many peeps are complaining about vignetting on the FX bodies.

 

[john120588]

into new lenses, but that could become a long term investment, while
buying new DX lenses on the way to upgrade the current ones could be
like dropping money out of the window.

buying lens or digital are not an investment, when you bought it the value keep droping like computers, while lens will be better but don't think it will last forever, because camera factory will keep updating lens to make people keep buying lens, my canon 28-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 is a great example, after 5 years of using it, the focus started to shift and the zoom ring become more loosen each year, i was going to sell it but the 2hand shop keeper quotate me a very cheap price, they said canon has an more update lens set 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 IS, so my set of lens will be very cheap.

so the secret is here, no matter it is DX or FX don't try to build a system for it, just buy 1-2 lens that can cover all you shooting range and just stop there, when you want to switch from camera brand or want to go from DX to FX or opposite you won't lost much, you can sell the camera with that lens.

so this is why I only got a 18-200 vr for my d300

 

[stromaroma]

when I saw your username I knew it had to have something to do with
fish.....

Just buy DX lenses for your FX D700, they should be coming out with
some good ones later this year.

That should have said "just by FX ..."

Nikon D300, D40x; Nikkor AF-S 18-55 mm, AF-S 70-300 mmVR; Canon
Powershot A620 & underwater housing

--

Nikon D300, D40x; Nikkor AF-S 18-55 mm, AF-S 70-300 mmVR; Canon Powershot A620 & underwater housing

 

[Simon Garrett]

Dxx (D40-80 etc) is consumer, DX, and this probably won't change
Dx (D1-3) is pro, now FX, and this probably won't change (again)
Dxxx (D100-700) ????

Ultimately it won't be technical issues but markets that decide which way prosumer products go. If all D300 buyers find money to buy D700s and the lenses to go with it then Nikon will shout for joy and DX will fade away in that segment.

Personally I doubt that. I can afford a D300 and DX lenses, I can't afford double the money for a D700 and FX lenses. I don't think I'm alone. The FX buying market is very vocal (certainly on bulletin boards) but I don't think it represents the majority of near-top-end amateurs buying Dxxx cameras.

 

[raid123]

I don't believe DX is going anywhere. I'm a hobbist, and I'm looking for the best balance between convenience, quality, and value. The 18-200 VR fits that bill very well, and there's nothing Nikon has in that range for FX. Even if Nikon comes out with one, it'll be larger, heavier, possibly more vignetting, softer edges, and more expensive. That goes back to not getting as much value for my money.

Today people probably don't want to put DX lens on a D3 or D700 because DX crop resolution is too low at around 5 megapixels. Once the high resolution FX comes out, however, all this may change again. What if the new FX body can do 16 megapixel DX crop at 6400 iso without penalty? Noise characteristics is always improving with technology even as megapixels increase, so it's possible. At some point between today's technology and that technology, I can upgrade to FX/DX body and continue to use my DX lenses without the mentality of "wasting pixels". At some point, we reach the resolution of the lense and more megapixels just generate bigger files. At that point, each format will have its advantages. FX can go wider with shallower DOF. DX provides the advantages in smaller size, lighter weight, and better value for the equivalent quality.

With this strategy, I hope Nikon treats FX and DX as purely two different formats and not as FX=pro/DX=consumer. Continue to produce gold ring 2.8 DX glass at lighter weight, smaller size, and lower cost. I can't imagine that any pros find that the extra weight and size is a benefit. There will always be photographers that can't wrap their heads around DOF calculations for DX because they've spent 50 years shooting film, they can continue with all FX glass. For those who can adapt to both systems, they can mix and match lenses. 50mm on FX, 18-200 on DX, etc. For a hobbyist like me, I would love to have affordable quality glass, and I'm more likely to get that in DX than FX just by the pure nature of the size of the glass.

The only thing I can think of that might be problematic would be the need to get a cropped viewfinder when using DX lenses, but maybe that can be addressed as well.

 

[ChannyBear]

Sports and wild life shooters still can take advantage of DX format. DX format camera body makes a 200mm lens 300mm lens. And I don't see so much differences in sharpness of the images between D3 and D300. DX format will continue to have this telephoto lens advantage until the pixel density of the FX format catches up that of the DX.

Good morning,

I'm in the process of upgrading my camera and the quest is between
the D300 and D700. Apart from the money difference my main concern is
about the investment in new DX stuff when the FX is becoming more and
more popular. The question is probably a bit too steep to answer at
the moment, but do you have any ideas whether the DX format is on
it's way to become obsolete or maybe solely dedicated to amateurs
cheaper cameras ? Buying a FX machine means putting also a lot of $$$
into new lenses, but that could become a long term investment, while
buying new DX lenses on the way to upgrade the current ones could be
like dropping money out of the window.

I would greatly apreciate if somebody has could spread some light on
this matter

regards

Nicola

 

[caranx]

Well,

I can see that my question raised an interesting discussion and I would thank everybody for your contribution. Looks like the majority agrees on a bright future for the DX format or a more "hefty" FX format that allows crops factor with no pain I was heading toward the purchase of a D700 but I think I'd rather fly low and get myself a D300 insead. Carpe diem, more or less.

Grazie mille, ciao

Nicola
--
http://www.nicolazingarelli.com

 

[avi]

We are obviously all speculating here , so I'll drop mine as well.

I dont think that nikon will makle any more professional dx lenses , the need for such glass is only for WA , and there is abundance of that. I think that as for dslrs there are advantages of DX sensor over FX and visa versa. In fact I think they complement one another for different uses, I've seen quite a few samples (but I mean, you know , professionally done sampels) so far from the D3 and to be honest I dont see any advantage over my present D300 DX sensor, upto iso1600 especially as most (serious, high quality images) are taken mainly at the iso 200-800 range.

I do think that we are going to see more images with more PP done to correct light fall off and more cropping done to counteract side softness , in which DX sensor caters much better than FX, obviously. I said that they will complement each other , because even when FX gets to 24mp offering the possiblity of cropping to DX ,to a 8 or 10mp file , at 24 mp we will get lots of noise at higher than iso1600 once again, not to mention the giagantic file size which I doubt most of us really need.
avis
http://www.pbase.com/avistar/avi_s_photographic_world
Nikon D300, 50/1.4D, 17-55DX, AF-S VR 105/2.8G IF-ED
,AFS70-300VR, Gitzo 1228, 1198 and 1226 , sb800dx , sb600dx ,