< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

DX format is not dead yet

In the past few weeks, after the D600 announcement I received many emails from readers asking me about any upcoming DX products. I have no reliable information at that point, but I think the next logical step for Nikon is to concentrate on their DX product line. I also believe we will see some "serious" new DX lenses soon.

How about new Nikon DX cameras (D300s, D5100, D7000 replacements)? With the latest rumors about a new Canon APS-C DSLR camera coming in early 2013, I think it is safe to assume that Nikon's announcement will not be far off. After the PDN Photo Plus Expo in New York at the end of this month (scheduled to start right after Nikon's announcement on October 24th), two other major shows are coming in early 2013 (CES+PMA in Las Vegas and CP+ show in Japan) - there is a very good chance that we may see some new DX products by then. DX format is not dead yet.

This entry was posted in Nikon D400, Nikon D5200, Nikon D7100, Nikon Lenses. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://blog.iamron.com Ron

    If Nikon were to release a camera that had as good of a high-ISO response in video as the D7k (not great, but good — especially for DX), AND HDMI out, I would be the first to own it to add as a backup to my current kit. To that point, I might be swayed by a D400 depending on what it offered. But I could put up with another D7k-style body for a second or third shooter, especially if it were light, well-built, and inexpensive. Bring it on!

    • Worminator

      What’s wrong with the D7k then?

      • Abraham Collins

        No clean HDMI-out.

        • http://blog.iamron.com Ron

          ^^^ that (thanks Abraham)

          • http://micahmedia.com Micah

            …and no CAM3500. And we lost two fps from the D300.

            • http://www.flickr.com/photos/subhrashis SGN

              And even I run out of buffer in flight sequences :/

              That said… I don’t anticipate upgrading from D7000 anytime soon.
              I want to see a 400 5.6 equivalent with AF-S and VR sometime though.

            • Richard

              @SGN

              Are you shooting 14-bit RAW? If so, try shooting 12-bit RAW (compressed). It will get you up to about 14-15 frames before the buffer fills. Also, make sure you have a fast card. It makes a difference.

      • CJ

        Yes, let’s keep these red haired step DX child at where they belong. FX is for the pure blood-line big boys only.

        • Craig

          Clearly, CJ, you don’t shoot sports or wildlife. For those pursuits a Big Boy DX flavor camera is needed.

          • PMPB

            Can you please elaborate how a DX does DX better than a D800? K thanks.

        • umesh

          Fx is a red haired step child compared to MF and view format. How about that? Do you always feel worthless compared to geniouses and great personalities?

          • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

            Wow… A tad angry, unmesh – what’s with the ‘feeling worthless’ garbage? And with your: “How about that?”, how about the fact that of the top 8 sensors on DxO, the top 3 are FX and only 3 are MF Phase One, one of which is dead last of those 8?

            If FX a red haired step child compared to MF, it’s one that has now surpassed it’s MF (lol) step parents at a fraction of the cost. How about that?

            • c

              you make a good case for dx, buddy. if bigger isn’t better is your argument than why shouldn’t we see more dx bodies in the future? if fx can outperform mf than dx can outperform fx.

            • Big J

              Yeah, it can with technology advancing. But DX HAS already surpassed FX (eg: D3200 > 5D MkIII). But also DX has enough innovation where it counts to lower costs too.

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              Incredible, ‘c’. Based on your ‘logic’, you – and likely only you – should use the smallest point and shoot sensor you can find. Or for you – and likely only you – perhaps a cell phone camera sensor would be best. Just incredible…

            • PHB

              Other than MP, I can’t see any advantage to the remaining MF cameras. The sensors are big but ISO response is typically only 800.

              No real advantage on depth of field either as the maximum apertures are a couple of stops slower than for F-mount.

              At this point the price of a rig that outperforms the D800 is well over $40K. And the only thing you get is higher resolution. The low light performance is worse, the lenses are enormous and the whole thing is only really suited to studio work, preferably on a (pricey) tripod.

              Add to that the likelihood that the D4x will be 48MP or more and the case for MF is pretty non existent. That $40K gear has only a few years to pay its way before being obsolete.

            • david distefano

              who gives a damn what dxo says. all you guys ever talk about is tech. the best equipment in the world is not going to make you a better photographer. if your work is not hanging on gallery walls next to paul strand, edward weston, alfred stieglitz, or ansel adams who all used old tech, the new equipment won’t put you there. hell, all the most high priced photographs sold all come from film not digital capture. “there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept”

            • http://blog.iamron.com Ron

              Thank you David. This point could not be overstated.

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              Yes indeed, David and Ron. It’s the same in every artisic endeavor and if current painters don’t have their work hanging on gallery or museum walls next to Picasso, Dali, Gaugin, van Gough and Degas, new materials won’t put you there, either.

              Oh, wait, is *anything* a current painter uses or does likely to put them up where the works of Michelangelo, Rembrandt, da Vinci or Renoir now are? I mean, I know there can’t be any flaw at all in David Distefano’s point here, but help me out with this, Ron – what can current painters do to have the prestige of these old supposed masters?

              Either way, David Distefano’s point on equipment most certainly holds true and all the best photographers use all the oldest and cheapest kit, right? Indeed, that’s likely one of the primary reasons why the current top fashion, architectural, portrait, sports, news etc., etc., etc., shooters avoid the best equipment, huh? Not only does it save them a ton of money, but they never waste time researching/evaluating gear *and* they get to hang with Paul, Ansel and the rest.

              Thank you again David and thank you for your support, Ronald. These poins could most certainly never, ever be overstated. And to think, we humble readers of this forum get your sage advice for free, David! Top drawer!

            • http://blog.iamron.com Ron

              @BrettA

              Your farcical aunt sally arguments attempting to prove that the Nikons are great cameras seems a bit overkill. I was agreeing with David’s point that gear is not the defining ingredient for 99% of the world’s best photographers, and that too often spec trumps results (which are more dependent upon one’s vision than any given specs). I also agree with you that the accomplishment in DXO scores is phenomenal, both for Nikon and DSLR makers in general.

              But to outright deny that a simple brush and palette or a rudimentary camera and lens are not viable tools for creating masterpieces today is pretty vacuous. And to excuse measurebation and gearlust with the petty argument that it’s needed to keep up with the masters is equally as silly.

              One doesn’t need a $15k top-of-the-line setup to produce memorable and moving images, nor does one need a superiority complex to own the top-level gear. One does, however, often need such a setup to stroke an insecure ego.

              Like I used to say when I was a kid: You might own the same bike as Greg Lemond, but he can still kick your ass — on a Huffy.

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com BrettA

              While I wasn’t in any way “attempting to prove that the Nikons are great cameras” (how’d you even get that, Ronald?), my farcical comments were indeed completely meant to be overkill (did’ja miss that and thus felt the need to note it, Ronald?). With people suggesting I’m “so angry” and more lol, I decided to try farcical overkill.

              And while I’m with you 100% on “David’s point that gear is not the defining ingredient for 99% of the world’s best photographers”, I disagree with David’s astounding: “if your work is not hanging on gallery walls next to paul strand, edward weston, alfred stieglitz, or ansel adams who all used old tech, the new equipment won’t put you there”. Even in retrospect, think that’s pretty clear what I was disagreeing with. You note my overkill but not David’s (lol)? Or your own?

              And who’s denying – outright or not – “that a simple brush and palette or a rudimentary camera and lens are not viable tools”? Certainly not me. But I don’t even get your seemingly arbitrary “$15k top-of-the-line setup”, though I have no idea why you raise that. Why not choose $5K or $50K. Or why choose anything? Point? Or is the $15K completely superfluous?

              However, your “I also agree with you that the accomplishment in DXO scores is phenomenal” comes across as disingenuous (or simply brand new information) with David’s: “who gives a damn what dxo says” and your: “point could not be overstated”.

              But all that aside, I take it by your absence to even attempt a reply that you’re in agreement with the underlaying point behind my: “is *anything* a current painter uses or does likely to put them up where…”. This is good :-).

              And finally to reiterate, I agree with your Greg Lemond analogy completely but – again – disagree with David’s over-the-top ludicrously overkilled point on dead past masters and where their work is displayed… which I’m purdy sure what you were agreeing with, no?

            • http://blog.iamron.com Ron

              Again, I was commenting specifically on David’s notion that “there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept”. And look closely, he didn’t say that your gear is worthless if it isn’t producing images that are sitting on a gallery wall next to Ansel’s, nor that Ansel’s work is the sole aim of any photographer, NOR that old gear is the bomb. You again raise straw men to try to win an argument that you…aren’t trying to win?

              I think you and I pretty much agree. But keep acting like an asshole and calling me “Ronald” (despite me clearly listing my name as Ron) in an attempt to belittle me. That definitely strengthens the notion that you’re taking the mature approach here.

            • http://blog.iamron.com Ron

              P.S. “You note my overkill but not David’s (lol)? Or your own?”

              David didn’t attack me personally, nor did he try to put words in my mouth. You did. To be honest, it’s pretty hard to know what you are trying to say. It seems pretty disjointed and unclear.

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com BrettA

              Sure, I can stop calling you that if you stop putting utterly irrelevant words in my mouth – lying, ISTM – and trying to belittle me, as in: “attempting to prove that the Nikons are great cameras”, “But to outright deny that… is pretty vacuous”, “is equally as silly”, your tongue-in-cheek “you’re taking the mature approach here” and anything to do with the never before mentioned “$15k top-of-the-line setup”.

              I trust of course that your: “One does, however, often need such a setup to stroke an insecure ego” had nothing to do with me and since you’d actually pegged a price on this, related to you instead. ‘Bye.

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com BrettA

              See, I actually note the words you tried to put in my mouth while you use the blind attack technique of stating “…did he try to put words in my mouth. You did.” while leaving it completely and utterly unsubstantiated. Sad.

              But let’s call this. B’bye (again).

            • http://blog.iamron.com Ron

              lol

              huh???

            • http://blog.iamron.com Ron

              Oh, I get it. Haha!

      • Dave

        Lousy buffer? 9raw frames on Continuous high before it chokes and needs to write to the card. My 6+ year old D200 can do 22 raw frames on continuous high before bonking.

        • Axel

          Yeah, @400 ISO max !

          • bob2

            Don’t discount the D200, especially processing its RAW files with Lightroom 3 and 4–it gains 1-2 usable stops, and files are good to about ISO 1600 (just about equals the D300 output, and I’ve had both cameras). Software has definitely improved in the past 8 or so years since the D200 came out.

      • cock ken well

        @Abhaham

        The not great ISO performance….

        But if the d7000 had clean 100 %HDMI (not 95%, 98.7%, or 99.9) DX will be BACK IN FULL EFFECT!!!!

  • palefire

    If it’s not dead, it’s in the hospital, on the operating table, code blue.

    • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

      No code blue, thanks. Now’s an appropriate time for euthanasia.

      • Steve

        haha… DX is younger and more healthy than FX my friends, which is a fatso about to have a coronary from too much rich living.

        • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

          Sadly, younger and more healthy just ain’t the case, as FX didn’t come along as a digital format ’til long after the Nikon D1 DX format camera. Speaking of ‘fatso’, DX glass use the same ‘fatso’ mount as FX lenses because DX was always meant as a temporary solution not worthy of its own optimized lenses.

          And if health relates to performance – as I think is reasonable – the only cameras above DxO’s top score of 82 for DX are Phase One and Nikon’s FX cameras, which reach 96. Interestingly the cheaper and ‘less fatso’ D600 scores 94, so even many DX users can afford a full frame camera with superior performance now. And once DX actually does die – soon, I hope – all the resources now given to that aphemeral DX cludge can be put towards FX and CX cameras… simply an awesome possibility to keep Nikon on top :-)!

          But please do tell us all about the supposed FX ‘coronary’, Steve.

          • Tony

            Some people need to get a life!!!! lol !!!!!

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              So when ya gonna go get one, Tony?

          • Steve

            Oh, and I forgot to mention, FX users have small penises and they buy big lenses as phallic objects so they can have something big in their hands to play with. Frustrated masturbators buy FX, guys with big dicks who know how to satisfy multiple partners every night buy DX.

            Don’t even ask about CX. ;-)

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              Yup. More interesting all the time. Nothing of substance, but interesting in an amusing sort of way.

              After me, kids: Deep-siX DX! Deep-siX DX! Deep-siX DX! Deep-siX DX!

            • trouser snake

              wow! thank god i have a pin hole camera.

            • bob2

              someone’s got an inferiority complex!

              I had a really big 80-200 f/2.8 AF PUSH-PULL Nikon (with hood of course)–After a few pumps up and down, I shot it and I needed a smoke….

          • Mike Gordon

            Nice choice to make the cutoff 82 so you miss the D3200 @ 81! I have a D700 & I own a D3200 as travel camera, it is great even for chasing kids. And for a $550 body, they even put in the 921k LCD. If the D3200 is the start of the DX refresh and seeing what they put into the D600, the DX line going to be fine for this generation.

            • Big J

              Yeah, the DX gen is gonna do really well.

              PS: “D3200 as travel camera, it is great even for chasing kids.”

              Creepy comment of the day. j/k

          • Hawkeye

            Whoa, BrettA, slow down. Don’t be giving Nikon any ideas about switching up lens mounts on us. I for one appreciate that I can use any of my lenses on any of my SLRs. I can use my 50 f/1.4 from 1972 on my D7000. Some camera companies (who will remain anonymous) seem to like inventing new mounts for every line of cameras. How is that better?

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              With a moniker like “Hawkeye”, I’m most surprized you missed this, but no – I’m not for a minute suggesting new mounts for every new line of cameras.

              I only noted that DX didn’t get its own because it was a temporary solution and larger, heavier lenses than needed was an appropriate way to go… back then. Again, DX wasn’t worthy of its own mount and now that we have both CX and more, better, cheaper and less bulky FX, it seems obvious how things will fit together, long term. Or at least, I hope that’s how things will fit :-).

              I’m merely suggesting that Nikon simplify lines by eliminating DX completely and utterly, in whatever time frame they can do that. That will be very beneficial to all of us, IMO… and especially to Nikon who can concentrate R&D (and everything else including support, sales, accessories, documentation, training, shipping and more – on a world-wide basis) on 2 fairly distinct lines rather than 3 lines with an intermediate cludge never designed as an optimal and standalone system. Is my position more understandable to you now, Hawkeye?

            • Michael

              @BrettA
              Focusing R&D is a good idea. But by quitting the toy department including the CX.
              Even if one would accept the CX sensor size, everything is well hidden in the menu and though continuous shooting is possible, bracketing is not.

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              I can see your point here, Michael, but disagree except for focusing R&D, manufacturing and all those other areas noted. Given that I think CX is a long term solution, looking at one camera – an early one, of course – seems like a very narrow way to evaluate this direction from my POV.

              The cameras will improve, the sensors will improve to beat what is currently available in DX. Heck, even now, the Nikon 1 sensor bests D70 / D70s and is easily better than all Nikon former workhorses from the D2H on back. Plus it’s got a long, long time to improve much, much more.

              BTW, I’d hope that Nikon comes out with a mirrorless FX camera as well (beside the point, I know… but the whole idea of mirrorless as a way to reduce costs and size plus increase reliability and longevity is a very good one, not worthy of your ‘toy department’ analogy… again, IMO.

          • PP

            “Speaking of ‘fatso’, DX glass use the same ‘fatso’ mount as FX lenses because DX was always meant as a temporary solution not worthy of its own optimized lenses.”

            Yeah, it’s got nothing to do with lens compatibility for people who were into photography before the digital age. Nope. None what so ever.

            Also it’s worth mentioning that camera and lens ergonomics has nothing to do with the fact that DX camera bodies have (for the most part) well balanced and sized lenses to match. Which happen, on average, to be closer to dedicated FX lenses in size and shape than say, well, the thimble-sized lenses on old rangefinders.

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              Re your (PP)
              “Yeah, it’s got nothing to do with lens compatibility for people who were into photography before the digital age. Nope. None what so ever.”:

              That’s why I stated:
              “I only noted that DX didn’t get its own because it was a temporary solution and larger, heavier lenses than needed *was an appropriate way to go*… back then.”

              You guys are just amazing. You can’t believe one guy stating his opinion on NikonRumors will change the way Nikon does business… so why all the attention? (Oh, sorry – it’s because it makes sense for Nikon to take this direction whether or not anyone voices it, huh? And ya wanna make yourselves heard before that happens, huh? OK, goferit!)

          • umesh

            You are comparing old DX to new FX on Dxo score

        • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

          Oh, sorry… Nikon DX sensors don’t even reach 82, which is attained only by Pentax cameras and Nikon’s 3-year-old D3s. Three years old and DX ain’t even caught up to that, yet? Some ‘health’ that is!

          (And “ephemeral”, above).

          • D400, I hope

            Were you offended by a DX camera in a former life? Why so much disdain for something that you obviously aren’t using? You think if Nikon stops making DX cameras, they’ll finally have time to make every FX lens you’ve ever desired, along with updates to your favorite camera every six months and only charge you an upgrade fee?
            Why do I have to do without the product(s) I want so you can feel better about the one(s) you have/want?
            Grow up!
            Oh, yeah. Nice photos on your web site; except for that gentleman, on your contact page, who doesn’t look happy enough with his camera. If only he could rid the world of wretched APS-C sensors…

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              What’s your problem, D400? I come out with facts and *that* is the best comeback you can muster? Huuuuuge lol!

              You just *know* DX users are ‘doomed’ to upgrade, don’cha? Threatened a bit, huh? Ha! Don’t worry, was-user, change may be difficult for you but you’ll realize it’s best for you and all Nikon users, though in your particular case it may take a decade or three :-)!

              I’m amazed that a mere post or two could be taken as so dead-on accurate that it obviously has you seriously rattled. And I’m so very, very, very, very sorry about that ;-). Very! ROTF.

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              And did’ja notice that Nikon’s D3 – launched in August, 2007 – has the same DxO rating as the very best DX sensor yet available? Over five years!!! Fact. :-).

            • D400, I hope

              You want facts? Okay. APS-C sensors are inferior to “Full Frame” sensors. Full Frame sensors are inferior to Medium format sensors. Medium format sensors are inferior to Large Format sensors. Of course you wouldn’t want to drag a Large Format camera everywhere you go so you make compromises in quality for portability. Large Format cameras are much more expensive than anything else, so you make compromises for price considerations. Everyone has different situations so they compromise at different levels. Since you like taking pictures of landscapes and naked girls, you’ve decided that a full frame sensor is the best point of compromise. My landscapes suffer a little compared to yours but the faster frame rate and (hopefully) large buffer of the, as yet theoretical, D400 will allow me to do some things that your D3X cannot do. Another compromise.
              When I read Steve’s comments about the relative “health” of the DX and FX cameras, I knew, along with EVERYONE ELSE, that he was off base but, you know what, I ignored it. It doesn’t matter. The only reason I didn’t ignore you is because, unlike you, he wasn’t going out of his way to offend and denigrate people. If you want to say my equipment is inferior, that’s fine. Don’t imply that I’m an idiot for having chose it.
              BTW, I didn’t know Canada had a navy. Seriously. Is it capable of a full-scale military action, or more akin to the U.S. National Guard?

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              What’s your problem, D400? I come out with facts relevant to a CX / DX / FX discussion and *that* is the best comeback you can muster? Huuuuuge lol!

              You just *know* DX users are ‘doomed’ to upgrade, don’cha? And re your ignorance about countries other than your own – is that a DX-User attribute or are you from a 3rd World nation with abysmal education (not that all 3rd World countries have bad education, at all)?

            • D400, I hope

              Why are you so angry? I asked a serious question, unrelated to the current discussion, and expected a serious answer. Why would you knock other people’s countries of origin? Maybe you need a little more fiber in your diet. I honestly didn’t know Canada had a navy. I didn’t think they needed one, being right next door to the U.S., beyond patrolling their territorial waters.
              Oh, and I think “doomed” is exactly the right word for being forced to give up shooting with a dSLR. I could never afford an FX camera and the corresponding lenses to replace my DX kit, being from a 3rd World country and all. Excuse me while I go down to the river and urinate upstream of where the naked breasted women are drawing drinking water…

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              What’s this with “so angry”? I’m not at all and am rather having fun without urinating upstream of people… now *that* sounds angry, or just plain warped.

              And I’m not knocking other people’s countries of origin… just your ignorance… that seems pretty clear to me even in retrospect with my: “And re *your ignorance* about countries other than your own…” But speaking of that, what is your country of origin, please?

            • D400, I hope

              The “Urinating” comment was an attempt to mock your mention of 3rd World countries. In times past, primitive cultures (obviously 3rd world) did (do?), in fact, urinate upstream of their drinking water. I guess it didn’t work, huh?! Anyway, you’re obviously not going to fill in the gaps of my poor education and I don’t really care enough to research it on my own so I’ll just drop it.

              Even knowing you’re going to trash me for being American (I know, that sounds egocentric since you are also “American,” but nothing else really works: “United States of American?” “Middle North American?” See what I mean?) that is in fact where I was born and continue to live. And while I don’t know everything about every country, I know quite a bit about some; just not Canada.

              And lastly, I would love to have a D800E in addition to my “hoped for” D400. I would use the D800E for landscapes (hobby) and portraits (professional – “professional” as in I get paid to do it, I’m not implying any particular skill level), and the D400 for all other outdoor photos (hobby) for the light weight and small size of the lenses. The weight/size of an FX is negligible compared to the lenses. My tripod and head weigh a lot more… But since I could never afford the lenses (I wasn’t kidding about that), it’ll never happen. If Nikon stops making DX cameras, when I can no longer buy a used one after mine has died, I’ll have to find a different hobby. Don’t say “CX.” My “compromise” line stops at DX.

              See? I respected you enough to answer your question. Is it really that difficult? And, I didn’t mock you for having an FX camera. Don’t laugh… That house has a lot of glass in its construction!

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com BrettA

              [ Not worth the finger strokes to answer. ]

            • D400, I hope

              But it was worth the finger strokes to say, ‘I’m not going to answer’???
              If you can’t muster the honor to admit you let your pride get in the way of your humanity, at least have the dignity to be quiet.
              Maybe honor, humanity, and dignity would be incongruent in someone who shoots porn and openly advertises for an “escort” to keep out of the way except in bed…

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com BrettA

              I’ll be quiet what I wish thanks, but would you care to substantiate your allegations that I , please? You attack so often and back it up hardly ever.

              I’ll note that this is yet one more example of you coming across as likely the most disingenuous person I’ve ever dealt with here – or perhaps anywhere – but I’ll respond once more anyway so you won’t be so clearly upset. Still, it’s beginning to look almost pointless trying to communicate with you and another example is your contradictory “being from a 3rd World country” v. “being American” – one of which seems to be a lie, right? And given that your: “Excuse me while I go down to the river and urinate upstream” directly followed your 3rd World country lie comment, it calls into question anything about your later: “In times past, primitive cultures…”. I suspect that was as disingenuous as the rest of your garbage… as someone else said, everything you now say is called into question.

              Further, please don’t assume you know why I do what I do and voice this always-wrong crap (I say ‘please’ because being wrong so consistently makes you sound like an idiot since you can’t possibly know why I do what I do anyway… and I certainly wouldn’t want you to sound like an idiot though I’d never imply that, of course). Unless you’re lol ‘God’, you can’t know that I’ll trash you because you’re American and you can’t know anything similar about me… and even if you are ‘God’.

              So while you did answer one question, I detected virtually no respect as per your claim, as it followed your earlier garbage such as: “Were you offended by a DX camera in a former life? Why so much disdain for something that you obviously aren’t using?”, “Grow up!”, “…who doesn’t look happy enough with his camera. If only he…” and more such twaddle. And you gave conflicting answers for country of origin and didn’t answer everything anyway. So please don’t sound so uppity… makes you also sound like a self-righteous idiot, ISTM.

              Also, on what basis was your: “…unlike you, he wasn’t going out of his way to offend and denigrate people”, please? What offence and denigration, please? You provide unsubstantiated attacks frequently enough – why not back them up unless you know they’re lies. I had stated facts and even now don’t see offence or denigration towards people… and I certainly didn’t go out of my way to do this. It seems that you have this childish notion that the best defence is an offence, no matter how invalid the offence is. Again, you come across as simply disingenuous… or a complete buffoon.

              And speaking of buffoonery, on what basis do you claim: “Full Frame sensors are inferior to Medium format sensors”, please? I noted upthread a while ago: “the fact that of the top 8 sensors on DxO, the top 3 are FX and only 3 are MF Phase One, one of which is dead last of those 8?” What’s inferior about the higher rated FX sensors, here, please? Or is this just – *sigh* – more garbage from you? Indeed, is that the only thing spewing out of you – garbage?

              I’m astounded by your “I didn’t think they needed one, being right next door to the U.S., beyond patrolling their territorial waters.” as the US unilaterally invades country after country after country, so one reason a Navy’s needed here is to protect ourselves in case the great U.S. of A. invades us… say for our resources. And that you wouldn’t be able to grasp that the nation with the largest coastline on the planet might not have a Navy either speaks to me to the likelihood that you are indeed a complete idiot who knows virtually nothing of the world, a seven-year old knowing the same or – most likely in my view – an inexhaustibly disingenuous clown thinking their own apparent ignorance somehow makes others look bad by say, questioning the existence of a Navy. Your ignorance of us reflects not one iota on us – it’s all on you. What an unbelievably amazing person you are.

              I’m similarly amazed by your “I could never afford an FX camera and the corresponding lenses to replace my DX kit…”, since you can’t possibly know the future and what pricing FX cameras – or lenses – will be. They could be almost the same as DX. Of course the “corresponding lenses” must be based – once again – on your ignorance, this time about the fact that FX cameras can indeed use DV glass – hence, no need to replace it. And amazingly you repeat that with: “But since I could never afford the lenses (I wasn’t kidding about that), it’ll never happen.” Do you really know so little about your own gear that you don’t know that DX lenses can be used with FX cameras – at least with most? You may not be kidding, but your ignorance – yet again – seems to know no bounds.

              Finally, since you were so forthright in stating that you’re American, just how old are you, please (Admin, feel free to block me since I won’t be losing much with the incredible group of wonderful photographers performing in this thread… though obviously not everyone is)?

          • tmay

            I suspect that you would still look down at my lowly D3200 for only reaching 81, but still beating that five year old D3.

            I’d also guess that the replacement for the D7000 will probably squeak by that DxO 82 line in the sand you drew. Feel free to move your goalpost when that happens.

            D3200 users get dissed all the time by D5100 and D7000 users for having such a useless entry level camera with a completely inappropriate sensor for beginners.

            Getting dissed by a real FX pro as yourself is really a step up. I’m feeing so good about myself that I might spring for another DX lens, or maybe one of those extra special FX lenses like you pro’s use.

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              Hey, not dissing at all – just stating facts :-). But if you choose to take it that way, go ahead!

              And yep, glad you’re feeling good about yourself :-)… but consider springing fairly quickly for anything DX-ish! Also, I consider real pros as those who make a decent living at this – def not me – but thanks so much for your assessment. Now I’ll have even more fun knowing that you consider me to be a real pro! Yahoo!

              The only reason I went FX is the mountain of full frame glass I’d collected since the 60s. Oh, and the point about DX being no kind of permanent solution :-). And the DxO ratings – along with a minimal crop – kind’a validates that, don’cha think?

          • http://www.cpearson.me.uk Chris

            Bret, has it ever occurred to you that some of us don’t want an FX camera? Or least as their only camera.

            I would rather have a D7000 costing around £600 than a D600 costing about £1600 for 2 reasons: 1 I get to keep £1000, 2 it gives an effective crop of 1.5x meaning I don’t need the ~£7000 600mm, a 300 or a 400 will do just fine, especially once I stick a TC-14EII on it.

            Btw that £1000 I saved? Guess how much I can get a 300mm f4 and a TC-14II for on the grey market….

            No every one is made of cash, and wants to or even has the ability to have to carry stupidly heavy super teles.

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              Well, it’s irrelevant to what I’ve written but sure… just like not everyone wanted to go from horse and buggy to cars, tubes to solid state, manual to automated, yada, yada, yada. Point?

              All that may be true but FX sensors are still better than DX. I’m apparently hitting a nerve here by pointing this out. Interesting.

            • Gideon D.

              Totally agree. FX is poor value, the idea that the D600 is ‘worth’ that much is lost on D300 users who have much better ergonomics and AF already and feel that despite the better performing sensor, it would be a downgrade.

              Don’t forget, any D400 will have the best DX sensor on the market, which could well overtake a least the previous generation of FX and would certainly be good enough for general usage.

              Me? I’d like an FX camera for use with a few primes and maybe a bright zoom. Yet for my general usage my DX is just fine, offering lighter long lenses and also a nice collection of excellent ultrawide zooms. I certainly don’t want to ‘switch’ to FX at this point, I might just as well switch to M4/3 or Fuji if that’s the idea.

              An 8fps D800s with built-in stabliser for optimium image quality might change things some day, as it’s crop of 16mp would make DX very usable. Right now, though FX gives with one hand whilst taking with the other, so its hard to get all that enthusiastic about it.

          • Pablo Ricaso

            BreatA, take a deep breath and relax…either that or go and get a life for the sake of others.

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              Hey, I was just responding to a statement clearly in error; Steve’s: “DX is younger and more healthy than FX my friends, which is a fatso about to have a coronary from too much rich living.”

              I’m still waiting to hear about that ‘coronary’. But this gets more interesting with every post that dismisses / avoids / ignores the facts and tells me to, say, take a deep breath. What fun!

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              Actually, you’ve all pointed out a great reason for Nikon to continue with DX despite all the reasons to scrap it. With your bellyaching on the mere mention that DX should be Deep-siXed, I just can’t imagine your reaction when/if they actually do!

              Yep, more interesting all the time ;-).

          • Chris

            An arbitrary line in the sand, 82, is used to look at 3 sensors released THIS YEAR to sensors released TWO YEARS AGO on an “inferior” format. I use quotation marks because it only took 2-3 years for Nikon to develop DX sensors that matched (and in some points exceeded) their initial FX sensor (D3/D700) quality. To that point, you can now get a DXOMark score exceeding those beloved FX sensors in the BOTTOM OF THE BARREL, CHEAP AS CAN BE, D3200.

            Of course DX is ultimately inferior in picture quality…but Nikon’s business isn’t built around $2000+ cameras. Its built around cameras costing under $1000. They HAVE to sell those to make the ungodly expensive FX bodies and ungodly expensive FX lenses (for the price of a D600 or a single 70-200mm FX lens, I can buy a new crate engine for a car).

            DX isn’t going anywhere until FX can be made as small and as cheap (goes for lenses too). Add in the wildlife photography factor and it may never die.

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              DxO Mark Overall Score (Oct. 2012):

              D3200 – 81 (Best DX Sensor as of Now).
              D3 – 81 (Best FX Sensor – Aug. 2007).
              D800E – 96 (Best FX Sensor as of Now).

              And no (once again – *sigh*), it’s not a question of only DX v. FX re small, cheap, wildlife and anything else. It’s a question of DX v. FX *and* CX.

              But if anything’s going to keep DX alive, it’s the whining of DX users. Personally I hope it doesn’t so Nikon can put DX resources to improving FX and CX lines which I think will be best for Nikon and its user base. But hey, I accept that you guys disagree :-)! We *can* disagree without ‘get a life’, ‘frustrated masturbators’ and ‘take a seep breath’ – as convincing as you guys seem to think those ‘points’ are… please accept that :-)! Toodles!

              Deep-siX DX! Deep-siX DX! Deep-siX DX!

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              Oh, since I got a “nice photos” re my website, feel free to check out a bit of my somewhat sexier stuff at (Warning: 18+ Content):

              Profile: http://www.modelmayhem.com/1501876
              Port: http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/1501876/viewall

              And don’t be strangers, y’all :-)!

            • Chris

              Not sure why you reposted what I JUST said..,but yeah, the absolute bottom of the barrel DX camera in Nikon’s lineup right now has an equivalent sensor score as their flagship (or nearly so) FX sensor that was JUST REPLACED this year. Pretty impressive for a format that is inherently inferior…moreso when the D700/D3 series was so well loved by professional photographers mostly due to their outstanding image quality.

              As for axing DX in favor of CX and FX, you assume that DX users would be willing to step DOWN in image quality for your sake. I’ll give you a bit of a heads up: we’re not. First: I have no interest in a point-n-shoot…even if it does feature interchangeable lenses…I want something I can actually grip and quickly change settings on. So there goes any of the ’1′ series bodies. Second: Putting a CX sensor in a DSLR, if they were to do such a thing, drops image quality significantly. Why would I want that? I bought the best image quality I could afford…if I wanted point-n-shoot quality, I could have saved myself a bundle of money. Nikon SHOULD have put the DX sensor in the mirrorless offerings as Sony did with the NEX…their mistake shouldn’t be an excuse to ax the superior format…

              There is no replacement for DX right now…doesn’t look like their is on the horizon either. CX is noticeably worse quality…FX is way too expensive. Until FX prices come down, and CX quality comes WAY up (hard to do when its facing the EXACT same limitation DX does in comparison to FX)…there will always be DX.

              Finally, I never said anything remotely close to “‘get a life’, ‘frustrated masturbators’ and ‘take a seep (sic) breath’”. In fact, I never made any mention of you personally at all…

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              Re your: “Not sure why you reposted what I JUST said”,

              …because I didn’t. I pointed out the rather than your:

              “To that point, you can now get a DXOMark score exceeding those beloved FX sensors in the D3200″

              …since the D800E is rated at 96 and the D3200 is only 81, you’re wrong or irrelevant. WRT the rest of your post, it’s as flawed as the above given my other posts and not worth answering.

            • Chris

              The D800 has no relevance what-so-ever to what I said. I made it quite clear I was referring to the D700/D3 sensors…not the brand spanking new D800 sensors. What the D800 scored is completely irrelevant to the point being made. The only relevance is what the D700/D3 scored in comparison to Nikon’s lowest end DX offering, the $600 D3200 (WITH A LENS).

              As to the rest, my points are quite valid and your attempt to blow them off as not being so show you as someone who cannot be relied upon for accurate information or informed opinions. Anyone with a shred of knowledge on the subject should be able to formulate a rebuttal to such glaringly obvious issues facing CX vs DX vs FX. Schoolboy attempts to dismiss dissenting opinions does nothing to further your point and, in fact, makes anything you say dubious at best.

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

              Well, Chris, except that your post was in response to mine, which makes my: “you’re wrong or *irrelevant*” completely germane here. Your posts is irrelevant.

              Worse, you start from an incorrect POV anyway with your: “…DX camera in Nikon’s lineup right now has an equivalent sensor score as their flagship (or nearly so) FX sensor that was JUST REPLACED this year”, since when referring to the D3 / D700 sensor, it was replaced with the D3x sensor as ‘flagship’ way back in 2008 (rated 88). GIGO.

              You also seem to bypass the 2009 D3s sensor (rated 82) back in 2009 but this was mainly only considered a ‘flagship’ WRT low light.

              Wow… your: ‘just replaced this year’ is nothing short of astounding given those 2008 (and ’09) flagship sensors that actually did replace the D700/D3, huh? Oh, unless ya didn’t catch that it’s late 2012 now.

              BTW, the fact that D3x did very clearly use a new flagship sensor is why I chose it to augment my then flagging D700 – making it my second body (and when the D4s comes out, I’ll likely convert it to IR).

              So, sure, dance all around and take off on tangents but so sorry, if your tangents are irrelevant or flat out wrong when responding to my points, please expect to be called on them.

              P.S.: What’s with all the upper case crap – are you actually trying to emphasize your errors? (It’s working!)

      • Fishnose

        Waht have the youth in Asia got to do with it?

        ;o)

      • Richard

        Let’s look at your position. No DSLR available for less than $2,100. Just how do you think that is going to affect the bottom line at Nikon, Canon & Sony?

        DX is definitely not dead and is not going to be put down any time soon.

        • http://www.intersiteimaging.com BrettA

          Ahhh… No DSLR under $2,100, huh? Well I guess I just won’t get my hoped-for elimination of DX then, huh? I mean, there’s just zero possibility that Nikon could ever – ever – produce a FX camera under $2,100 – not in a million years. And not when they’re eliminating a cheaper line and figure there might be a hole at the low end. And certainly not with the added resources available to them if they did eliminate DX. Gee, those old DX workers may increase the costs all over Nikon and even a $2,100 camera won’t be doable, d’ya think? Oh, darn. OK, then :-(. I’m done. Toast. Now I’m sad.

          Of course what really clinched this is your supreme knowledge that DX is not going to be put down anytime soon… wonderful insight there, Richard. Wonderful!

          “Predicting anything is difficult, especially the future.” – Neils Bohr

          • Richard

            You are simply delusional. Crawl back into your hole until you achieve any degree of sanity.

            Oh, by the way, the word is “ephemeral”.

            • http://www.intersiteimaging.com BrettA

              What? You don’t think that Nikon can built sub-$2K FX D-SLRs?

              You’re kidding, right?

  • Worminator

    The Dead Collector: Bring out yer dead! [a man puts a body on the cart, unaware of the fact that the man is actually alive]
    Large Man with Dead Body: Here’s one.
    The Dead Collector: That’ll be ninepence.
    The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I’m not dead.
    The Dead Collector: What?
    Large Man with Dead Body: Nothing. [hands the collector his money] There’s your ninepence.
    The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I’m not dead!
    The Dead Collector: ‘Ere, he says he’s not dead.
    Large Man with Dead Body: Yes he is.
    The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I’m not.
    The Dead Collector: He isn’t.
    Large Man with Dead Body: Well, he will be soon, he’s very ill.
    The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I’m getting better.
    Large Man with Dead Body: No you’re not, you’ll be stone dead in a moment.
    The Dead Collector: Well, I can’t take him like that. It’s against regulations.
    The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I don’t want to go on the cart.
    Large Man with Dead Body: Oh, don’t be such a baby.
    The Dead Collector: I can’t take him.
    The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I feel fine.
    Large Man with Dead Body: Oh, do me a favor.
    The Dead Collector: I can’t.
    Large Man with Dead Body: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won’t be long.
    The Dead Collector: I promised I’d be at the Robinsons’. They’ve lost nine today.
    Large Man with Dead Body: Well, when’s your next round?
    The Dead Collector: Thursday.
    The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I think I’ll go for a walk.
    Large Man with Dead Body: You’re not fooling anyone, you know. Isn’t there anything you could do?
    The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I feel happy. I feel happy. [The collecter glances up and down the street furtively, then whacks the body with his club, solving the problem]
    Large Man with Dead Body: Ah, thank you very much.
    The Dead Collector: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
    Large Man with Dead Body: Right.

    • NotFunny

      -1

      • pegdrgr

        Apparently Monty Python is lost on you.

        • Michel

          This could be seen as an affront to those who treasure the holy grail of DX. FX may be the saviour or just a very naughty boy. We dont really know the meaning of life but can always look on the bright side of it…

        • Fishnose

          +1

      • MuttonPuncher

        I fart in your general direction;^)

        • MuttonPuncher

          The above said in a snarky French accent;^)

    • Snarfy

      +1

    • Ric

      We are the photographers who sayyyyyyyyyyyy.

      NI! Kon

      • French Knight

        :) :) :) You make my day, I was brought up on Monty P.

      • Fishnose

        Brilliant!!

      • Ren Konkwall

        Try and cross MY bridge will you?

        (for those that don’t know, that’s another Monty reference).

        • Flesh Wound

          Black Knight?

      • fishguy

        Funniest thing I’ve read here!

        ~fishguy

    • Pablo Ricaso

      What an idiot.

      • Ken Smokewell

        +1

      • French Knight

        Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

      • Ric

        Do you find it funny when I say……. Biggus…..

    • Andrew

      You sir are brain dead…

      • handy andy

        ah andy andy andy, where did your mother and I go wrong?????

    • TROLL NOCWELL

      You really have too much time on your hands. You have gone where no man has gone before!!!

      DX….I used to shoot with a D300…and Now I shoot with a D800, and never going back. Grow up DX users…there is a whole new world on the FX side.

  • Really?

    Integrity? Reliability? But where?

    • NikonUSA

      Anything wrong in this? (D800/E)

      Quote
      Render every megapixel with precision

      Fast, precise 51-point wide area coverage

      Precise AF detection is critical to sharply render every pixel of the D800′s massive resolution count. An improved 51- point AF system with 15 Cross Type AF sensors, versatile AF area modes and superb AF detection in even the dimmest lighting deliver immediate, pinpoint focus….
      Unquote

      See:
      http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25480/D800.html

  • Bob

    It’s not dead, Nikon must be planning a D3300 and a D5200 when the Canon T3 replacement and the T5i comes out.

  • http://luxicraft.com luxicraft

    ‘(H)e’s not dead. (H)e’s just restin’.

    • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

      He’s dead, Jim.

      • Ric

        5 points to Griffendor for Bones reference.

    • Ric

      Do you have an Chedder?

      • Plug

        :) :)

  • tferroato

    we’ve been saying the D30o has needed to be refreshed since 2008. what is Nikon waiting for that hasn’t already happened?

    • KnightPhoto

      Isn’t the difficulty/wait caused by trying to produce 24mp, 14 bit, @10 fps?

      AFAIK, no camera produces this currently. And I suspect the constraint is not raw processing power, but ability to get all this data off the sensor at that kind of speed and without creating noise.

      • NotTrolling

        How does Canon do to have an 18Mp at 12Fps… if they do it, why not?

        • kyle

          Canon can do this because 18 is smaller than 24.

          All things being equal, if Canon can move twelve 18Mp images a second, Nikon should be able to move nine or nine and a half 24mp images per second.

          • Archer

            Who needs 24MP?
            A 300s replacement with a 16MP sensor with better high ISO capabilities is all I need. Even a 10 MP sensor would suffice, but that’s not gonna happen. The D4 also only has 16MP and there’s a reason for that.
            I take good 6400 ISO over 24MP any day.

    • http://blog.iamron.com Ron

      Nikon moves on a four year schedule with their prosumer and professional bodies. Add in a tsunami, nuclear annihilation, and a flooded (totaled) replacement factory, and the timeline fits pretty much perfectly.

      And really — less than a year after its release?

      And remember the D300s?

      • Richard

        Ron,

        The problem with applying the historic Nikon product development cycle to the present circumstance is that the products which were delayed (D800 for example) are already at least a year old, in terms of the market, when released not to mention the manufacturing problems.

        Nikon have “missed the boat” on wi-fi connectivity on the upper end products. The module for the D4 is obscenely overpriced for one thing and is a real band aide approach to something that could easily have been integrated into the camera body without much actual expense.

        Of course no one outside of Nikon really knows how much of the delay has been due solely to manufacturing capacity and how much may have been occasioned by delays in the design and development of the products as well. It just seems to me that Nikon could have made better use of the available time to update the products’ design while the rebuilding took place.

        Any way you look at it, the new releases are already a bit dated and I don’t mean in the sense of computers where a product is obsolescent by the time it makes it to the retail outlet, much less by the time you take it home.

        Cheers

        • http://blog.iamron.com Ron

          I will agree that the camera/sensor currently rated highest on DXO’s chart, as well as the camera touting the highest DR, cleanest high ISO SNR, and highest MP is outdated. It’s pretty obvious that Nikon has been slacking in their business approach.

          Also, you are correct that a nuclear disaster, tsunami, and catastrophic flooding — all occurring within a 1-year period — are petty, trivial reasons to delay this already proven “outdated” equipment.

          I guess I wasn’t really thinking logically before. Forgive me for my moment of idiocy.

    • Michael

      Actually one big reason is because Nikon realise that Canon isn’t announcing a new 7D, and I suspect the profit margin for these bodies aren’t good, that’s why Nikon and Canon is waiting for each other to take the first step. Now that there’s some rumors bout a 7D replacement, Nikon is not gonna let Canon own the market.

    • Ric

      The D300 is good enough for Jehovah

      • Pharisee

        small female voice: Stone him!

  • Worminator

    DX dSLRs are retreating, slowly, like the glaciers. They are not going away anytime soon, but the dominance is over.

    • http://blog.gerardprins.com Gerard Prins

      Glaciers are retreating quite fast, at some places, actually ;)
      For me, the D800 is unaffordable and the D600 too expensive for its ama features.
      So, yes, I want a D400, N.O.W…

      • Worminator

        Both D200 and D300 were ~$2000 body-only on release. Why do you think a “D400″ would be priced significantly lower than what you can buy a D600 for, today?

        • markogts

          Read better, he didn’t say the 600 is unaffordable.

          • bob2

            @markogts–You need to read better. Worminator is right, as “unaffordable” is different than “too expensive for its ama [sic] features”; i.e., I can afford a D600, but do not find sufficient value in its features to warrant purchasing one. Please be more careful when you try to be smart.

        • RC

          The D300 started at $1799, and the D200 started at $1699.

          Before I got the D600, before I heard about the D600, I was really looking forward to the D300′s replacement (the D300s doesn’t count). Now that I’ve experienced the D600, I really can’t see how I could ever go back to DX again.

          I can’t think of anything my D300 does better than my D600. I can wish that the D600 had a higher frame rate but to tell you the truth, I’ve never really needed 8 fps, and I didn’t purchase a grip until a few months ago (I’ve owned the D300 for about 5 years).

          The AF system of the D600 is AMAZING (far quicker and more accurate than the one in the D300)! So the only thing I can think of for why anyone would need a pro DX body is the need for a higher fps, more metal in the construction and the DX crop factor.

  • Marc P.

    What is in question is not the DX format itself, since this format has a long life ahead of it in the budget DSLR bracket.

    The real question one should ask is if the “semi-pro” DX format bracket will survive… and for how long…??? now THAT is the question.

    • http://tierrepeterson.com/blog TrP

      Nikon, Canon, Sony, and all others are wondering the same thing. They are probably searching these comments right now for the answer.

      I think Nikon & Canon are just creating a new niche in the market to allow people to transition to FX.

      The DX formats can now get updated, now that they have a refreshed pathway to the top.

    • Worminator

      It’s budget dSLRs that are dead as dodos. Big, bulky, ugly. Consumers hate them. That market segment is being eaten alive by compact mirrorless.

      Upper-echelon APSC dSLRs/dSLR style SLTs are feeling the pressure from full-frame, sure, and high-end mirrorless, but there is still breathing space in the 700-1300 bracket for the likes of the D7000, K-5, 60D, a77 and their replacements.

      Two years from now, the D600, 5DmkIII, a99 price will be say 2/3 of what they are now, at which point most people will make the jump – either to full frame dSLR, or to something like the Fuji XE-1/NEX6/X100/RX1, depending on their shooting style.

      • Mike

        - The silicon that goes into FF sensors will only get more expensive, not cheaper.

        - Good zooms, teles and wide angle lenses will never be compact enough on FX.

        - Given the popularity of NEX, Fuji X, EOS M, more research will continue going into crop sensors rather than full frame.

        • fjfjjj

          - FF sensors, like all silicon, get cheaper over time. Have you heard of the D600?

          - Compact enough for what?

          - The same research that goes into a DX CMOS goes into a full-frame one.

          • Pat Mann

            Most silicon gets cheaper because it gets more dense and therefore can be smaller and also faster. FX can’t get smaller, so it doesn’t get cheaper at the same rate that processors and memory get cheaper – it’s a more linear rate. Moore’s law puts more on that same size slice, but it’s still got to be the same size. But DX sensors don’t get cheaper any faster than FX. Both become less of the cost of the camera over time, and therefore the prices converge. They still have a long way to go to be equal – entry price for an APS-C reflex is still 1/4 that of 24 x 36, a pretty significant difference for most of us, and very significant for those just entering the market.

            DX as a reflex format is for now hampered in its contest with FX on one side and mirrorless on the other by the unnecessarily large mount and sensor distance required to maintain FX compatibility. This keeps it from reaching its full potential to save size and weight.

            The true future of the APS-C size sensor, still the largest sensor available in cameras (and their accompanying system of lenses) affordable to most of us, is in mirrorless, where the benefits of the smaller sensor in achieving a more compact system can be more fully realized.

            If Nikon doesn’t go there, they’ll give up a BIG market segment to those that do. And if they don’t come out with the DX lenses and pro DX camera soon for the reflex line to keep it in business until the complete shift to mirrorless, they will already have lost so many APS-C customers seeking high image quality compact systems with a full range of lenses to Sony, Fuji (and Canon?) that they won’t have enough market share left to make their own mirrorless (with adapter for transition customers) profitable.

            To keep DX alive in the meantime, they really need to provide a full range of lenses at the more compact size (and price lower enough to make a difference that the lower coverage angle of DX permits for the same focal length). This line at a minimum needs to include fast short tele and wide primes (f/1.4 60mm and 23mm, f/1.8 18 or 16mm and f/2.8 10mm or at least 12mm, a 50-135 f/2.8 zoom, and for me at least, an 18 or 16mm PC.

            I would hate to see Nikon left in the position of bringing out titanium, ostrich and burled walnut as their latest innovations to appeal to their market segment.

          • soap

            No, silicon does not get cheaper over time. Google wafer prices if you don’t believe us. The move to larger wafer diameters (and the reduction in waste this allows) has barely kept prices in line with inflation.

            Processors get cheaper over time because they use less silicon. FF Sensors don’t use less silicon as time moves on – they use exactly the same.

            • Worminator

              If this argument was remotely relevant, an FX sensor would cost just twice a DX one since it is twice the size. Which would price the OEM cost at $60-100 I think. Hardly a handicap to producing inexpensive full frame cameras.

            • Mike

              No, Worminator. FX sensors are significantly more expensive because the chance of having a fault is double. You have to throw more sensors away that’s why FX is so much more expensive than DX.

            • soap

              Worminator:

              The area taken up is double, but the wafer consumption is higher still.

              Try filling a circle with little rectangles, then try filling a circle with large rectangles. Which one more efficiently uses the surface area?

              As to flaws and errors: Randomly scatter 10 dots across your circle. If you only have one huge chip per circle what’s the chip failure rate? 100% If you only have two huge chips per circle what’s the failure rate? Approaching 50%. If you have 1000 chips per circle, what’s the failure rate? Approaching 1%. Point being there is a non-linear increase in silicon surface area thrown away due to single point flaws as the die size increases.

      • RC

        @Worminator “It’s budget dSLRs that are dead as dodos. Big, bulky, ugly. Consumers hate them. That market segment is being eaten alive by compact mirrorless.”

        When I enter a classroom full of parents at my children’s school, the majority have DSLRs. I’ve never seen anyone with a mirrorless camera. Some carry point & shoots.

        • Worminator

          Yes, and how many of them are carrying cameras they bought more than 2 years ago? Your sample is almost certainly reflecting an average from many years previous, back when people did buy entry level dSLRs in great numbers.

          • RC

            I guess I don’t understand what you’re getting at. In my circle of friends, I’m known as the camera guy. I only know one person (high school aged) that bought a Sony NEX 5 (because it was on sale during Black Friday), and she hardly ever uses it. She also owns a DSLR. However, I can think of many, many friends with DSLRs, and I know of one that just bought a DSLR and one that’s looking to upgrade his DSLR to another DSLR.

            Well, there is one person I know that was looking for a DSLR, and I introduced the Sony NEX line to him, so he might buy one.

            I’m just saying that I don’t see this mass transition to mirrorless from DSLRs.

            I still think that if you’re primarily interested in taking pictures, DSLRs are the way to go.

    • Wakaranai

      [quote]What is in question is not the DX format itself, since this format has a long life ahead of it in the budget DSLR bracket.

      The real question one should ask is if the “semi-pro” DX format bracket will survive… and for how long…??? now THAT is the question.

      [/quote]

      +1

      Thom Hogan recently said, IIRC, that DX/APS-C remains 90% of Canikon’s DSLR camera sales. Were that the case, not only is DX not going anywhere, it’s not only not dead, but the lion’s share . You won’t see FX in Costco, Target, Wal-mart, or (for non-US folks) in Mrs. Watanabe’s hands anytime soon.

      That being said, the future of the high enthusiast DX camera is an open question, and IMO Nikon has no incentive to not push people to FX or to develop real enthusiast DX lenses
      (especially since, in the latter case, lots of people are willing to make do with FX lenses on DX – I’m thinking in particular about people complaining about the 1x-24 DX wide zooms and using the 14-24 as the ultimate DX wide angle zoom, justifying the investment in terms of image quality and leaving the FX option open. I don’t mean to criticize those who’ve done that – their photography is their business – but these folks are playing right into Nikon’s strategy).

      Were such a thing as a D300s replacement to come about, my completely uninformed opinion is that it would be at least the same price as the D600 (the US list price of the D300 on introduction was $1800, add a bit of inflation/exchange rate problem and you get……). In fact, it might be priced even higher than the D600, since were I Nikon I really would want the people willing to spend this kind of money on cameras to go FX. I also believe that rather than a higher performance D7000, a D300s replacement would be an all-out sports/wildlife DX camera – D800 AF, massive buffer, best DX sensor seen (something that would justify an equal/greater than D600 price to a not inconsequential customer set).

  • Wisky

    +1

  • http://www.VolCo360.com Ken Elliott

    Given the long time since we’ve seen a pro-body DX camera (D300S), I think it indicates Nikon is up to something that takes a long time to design. To me that means the first pro mirrorless body.

    Look at the Olympus OM-D and ask yourself what Nikon might do. How about a FM-sized DX body with a 24MP sensor? For you new guys asking “what’s a FM?”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_FM

    Add a few f/1.8 wide angle primes and a 60mm f/1.4 prime for portraits and you have yourself a nice light system.

    • Karen G.

      Good idea, Mr. Ken Elliott! And Nikon FM … just a masterpiece. Semi Pro level mirrorless Nikon in this body would be great.

      • Worminator

        If its mirrorless, it’s not an FM.

        If its F-mount, it’s going to be as large as a D3200 (for reference on going that route, see the Pentax K-01.)

        If its as small as an FM, then it has a new lens mount and new native lenses.

        If its mirrorless and has a new lens mount, you might as well pre-order the Fuji X-E1 today.

        • Sahaja

          A digital Leica M is very close to the size of a film Leica M – so the guts of a full frame digital camera can obviously be fit into a body that size.

          If they really put their minds to it , I expect it would be possible for Nikon to make a full frame F-mount digital camera about the size of the FM series cameras – without even going mirrorless. Though it probably would be fairly expensive.

          For mirrorless, they could make a digital SP ;-)

    • Worminator

      Well there you are. You’ve just described the XE-1 / X-mount lens system.

    • mikeswitz

      or you could buy an X-pro 1

    • fjfjjj

      If Nikon can launch into this market, Nikon vs Fujifilm arguments will plague the Internet for a generation. It will be a good thing. If Nikon/Sony are smart, they will also launch a mirrorless “MX” camera.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryancatlett Ryan

      Mr. Elliot must have been channeling my thoughts this afternoon.
      I was in a camera store here on Okinawa today and after oogling the D800 I stumbled upon this Fuji X100. I thought to myself how much I’d love if Nikon released a retro body, maybe styled like an FM with a regular F mount. Not sold on the EVF but a digital body akin to the FM – that’d be a sick camera.
      On the subject above – DX isn’t dead yet, but as soon as Nikon makes a FX camera of the D90/D7000 character I think you can kiss DX goodbye and watch the V1/J1′s fill that entry level price point.

      • Worminator

        The mythical “Nikon FM-D” has been plaguing Nikon forums for pretty much the last decade. It needs to be buried.

        A digital, F-mount, SLR will end up the same size as the D40 line. You can make it metal, and more expensive, heck give it a mechanical shutter if you insist, but you cannot make it substantially smaller.

        Mirrorless you say? Still won’t make the camera any less boxy. Have a look at the K-01.

        Dropping the F-mount is the only way to make it smaller, but then you are left introducing yet another lens system and competing in the already crowded mirrorless market without the key asset of the legacy lens catalog.

        In short Nikon could do it, but would struggle to manage anything closer to an FM-D that what you can already buy from Fuji (or Sony, or Olympus) today.

    • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

      I would definitely buy one of those too. Throw a little 35/1.8 on it and be content.

    • El Aura

      Is the D3200 really that much bigger than the FM?
      FM: 142 × 89.5 × 60.5 mm
      D3200: 125 x 96 x 77 mm

      The increased thickness (77 vs. 60.5 mm) is pretty much inevitable. Sensor plus display is simply thicker than a film pressure plate. Apart from that the D3200 is 6.5 mm higher but 17 mm narrower.

      (The E-M5 is miniature because it has a noticeably shorter flange distance than an film SLRs had, plus it is only m43 and does not need a pentaprism.)

      • Worminator

        It’s surprising how the extra 5-7 mm bulge behind the focal plane makes the dSLRs feel much more bulky, despite being otherwise similar in size and often lighter than the old film SLRs.

        Though the D40 is small, and quite small enough for me, I have to admit that the X100, X-E1, and smaller mirrorless cameras are far more compact and much more discreet when worn.

        • El Aura

          I should have been more complete. Some of the increased thickness also comes from the handgrip (which is usually welcome from a handling point of view but also serves to house a large battery) and the flash housing. The increased height comes also from the flash and the AF module (which sits below the mirror box where manual focus SLRs didn’t have anything).

          And of course, cameras that loose the FX mirror box and the pentaprism can be noticeably smaller than DX DSLRs.

    • cleansoap

      I’ll bet you real money (email me at your name at my name dot org if you’re game) Nikon hasn’t been taking so long working on something special as a replacement for the D300(s) but rather rationally decided to use their double-whammy diminished manufacturing space to produce products they felt were more important to brand longevity.

      They had to iterate the low end. It would have been death to skip a generation of entry level if Canon didn’t.

      They had to iterate the flagship.

      The D7000, while getting old, is still just about at the top of DX IQ, and the D600, while not flagship DX, covers the $2000 price point.

      A D400 would round out the offerings, but I think the question going through Nikon’s mind really was “skipping a generation of which product loses us the least number of customers?”

  • Bob the Builder

    There was a tested 16mb DX with low ISO capability similar to D700. I expected it to be released with D4, but D800 & D600 came out first.
    My prediction is D6000 24 Mb to replace D5100 & D7000 – optimized for video & still, eg swivel screen.
    After that the D8000 16 Mb to replace D300S – optimized for still photography with great low light capabilities & includes standard HD video formats.
    The D8000 might be called D400 to standardize product numbering to:
    - Dx product range for pro series
    - Dxxx for semi pro &
    - Dxxxx for advanced amateurs.
    If this is the case what is the Dxx product number range reserved for?

    • Dxx

      maybe:
      - Dxx for starting amateurs?

      But saying so all the D40, D80, D90 etc. owners will be offended :-)

    • soap

      Combine the D5xxx and D7xxx and you leave a big price gap in the most competitive (and price sensitive) part of the market. Not Gonna Happen.

      I’d expect a D3xxx, D5xxx, D6xxx, and a D7xxx before I’d expect that.

  • Brook

    A mirror-less DX Nikon would be nice, with an EVF or the option of one, and it could use existing DX/FX lenses with an adaptor, and then it could have newer and smaller lenses designed just for it. Now THAT, I’d love to see.

    • OnTripod

      Yes, it would be nice to be able to mount a 18-300 in front of a Nikon V3 – or this one on the back of a 18-300.

      Have you ever tried to mount on a tripod a Sony NEX with a 18-200? If not, please try. The base of the camera is not wide enough and you can tight the screw even with a L wrench: it is still unstable on the tripod. Guess the V1,2,3 would have the same problem.

  • D400 Mpixels/Fps

    It might take another year or so before Nikon will seriously fix the D800 bug.
    Meanwhile, waiting for that, I wouldn’t mind to get a potential D400, but I can’t see it happen as a marketing issue.

    If they release a D400 with 24 Mp, won’t people prefer to buy the D600?
    Note that the D300s is still on sale for $1,699. Where would a D400 fit?
    It has to be cheaper in price than the D600, then maybe will have a 16 or 18Mp sensor? If so, not a big change from the D300s. Sure, they can add the video of the D4, maybe. And how about the fps? Can they make one at 13 fps to beat Canon?

    Hope I am wrong, hope we will see a D400 but I still can’t justify it after the D600.
    Any explanation that I can’t make? Any speculation on how the D400 should be?

    • desmo

      How do you know D400 would not have same bug if issue is not resolved on D800 same af system same body class just scaled to DX sensor

      • D400 (D800)

        I still have some respect for Nikon; I can accept that they made a mistake once and I believe they will fix it – call it Tsunami, Flood or Nuclear disasters, elections or what so ever.

        Two mistakes in a row seem, and hopefully will be, unlikely.

        “Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum”.

        Beside that, one thing is to trash $1.8K for a D400 (if that can be its price) another to trash $3.3K for a D800E.

    • Fishnose

      What D800 ‘bug’? Are you still on about the AF thing? Jeez, that’s old shit man.
      And it was never a bug, it was a QC problem.

      • Ken Flipwell

        I own a D800, and I think this….There are some who have never owned, or used, or ever held a D800, BUT…experienced the make believe problems of the D800…they are called HATERS! move on.

      • D400 (D800)

        If you were right, how can you explain this?
        http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/D800Focus/SensorArray.html

        Note the date of this report made by PhDs and an University, it is not an “user error”. Most, if not all, D800 still have the bug.

        Nikon has fixed any damn thing yet. They will do it but in time.

        • PHB

          Umm, the guy in question states that he tested a D800 that had NOT been serviced.

    • D800E

      I recived my D800 E, a few months ago, it has no pdoblems works like a dream, considering the D600 too. Would love to see a DX mirrorless, but also considering buying a newer DX Nikon as long as its compatible with my equipment and has nice fps and good low light abilities. Would be nice if the could pull it off at the 24mp sensor size in DX.

  • OMR

    I can compete with any full frame camera with my D5100 + 35mm f1.8.

    LOL

  • Claude

    There is one problem with the title to this article, and that is the YET at the end. While Nikon may be hoping many people migrate to FX the DX component of their market is far too large to be on the mortuary slab. It may be shrinking but it is not going to disappear any time soon and will, in my opinion, be around for at very least the next decade. It will not go away and will continue to evolve even if its market share is eroded. Perhaps the words of Mark Twain should be quoted here, “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated”

    • Millzee

      I couldn’t agree more, Claude.
      DX is a fantastic format for many, many users. One which has had a great deal of investment put in already – let’s not forget that pro digital started with DX. It would be business suicide for Nikon to suddenly give up on that. The DX market would be swept up by Canon, people would switch allegiance and Nikon would lose a huge slice of the total market.
      Nikon are shrewd in their ability to create a clamour for products and reading these pages proves this. The D400, (or whatever it will be called) will blow us away when it eventually is released.

  • brian

    Perhaps what’s taking so long with the d300 replacement is that with pressure now from the om-d, nex line up, maybe Nikon is preparing their new EX mount mirror less line. Then there will be CX, DX, EX, and FX.

    Like the poster above who said adapters for existing lenses would be used. I think this makes the most sense. If their on sensor CD AF technology is fast/reliable enough, it may happen. I imagine after all that many who would be interested in a d400 are at least intrigued by the om-d with its good enough performance and small size. With a new mount they’ll actually be able to make smaller crop sensor lenses and cameras by doing away with using FX sized mirror boxes and their rear flange distance on crop sensor cameras…

  • anon743

    Having finally gotten more time with someone else’s D7k and, I start to feel the constraints of DX and the advantages of 135 FF (before that I shot a lot of slides).

    Sure, FF is good, but would still want to stay with pro DX for various reasons, and would hope to see more great DX glass to come.

    That said, the 1″ CX format is a dud IMO and should be killed off sooner or later. Instead, would really want to see a real mirrorless competitor to the EOS-M…

    Cap the CX system but instead develop better DX-based glass for both DX DSLR and EVIL systems, what’s the problem with that??

  • D400

    What DX lenses?

    Leaf shutter macro?
    700mm f/2.8?
    300-600 f/4?
    200-400 f/2.8?
    Superwidey?

  • Bo

    Thom Hogan has on his website this month, focus on DX.

    Acording to him, the majority of Nikon’s profit is from DX and FX (FF) is only about 10%. If DX is dead, Nikon is going to replace All their DX sale with CX or FF. If not, no Nikon company.

    Personaly i dont see that happens. DX is a good price/performance ratio.

    • Ke

      I’m sure Nikon makes a lot more from DX than FX – but that’s from the lowest cameras in the range, not the pro DXs.

      • PHB

        The D300 and D90 are probably their biggest money makers.

        More D300 bodies have been sold than all FX bodies put together. The cost of production is much lower and there is a lot more technology transfer to lower priced bodies.

        The FX bodies don’t sell in large enough numbers to make much of a profit. The margins on the consumer bodies are small. The D90/D7000 is probably the most profitable model Nikon sells with the D300 the next most profitable.

        A replacement for the D7000 or D300 is a no brainer as far as Nikon’s bottom line goes. There is a clear demand for a prosumer DX camera which will be sold as a professional camera just like the D4, D800 and D600 are prosumer cameras as three quarters of those sell to amateurs as well.

        The only real question is whether there will be two new DX bodies or one. With the D600 selling at $2000, a DX body can’t really sell for much more than $1500. The D7100 would need to be 24MP AND have more features than the D3200 to make sense. It is hard to see what the product differentiation between the D7100 and D400 would be.

        What makes best sense to me is to launch a D400 based on the D600 body at $1200-$1400 and drop the price on the D7000 at launch. Then drop the D7000 altogether in 6-9 months time and drop the price on the D400 again.

        • Richard

          Nikon, and for that matter Canon, are facing price competition from below the price points of the D7000 and D300s by cameras that are quite capable the truth be told.

          I could see a viable price point for the D400 at $1,495 or $1,595 and the D7000 replacement at $995 to $1,095.

          The D400 should have full weather proofing as befits a pro level build and a very high rated shutter service life, once again befitting a pro level build. Other details would work themselves out, but Nikon would do well not to make the mistake they made with the D7000 of cheaping out on the buffer in such an obvious “in your face” way. There needs to be a sufficient price difference to justify the differences in features and capabilities even though the D7000 replacement will have to be a very capable camera to be attractive in a comparison with the price point competition. Actually, this would be a good opportunity to align the D7000 replacement as the D90 successor in the marketing plan. I think that quality needs to be “job one”, both in design and quality control, or the products may not fare well.

          One thing I would like to see on the D400, which would distinguish it from the rest of the DX lineup would be the “joystick” focus point selector that is on the D4. Unless you have tried it, you simply will have a difficult time imagining how intuitive and useful it is. Now that I think about it, Nikon should make that standard on all their cameras. It truly would distinguish Nikon from “all the rest”.

    • porkchop

      Point and shoot is where they make their $$

      • http://www.bythom.com Thom Hogan

        Let’s examine that for a moment. We know how many Nikon sold of each type of camera (4.7m DSLRs, 17.4m Coolpix). We’ll have to use two assumptions, average selling price, and gross product margin. We know from statements by executives that DSLRs have a higher gross product margin. Let’s just call it 33% to make things easy. Let’s assume that Coolpix is lower, at say 20%. The average selling price (by Nikon) of Coolpix is probably in the US$200-225 range. The average selling price of DSLRs is probably US$650 to US$700.

        So what do we come up with?

        Coolpix: US$783m profit
        DSLRs: US$1086m profit

        So the back of the envelope calculation says no. Indeed, Coolpix and DSLRs are probably equally important to Nikon right now. A lot of the Coolpix distribution is into emerging markets which sets the stage for higher end (and eventually DSLR) sales.

        Now interestingly, three years ago Coolpix were certainly not a strong driver of Nikon’s sales and profits. Coolpix sales have increased 51% in three years, DSLR sales have increased 29% in the same period. So Coolpix is becoming more important to Nikon’s bottom line for sure.

    • http://www.bythom.com Thom Hogan

      To be perfectly accurate, I said sales, not profit. That said, I do believe that the D3200 is Nikon’s most profitable camera body by a pretty fair margin. It has both a good gross product margin and it’s a volume seller.

      There have been times when other bodies were likely more profitable for periods of time. The original D300 may have been one of them, actually. It was showing up disproportionately on best seller lists to cost, and by a good margin. When high priced products with good gross product margins stay in top ten lists for long periods of time, they generate enormous profit.

      The current ratio of DX/FX is unknown and probably a little distorted by early D600 sales, which almost certainly isn’t helping D7000/D300s sales. But it’s still mostly DX that forms Nikon’s volume in DSLRs.

      As to the “replace DX with CX and FX” thought: I see no way that can happen. The full logic stream that supports that is very complex, but the bottom line is that mirrorless growth is peaking quickly while DSLR sales continue to rise. Nikon (and Canon) would be better off protecting the low end of the DSLR line by making smaller, lighter DSLR cameras with even more performance, all of which is possible. They’d also benefit by building out the lens lineups for the cropped sensor DSLRs.

      • SNRatio

        I didn’t know that the D300 had so good margins – I would have thought that the relatively expensive components (maybe except for the sensor) made it profitable mostly because of the large volume. And that the smaller chances for a similar volume today is part of the reason there is still not a semi-pro successor.

      • PHB

        D3200 may well be high margin, but that was not true of its predecessors. The D3100 sold for almost $150 less than the equivalent Canon in Costco and the main reason for that seemed to be the less than 1080 HD video. Does not matter whether people need it or not, if all else is equal they will go for the better video.

        As for CX, I think that is being positioned mostly as a sidegrade for Nikon enthusiasts right now. At $900 for the viewfinder model it was hardly cheap. No wonder the DSLRs were growing faster when a D3200 kit was cheaper.

        I don’t think CX will be eating into either the coolpix or the DSLR sales any time soon. But the situation is likely to be very different in 4 years time. By that point I expect we will see a lot more CX bodies on offer and a lot more lenses. The price drop on the V1 suggests to me that the V2 is also going to be cheaper. If Nikon can get the price of the cheapest viewfinder model plus lens down to $500 then it starts to eat away at both the top end of the compact camera market and the bottom end of the consumer DSLR space.

        There is plenty of space for professional/prosumer CX models as well; a designed for video model that can power a professional microphone, a higher resolution model with better manual controls. But those will not make a lot of sense until they have the lenses sorted.

  • roberto

    nikon d4s- 36mp
    nikon d400-16mp
    nikon d701-16mp

  • http://Www.thainstudios.com Gavin Thain

    Everything will become obsolete, it’s just a matter of how long.

  • Ensoniqdude

    Apparently, I’m not a “real” photographer nor a true Nikon customer unless I purchase an FX camera?

    I can’t afford a $2,100 camera body and new glass. What I can afford is a $1,000 D7000. And while posters on forums continue to berate users of the DX format, I will continue to take personal and professional photographs that achieve the goal – capturing the images I want and need.

    • Erica

      So true, it’s not about the camera, but about the pictures.

      • 1

        Then shoot a wedding with a sack full of disposable point and shoots then and tell your clients that….

        • RC

          You know…that’s not a bad idea!

          I think I could get some pretty nice shots using those kinds of cameras, and I’m not kidding either.

        • Ensoniqdude

          I don’t shoot weddings. Got out of that years ago. But I do shoot band promos, live gigs, studio shots, etc. for musicians and a variety of free lance work in motorsports. There’s also a good deal of my published work that I’ve completed for the Department of Defense. So, if you’re basing professionalism on whether or not I do weddings, I guess I’m not a “pro” in your book. Then again, knowing that a good deal of the greats never did wedding shots, I guess I’m in good company.

  • Mike

    There are several reasons why I want to stay with DX and not move up to FX:

    - I feel that FX for non-professionals is a scam. They try hard to convince the market that FF is so much greater. At the same time, I cannot tell a picture taken with a 17-55 DX or a 24-70 FX apart.

    - The DoF issue is an Internet scam. The differnence between FX and DX at f/2.8 is tiny, and at the longer focal lengths there is no difference at all. The difference is only noticeable at the wide end, and a wide angle DX prime would alleviate this.

    - I don’t want to spend much money on bodies. Bodies get obsolete in 2 years. I consider them disposable. I really don’t see the point as an amateur.

    - In order to notice an advantage from my DX setup, I would need to get a 12-24 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8. I am not willing to carry around lenses this heavy and bulky.

    - I like the 28mm (40mm equivalent) and 85mm (125mm equivalent) focal lenghts on DX. I don’t feel the need to have a prime lens wider than 24mm on DX (35mm equivalent), however I really need and appreciate long primes. This is easier to achieve on DX.

    - I don’t see the point of tiny mirrorless cameras with bulky lenses attached to them. I do see the point of DX lenses being somewhat comfortable to carry versus FX zooms which are incredibly large and uncomfortable.

    - Look at the IQ of an OM-D. This sensor tech will find itself into the next round of Nikon DX cameras. Why would I invest in FX if the IQ of these crop sensors is approaching FF performance so rapidly? The gap is getting smaller every year!!

    • Mike1

      + People move to FF mainly for special needs, e.g. high ISO shooting. Those who think moving to FF would get them better photos should look at their photographing skills or lens line up.

      Camera makers want you to move to FF because you will have to buy their expensive FF lenses. Also mirrorless cameras are eating into their DX market.

      • Casey

        I went full frame for high ISO performance. That said, I also never bought a single DX lens. My bought DX with no lens and used a 50mm lens and 20mm lens I had from my film days. Then I bought an 85mm lens. I never bought into the DX lenses (most aren’t suitable for low light photography).

        That said, based on Thom’s review of the 3200, it seems like the difference between DX and FX in low light is now greatly diminished. Presumably when they come out with a replacement for the 7000, it’ll be smaller still.

    • RC

      I completely disagree.

      The DOF (depth-of-field) difference is VERY noticeable. Before I got my D600, I had been shooting DX for over 7 years. After playing with my friend’s 5D3, I was amazed at the reduction of DOF, even at F4.

      I frequently shoot at high ISOs, so FX greatly improves on DX in the area of noise.

      Have you tried FX? I didn’t know how great it was until I tried it. I am getting far better results from my D600 than I could ever hope for from owning my D300 for about 5 years.

      FX is no scam! Believe the hype! Getting the D600 improved my photography more than I could have imagined!

      • Mike

        I own a m43 system, a D7000 and I’ve borrowed a 5D2 several times. I really don’t see a major difference in DoF between all these cameras. Just using a longer lens yields a far bigger change than using a different system.

      • PHB

        If you shoot with the same lenses then changing the sensor size will reduce DoF in several ways. You will be standing in a different place to capture the same scene for a start.

        If on the other hand you had bought the equivalent DX lens (1 stop faster, 66% of the focal length) then there would be no difference.

        Main difference with FX is that the lenses are sized for FX to start with.

  • Peter

    As more and more “cheap” FX cameras come on the market, I can see DX wilting and the 2nd/3rd generation CSCs filling the gap.

  • Angelus

    IMHO in 2015 Nikon will be able to put a FX sensor into a D3200 body and sell it for under 600$. In the meantime, I’m more than happy with my D40x, D5200 and D3200. BTW D3200 is the sharpiest of the three. So yes, I think it would make sense to buy FX AF-S lenses from now on, but I don’t think the transition to FX will occur any time soon. Cheers.

    • Angelus

      … after all there are thousands of users to which weight, portability AND price is very important. Of course image quality is paramount. So, give me the weight, portability and price of a D3200 with an FX sensor (for improved image quality) and count me in. What? 2000$ you say? Naahh :-)

    • Zeke

      The problem is that manufacturing a flawless 24mm x 36mm rectangle of silicon costs exponentially more than a 15.6mm x 23.6mm one, and there isn’t anything that’s likely to change that soon.

      People are used to thinking in terms of Moore’s Law, but the driver behind Moore’s Law is miniaturization. Cost per wafer is actually going UP.

  • Rasksasa

    I have always felt that DX was a dead format from the get go. In my opinion it was just a means of getting a cheaper camera to the consumer without a true long term plan to keep it there forever. What can a DX camera do that a FX cannot? Well nothing much actually, put it in the firmware to get a 1.5x crop and you have a DX crop from a FX sensor – all the pro camera have them. Pop in a FX lens on a DX is no problem. What can a FX do that a DX cannot? well other then the obvious 1x crop factor, the DoF which even after 6 years on the D200 I still do not like it since I came from the 35mm film era. Invest in a DX lens? Why? They cost nearly the same as a FX lens of the same class but only a FX lens in interchangable to a DX body but not vice versa.

    I have only invested in FX lenses with the exception of my 10-20mm sigma lens to get to the ultra wide angle – so you can say I am hedging my bets on FX rather then DX here.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryancatlett Ryan

      I think you’re right. I started on my dad’s old EM and some Canons. When I went to digital I thought I’ll stick with Nikon cause there is many decades worth of lenses that will work on any Nikon body. My next thought was DX specific or legacy/full frame lenses – why would I pay almost the same for lenses only compatible with one group of bodies (DX) when I could start acquiring old MF lenses, the AF-D lenses and the full frame G lenses which I could use on DX, film bodies and eventually FX (at the time i assumed there’d be an FX in the future). So every lens I have now – other than the 18-55 I still have from my D60, is full frame ready.

    • El Aura

      Apart from the cheaper bodies (and FX will not go down to $500 any time soon), DX simply has more compact lenses (and thus also cheaper lenses).

    • http://towardsperfectfutures.wordpress.com/ Gideon D.

      I think this was more true in the early days of DSLRs than it is now. Why? Back then you had people moving on from film with many full-frame lenses. Yet, many of those lenses will simply lack the resolution and certainly the corner sharpness for the newer FX cameras. So ‘upgrading’ to FX often means buying new lenses.

      Meanwhile, DX has gotten a lot better than it was then. High ISO, dynamic range, resolution, all have improved, making DOF field control and large viewfinders perhaps the major advantages of FX, with DX now having ‘enough’ of other qualities for many people.

      I too would like an FX camera! But DX was, is and will be more convenient as the gear is so much smaller for the same quality. Lower quality FX gear just makes little sense of these new cameras, though DX’s small image sensor makes decent lenses a lot cheaper to make. Even FX lenses work better on it often!

      DX needs prime portrait and wide-angle lenses, no doubt. Yet not having made them for DX makes this an artificial advantage of FX . I honestly believe they will come and be good enough, the way the 35mm f/1.8 is good enough, ie very good in a small package.

      BTW they were trying to migrate film to APS (DX size) before digital swept film away. In some ways DX is the continuation of that and hense, not just a compromise, but a modernisation. At any rate, FX gear is just too heavy and expensive for me to totally switch to it and it looks that way for some years to come. Perhaps FX with a few special lenses and mostly DX gear for general usage looks like a plan for me.

      DX= 35mm for the new generation.
      FX= Medium Format of our time, still important, but mostly a pro concern.
      MF= Large format.

      Formats have shrunk, yet quality has gotten better. The further future may be M4/3 only, or CX, but living now, I see DX as the best compromise and it seems that’s how 90% of buyers see it, too, which makes FX not an upgrade, but a specialist application format, however ubiquitous it once was with the easier to design, lower resolution lenses of the film days.

  • http://Nowebsite Nikom

    You think and it becomes a rumour.
    I think Nikon is making a DX format Nikon 1 V3.

  • RD

    So am I the only one who is wondering which lens is displayed in the picture on top of this post? Does anyone know?

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryancatlett Ryan

      Looks sorta like the 80-200 AFS but I’m not certain.

      • RD

        hmm, don’t think so…
        Maybe it’s just nothing, but maybe (who knows) this is a new lens?
        Although I do not know every single Nikon-lens, but I cannot recall any existing Nikon-lens with this specific form-factor as displayed the picture:
        – zoom-ring or grip
        – distance-window (slightly recessed)
        – focus-ring / grip (wider in diameter)
        – focus-button
        I’m just curious, maybe the Admin can elaborate on this? :-)

      • Rob

        I found it funny that these are the two lenses I shot with today! It’s the 200-400 though.

    • Sven
      • RD

        Hi Rob and Sven, it looks like you are both right!
        So it is “only” an existing lens.
        Thanx for clarifying.

  • Deep Lurker

    DX isn’t dead. There’s no question that Nikon will release a D5200, a D7100, and further models in the D3x00, D5x00, and D7x00 series. I figure at least three camera generations.

    The only question is whether pro-DX is dead.

    Will Nikon come out with a D400 that’s a real D300s successor?
    (I think they will, and it would be uncommonly stupid of Nikon not to. But “uncommonly stupid” doesn’t guarantee that they won’t.)

    Will Nikon come out with new especially-for-DX lenses above the kit level? A 16-85mm f/4 DX? A 60mm f/1.4G DX portrait lens? The various fast & wide primes that Thom Hogan and his Wide Angle Warlocks have been clamoring for? Various others that have been mentioned on occasion?
    (Here I’m more doubtful. Nikon might produce one or two of these, but then again they might not.)

    • Angelus

      Agreed!!

    • astroholic

      Seriously? Between the 50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.4 you can’t walk backwards or forwards a few steps?

      • Deep Lurker

        If you’re shooting the 50mm at 7 feet, that works out to 12 feet with the 85mm. No big deal, except that if you’re indoors, you might not have the extra 5 feet of space to back up.

        There’s also the issue of persepctive, for those who worry about such things. 50mm on DX (75mm full-frame equivalent) is on the short end for portrait, and 85mm (125mm FF equivalent) is on the long end. I can see a DX portrait lens with a “goldilocks” focal length like 60mm (90mm FF equivalent) as being very desirable.

        • Gideon D.

          Totally true, a portrait lens needs to be comfortable, so far DX has yet to have a suitable length prime that doesn’t need these contortions. I have more luck with my 2.8 zooms (35-70mm and 17-55mm) than primes in comfortable portrait taking.

  • http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com Ron Scubadiver

    DX isn’t dead, but pro DX is on life support. I don’t expect a D400 ever. A small fast DX wide angle prime is badly needed.

  • http://stephenpatterson.com stephen patterson

    In some important ways DX is a better choice than FX when the subject is framed exactly the same with each format, for instance side by side. The focal length is obviously shorter when using DX, so more depth of field when shooting landscapes and other subjects that require a great extent of sharpness through the range. For the “Sweet Spot” I use mainly” full frame”, lenses, for edge to edge sharpness, with the exception of my DX 16-85. I have tested the 70-200 against my 70-300 (105 – 450 relative focal length without extenders, when compared to FX so I don’t have to lug the heavy stuff around ) not enough difference to worry about, they are virtually the same from f5.6 – 22 when using DX.

    • El Aura

      For the same photon shot noise and the same diffraction blur (and the same shutter speed), DOF is the same on all formats. I don’t know what makes it difficult for people to accept this simple applications of the law of physics.

      Do they find it mind-boggling that is (a) possible and (b) such a simple result that DOF (for the same FOV) is achieved at f-stops inversely proportional to the crop factor? Or that the same applies to diffraction blur? And do they find it unbelievable that a giving a sensor half the size of another twice as much light density results in the same photon shot noise?

      • Rob

        What did your post have to do with his aside from mentioning DOF? Or did you just use it as an excuse to rant and try to sound smart? Slightly rewording a wikipedia article does not make one smart. But since it contained words that 99% of photographers don’t use or even care about, I’m sure you thought it did. Unfortunately, nobody cares.

        • El Aura

          If you read the falsehood that DOF being larger on DX is an advantage five times everyday, you start wondering why they refuse to accept the truth.

          Can you answer me that question?

  • AM

    No estaba muerto, estaba de parranda♪♪♪
    (It wasn’t dead but partying♪♪♪)

  • nikruhtarded

    I think Nikon wants us to switch to canon to speed up their pending bankruptcy

  • Noora- D90s

    I think we need
    D90s or D90x
    D7100 or 8000
    D400 or 500
    I need something like d90 but not D7000

    I hope something good come on October or even early 2013
    I don’t need the FX camera’s
    Who agree with me

    • El Aura

      The D90 was a great camera on the performance vs. price ratio when it came out. But what would a D90s or D90x do better than a D7000 (or rather D7100 or a D5200)?

  • I’m no pussy!

    DX is for pussies.

  • morg

    I will decide between a D400 (if it ever comes) and a D600 but for now I will continue to shoot with my D200.Tired of waiting!

  • Nikon Camera

    Nikon has been using the state-of-the-art Sony sensor only to make cheap and popular cameras (i.e. D3200 and D600). It seems the goal is only profit now. More cheap cameras, more sales.

    I hope I am wrong but I don’t think prosumer cameras (including the D400) will be a priority for Nikon any time soon. At least until Nikon make a reasonable amount of money.

  • http://micahmedia.com Micah

    …admin, your content gets better and better as time goes on.

    But the comments get worse and worse. I know you don’t want to do a registration thing, but can you at least do some cleanup? It detracts from your blog quite a bit.

  • GrumpyDiver

    Nikon made a lot of money in the pre-digital days using a single format, i.e. 35mm in their SLR line. The key differentiator was features; the F line of cameras was high end, while the Nikkormat line was at the bottom end of the food chain, with fewer features. Amateur and pro lenses were also available.

    Moving on to the current debate; the DX line was launched because of the cost of sensors. A full frame sensor is about 2.4 times larger than a DX sensor. Add to that yield issues (fewer full frame sensors fit on a silicon wafer than DX do. There are yield issues (more liklihood of unusable parts from production problems); in the end this basic, but expensive component in a FX camera is going to be three to four times more expensive than for DX. Going to a larger wafer diameter as fab upgrades head in this direction will drop the absolute cost of a sensor, but there will always be a significant cost advantage to the DX size.

    This means that while Nikon has clearly signaled that the higher end amateur market is going to be addressed with the FX format through the introduction of the D600, the entry level and mid-range is clearly going to be based on a smaller sensor. The question remains – is this market going to be served by the DX or CX size?

    • http://www.ingramphotographicart.com Jon Ingram

      @ GrumpyDiver. Possibly the most intelligent comment so far…

  • Plug

    I agree in some ways but this set of comments has generally been clean and the (pythonesque) humour particularly enjoyable. The intolerance of some about others views is unconstructive and lacking in intelligence, but it takes all kinds. Censorship needs to be applied very carefully.

    • Plug

      @ Micah, that is.

  • http://www.adventuresofacarryon.com Penny Sadler

    I use a Nikon D5000. Purchased two years ago and so far it is still working for me.
    No serious issues. And most FX lenses work fine with it.
    I like the price tag on the DX cameras and they are light weight. Definitely not burying mine.

  • SNRatio

    “Purely pro” DX may be dead, in fact since the semi-pro D300 was introduced. And that’s just natural, as new generations of lenses get better and better on the full FF frame. DX is an FX crop, and a such may never be an equivalent alternative when the job can be done with FX.

    Because there are so many occasions when DX can do the job adequately or even better (think of using a 135/2 on DX vs a 200/2 on FX for a job, for example, or 85 vs 135), I think there is a future for semi-pro DX – if the camera makers go for it. This is to a large extent a question of ROI.

    And for a semi-pro camera to sell really well today, it must add something perceived as unique – I’m not sure Nikon will cater for people like me mostly wanting an D300 upgrade as DX backup body for a pro/semi-pro FX #1 body.

    Better video is an obvious application area – but that’s troublesome in a pro lineup because things change so fast. It’s the sensor and processing pipeline that has to distinguish a “D400″ from the D800, and if Nikon can’t get it good enough (and reasonably cheap) they won’t release it. There is no doubt NIkon has lost some sales from not having a real D300 sucessor out, but they clearly don’t consider that so much of a problem.

  • DXDeath

    DX will eventually be mirrorless only.

    I once thought DX was ok until I went FX, never going back.

  • KB

    This whole debate would be hilarious if it wasn’t so deeply, utterly pathetic. Everybody is so caught up in the mindless upgrade mentality that nobody is sufficiently satisfied with what they have to get up off their arses and actually take some pictures.

    “Ooohhh, I would be a great photographer if only I could shoot 20 frames per second at ISO 102,000…because obviously my crap images are not down to lack of talent or willingness to actually spend some time working at my craft. I mean some of these cameras haven’t been updated for at least 9 months – how can I possibly be expected to work with tools that come from all the way back in 2011??”

    Give me a break. The last time I checked, my D7000 was still capable of doing things that photographers 10 years ago would have seen as science fiction. And don’t get me started on the ‘inadequate’ choice of lenses in the DX universe. Seriously, tell me which lenses are missing to the extent that your innate creativity is being stifled? And if Nikon released those lenses you would really be in trouble becaue you’d have to find some other reason to sit at your computer whining rather than getting on with taking photographs. All this has nothing whatsoever to do with photography.

    Is anybody really surprised that companies like Nikon don’t listen to the ‘advice’ they get from computer jockeys whose whole raisin d’être is to find fault and look for reasons why they can’t take good photographs rather the reasons for why they can. God help us if they ever start to base their business plans on the witterings of photo websites…

    • KB

      That should be “raison d’être” not “raisin” obviously…Damn that auto spell-check…

      • Cynog Ap Brychan

        Awwww, I liked “raisin d’etre” – the grape to be :)

    • Mike

      I’m still having too much fun with my D7000, that D600 can wait. I’m seeing shots from famous pros using micro four thirds or even smaller sensors and I’m thinking I’d rather learn how to do that, than to start dumping my money into an FX system.

      The only guy that is drooling all over FF sensors is Ken Rockwell and his photos look like sh*t.

      The DX line-up is great.

      zooms:
      Tokina 11-16/2.8 – $700
      Nikon 17-55/2.8 – $900 (second hand)
      Tokina 50-135/2.8 – $500 (second hand)

      primes:
      10.5/2.8
      35/1.8 -> would like to upgrade it to the 28/1.8
      50/1.4 -> don’t really use this focal length :/
      85/1.8 -> prob. my favorite prime

      really wish they would come out with a 24/1.8 or 20/1.8 DX prime.

  • http://www.ingramphotographicart.com Jon Ingram

    well, I for one would like to keep the DX format stick around for a while. I’ll admit fx has it’s advantages, but most of the lenses and camera bodies are extremely expensive and quite large (Nevertheless, I own mostly fx lenses.., but still). I have a Dx kit that I use for backpacking, and I would really like to see more lenses for dx, like a super-wide angle 1.8 or 2.8 prime. I’m not convinced the small mirrorless systems have similar quality, and ultimately the smaller lens size required for mirrorless systems may present engineering challenges that may hinder IQ for high resolution sensors.

  • Scalesusa

    Nikon needs some better FF lenses. Something to compete with the Canon 100-400mmL or 400mm f/5.6L, or the 135mmL, or the 24-105mmL.

    I sold my D800 when I found out about the lens situation for FF. Nikon does have 3 or 4 first line lenses, but they need more.

    • treehaus

      bullshit

    • Pablo Ricasso

      That has to be the most trollish comment I read this week.
      Canon has a couple good lenses and a lot of good telephotos.
      Nikon has a lot of good lenses and some good telephotos.

    • RC

      What are you smoking? Nikon has the 24-120mm F4, and I like that range better than Canon’s 24-105.

  • Anonymous Maximus

    If Nikon came out with a $1700 & 20mp new sensor D400 in D800-like form factor & functioning and having high-iso performance as good as a D700 enabling 8 fps, then can anyone show me a reason not to buy it.

    There will only be a few & little advantage of FX over DX left, the gap will narrow, while DX will offer price & lens size advantages.

    * Viewfinder: FX will be better, but not by a great margin
    * High-iso: New FX series will be still better, but DX will be more than enough
    * Resolution: FX will have more room to improve, but circa-20mp DX will be good enough for most purposes
    * DoF: Slight difference may be an advantage or the opposite depending on occasion
    * Wide angle: No problem since Nikkor 10-24mm & Tokina 11-16mm are available

    All I say is D400, to be seen as the DX version of D800. Then mid-amateur D7000 & D5200 may merge into a single line to be called D6000 or D8000 having a swivel LCD.

    • EnPassant

      $1700 for a “D800″ with a DX-sensor is a dream just like the $1500rumor for D600. We all know the answer for that. I don’t doubt the price for such a camera will be about the same price as D600 or even a bit more expensive.

  • Brook

    Again, it’s about EVF’s and size. Size matters, and it’s pretty funny that even a D32oo is bigger than a Nikon EM, or FM3, and I still don’t fully understand why they can’t make a digital body that is thinner front-to-back, and clearly EVF’s would enable this. I’m not sure why people aren’t talking more about that, and I’m sad to see that my above comment didn’t inspire more conversation, but I’ve also had a chance to evolve my thoughts.

    I do love Nikon and feel an emotional attachment to the brand, I’ve shot with them for years and photography is my art, business, obsession and passion and naturally I’ve become attached to the incredible tools Nikon has designed and manufactured. I have used Nikon cameras for 25 years, I started with an 2020, then got an F3, then an F100, and entered digital with a D200 followed by a D300, which I sold to buy a Panasonic GH2 for video. People dismiss video in DSLR’s but I do not, there are definitely times when I want and need to capture my world on video. I am not impressed by the still capabilities of the GH2 and only see it as “good enough” for when I need to shoot stills, but guess what? I still shoot film! I still shoot with the F100 and a Leica, and a Rolleiflex and even 4×5, so maybe I’m a bit of an outlier. Auto focus is not a huge selling point for me, so I’m not worried about that as much as it seems other people are. I find it incredibly useful and even fun to use my Nikon and Leica and Voigtlander lenses on my GH2, as well as the little workhorse Panasonic 20mm F1.7. I can’t financially justify a DX or FX Nikon digital body right now, and the GH2, and I wouldn’t be able to use the beloved 3rd party lenses mentioned above on the Nikon, either.

    What would excite me about Nikon enough to get me to “come home”? Easy: a robust and compact, mirrorless FX, but I’d buy into a mirrorless DX, no problem, if it delivered better image quality than NEX or M4/3, and matched or exceeded the video quality and features on those other systems. On a mirrorless FX or DX body, I could mount my Leica lenses and whatever lens I found in a dusty old store or estate sale or grandfather’s closet and joyfully make pictures. IT’S NOT ALL ABOUT AUTOFOCUS, good lord! Just give me excellent and obvious focus confirmation in the viewfinder, or super high detailed zoom-in mode to confirm focus. If optical viewfinders are so beloved and important to the still shooter, than divide the camera lines: make the absolute best still camera you can make that makes no compromises for video that could affect dynamic range or color depth or sensitivity, and then make the best compact and robust video camera you can make. Nikon is in such a great position to do this because they do not have a higher end video division to worry about undermining.

    I’m tempted to think that the D4oo is going to be…no, scratch that, I’ll tell you what I want it to be. You know that full frame fixed lens Sony that was just announced, the RX1? Well, c’mon, let’s face it, that is Sony’s answer to the Fuji X100, it’s fixed lens now but will be interchangeable in a year. I really want that camera! More specifically, I want the interchangeable version now, at a cheaper price :) Leica bodies are too expensive, not just for me, but in general, in my opinion. Sony is crippling the full, available video potential on their “still” cameras, probably to protect their dedicated and more expensive video cameras, but Panasonic isn’t doing that, and is hackable, so I’m with Panasonic. Nikon could enter the video realm in a bigger and more important way than they are, and I’m not sure why they aren’t. Give me an RX1 type camera made by Nikon, and I’m in! Also, they should hire Thom Hogan and get this party started, for reals, son! Nikon is the only one out of Sony and Canon and even Panasonic that doesn’t have to worry about hurting their higher end and more expensive video divisions and should be taking chances and aggressively disrupting things. I’ve rambled long enough and, yes, I do not know how to use paragraphs, so forgive me. I hope everyone that’s still in the saturday time zone is having a good one :)

    • Zeke

      “…and I still don’t fully understand why they can’t make a digital body that is thinner front-to-back, and clearly EVF’s would enable this.”

      The front-to-back thickness is constrained by the F-mount itself. Even if you tossed the mirror, the distance from the lens mounting flange to the image sensor must remain 46.5mm for F-mount optics to work.

      • Brook

        It’s more than just a flange issue because f-mount film bodies are thinner, just pick up an F6 and you’ll notice it’s thinner, immediately. A mirror less F-mount could use an adaptor to accommodate lenses designed for the flange considerations of the mirror box cameras, and then new f-mount lenses could be designed for mirror less FX or DX formats that should be smaller and more compact and possibly optically superior. I’m not sure if this is true, but I think I’ve heard that having a shorter distance from the rear lens element in Leicas to the film/sensor can contribute to better sharpness and contrast, but maybe I dreamed that up :) Recently I worked on a smal independent film that used a Sony NEX-5n for an interior car mount, and I was blown away by its thinness and image quality, so it’s clear that, at the very least, DX could be much, much thinner if in a mirror less body. I don’t think it’s amateur of if, but when. Again, I didn’t actually ever want to stop using Nikon, and would love to again, but they just aren’t offering the products that I can really use right now. I went into my pro shop here in Portland and tricked out a D600 with a zeiss lens and a zacuto finder on the back and it was almost comical compared to my GH2 with an EVF. Manually focusing a modern Nikon AF lens feels like a joke. Right now video takes priority in the digital realm, for me. And my workflow both prefers and allows for me to use 35mm “full-frame” :) FILM for stills, but sometimes workflow considerations do demand me to shoot digital stills and for those times I wish I still had a Nikon. The image files I got from both my D200 and D300 were more beautiful than the stills from the GH2, in my opinion. Also, I hear people claiming in forums that 14-bit over 12-bit isn’t noticeable, but I disagree, I’ve seen it, and, further, give us 16-bit sensors in DX and FX, AND give us a monochrom sensor option, too. if you can’t see the benefit of no bayer array and AA filter in Leica Monochrom files than you are BLIND!! Oh, and I want a carbon-fibre Rolleiflex with a 6×6 Foveon-style sensor, too, but one step at a time, I’m not greedy:)

        • Rob

          You want Nikon to introduce ANOTHER line of lenses just so you can have a camera 0.5cm thinner? Really???

          • Brook

            What do you mean? I think a mirror less f-mount would be substantially thinner than mirror-box F-mount, though I did look up camera dimensions at the Nikon USA site and a both the D3200 AND a D600 are smaller than an F6. Sue me :)

            • EnPassant

              If Nikon ever release a mirror-less DX or FX camera with a short flange distance it will DEFINITELY NOT have the F-mount!

              Reason is that F-mount lenses then would not focus to infinity and all be mostly useless on such a body. Instead Nikon would make a new modern mount and add F-mount-compatibility with an adapter just like they did with the Nikon1 system.

        • EnPassant

          Yes it is more. The sensor and the display is thicker than film, pressure-plate and back of a traditional cameras for film. Just compare the the thickness of Leica’s analog and digital M cameras. That difference in thickness is what is needed.

          Traditional camera systems can NEVER be as thin as their film predecessors. The only way to make cameras thin is with a completely new mirrorless system with new lenses.

          Iif you want an as thin as possible body you should look at the mirrorless systems. For example the new Sony NEX-6 that should use a newer version of the 16 MP sensor in D7000 and D5100.

    • Charlie

      For me it’s not the about the DX vs FX issue. For me, it’s about the best camera for the job at hand. Both have their strengths and weakness. Currently I’m using a D80 I got new right after the D90 was released. My plan is to get the D600 and I will keep my D80 and use both. My D80 works for what it was designed to do and does it very well especially for 6 yr old technology and 4 yrs old physically. I don’t see DX dying out any time soon. There are professional photographers that use both formats and I don’t hear any of them cor mplaining about one or the other. I also don’t see professional photographers wasting their time complaing about what their respective brand does or does not release. If y’all truely are professional, then y’all have more time to bitch about what your respective brand is doing and should be doing, then you have no business being a pro photographer.

      • RC

        Let’s see what you say AFTER you get a D600. I don’t think you’ll be using both. I also don’t think it’s 6-year-old technology. The D80 was based on the D70, and that camera came out in 2004.

        I upgraded to a D600 from a D300, and the difference is night and day. The D600 is so much quicker and more accurate that there’s no way I’m going back.

        • RC

          No, wait. I should say the D80 is based on technology from the D100, which came out in 2002! We’re talking about 12-year-old technology that you’ve got in your D80! =)

  • 1@1.com

    I don’t really care if my camera has a dx or an ff sensor or one the size of a pinhead. As long as my lenses perform at the focal I want based on what is available (as well as the max apertures I want) and that my images look the way I want.

    FF looks better than DX to me…but DX is still really great. The difference between the two is not that huge and both are great at getting images.

    I see samples with a 200 2/8 VR on FF from some people and they suck! It isn’t always about the equipment but about skill too. Having said that you have to have something of acceptable quality… low noise aside (which is the biggest difference) DX and FX are both wonderful.

  • Back to top