Considering the that current 24MP sensor that Sony has on the market cannot shoot video, I'm not sure how it would fix rolling shutter???

I would like to see one alongside the d700 as a 5dmkII killer. 24mpix (taking the sony sensor), 1080p with good video control, and a fixed rolling shutter.

I would see a full frame D90 (sub $1500) as a perfect transition camera. I think I am a typical D90 owner in that I can live with the crop sensor but want a full frame camera with 6400 ISO capability but don't need all of the extra bells, whistles, and associated cost of a D700 or D3. A full frame D90 that would "switch" to DX when I attach my existing DX glass would allow me to get use out of my initial existing lenses and allow me to (and actually encourage me) to invest in FX lenses in time.

Say what you will about DX and DX lenses - until the the economics of producing the larger FX sensor changes dramatically, smaller is cheaper and DX will remain with us. Nevertheless, I'll be a very happy guy when that FX D90-type camera arrives!

DX also has downsides for wildlife photography adamz. Many kinds of wildlife tend to be most active at dawn and dusk, when the light is not ideal. With DX sensors suffering in terms of noise and loss of dynamic range at ISO800-1600 they almost become unusable for large sell-able prints. Not saying that you cannot get good results, but with the D300 I am often disappointed with ISO over 800. I may lose some reach with FX, but what I gain in terms of the time of day I can shoot with usable shutter speeds, the loss of the crop factor is forgivable.

have to dissagree with You, it all depends on price. there are ppl who will get D90 FX and will pay the higher price, and there are ppl for whom d90dx is enough, there are also ppl who buy d700 with kit lens and never upgrade their glass. above of all of this is one, signle and most important factor - PRICE. if dx kit will make You save $200 or more, than there will be a lot of ppl who wouldn't care about the bigger and better FX glass.

as for wildlife photography, sure in the analog times ppl didn't used 1.5 crop, but at the beginning of 19th centure ppl didn't used automatic transitions. dx factor has a lot of pros for wildlifer, and only the (mostly) high iso factor of FX sensor can outshine the crop mode, as any one who ever used a 500mm (or longer) lens will say that the shorter time the better

towen7 said:
I don't understand the argument that a full-fram D90 would kill DX.

If a full frame "D90" existed then it would sell like crazy just like the first under $1000 DSLR did for canon. It took Nikon about a year or so to respond with the D70. You can use FX lenses with a DX body but you can't really use DX glass on an FX body. So people who buy an FX "D90" wouldn't want to buy DX lenses. If you currently have a D5000 and you want to move up to the FX body later then you'd buy the D5000 but also only buy FX lenses so that you're not "stuck" with a camera bag full of "worthless" DX glass.

Jonny the entry level cameras like the D3000 will probably "transform" into something smaller and lighter like EVIL cameras. So in essence the entry level DSLRs would start at the D90 range.

NikoDoby said:
I still don't buy the "DX is smaller cheaper than FX" argument. How is the 35mm DX lens smaller and cheaper than the 50mm FX Nikkor? 35mm (FX) lenses have been around for what something like 50 years and during that time nobody complained about the "reach" not being enough. Wildlife photographers did just fine without any 1.5 cropping.

If cropping was so important than why hasn't Olympus become a dominating force with their 2X lenses? Their lenses are smaller than FX, yes, but they are also more expensive. Quality glass is quality glass and whether it's FX or DX has nothing to do with it.

What happens to DX if Nikon's patents for smaller and higher crop lenses become a reality? So then you'll have FX lens with "1X" crop, DX with only a 1.5X crop and then new smaller lighter 2.5X crop lenses. Those of you who want better "reach" wouldn't you go with the 2.5X lenses instead of just 1.5? That's a bigger difference than just .5 between FX and DX. And if you want more pixel density then you'll also want a 2.5X sensor too, right?

Bring on 35mm for the win! :^)

I agree, most of my lenses are 35mm type not DX. There are lots of older AF-D lenses that have great quality for a lot less than the pro full frame lenses. Many of those lenses were fine for film and still fine for FX bodies. People have this strange idea that you are wasting your money if you don't put F2.8 or faster lenses on an FX body.

I don't understand the argument that a full-fram D90 would kill DX.

And the fact that they've been producing FX lenses for so many years makes it easier to alter designs slightly to add VR or better coatings, etc. I wasn't claiming FX lenses are more difficult or expensive to make (and definitely not telephoto—wide angle there is an argument because of the smaller image circle). My argument was based only on sensor production costs. Maybe it makes sense to put FX in a body like the D90 and have the sensor be 1/4 to 1/3 of the total cost of the camera, but does it make sense to have a full frame D3000, where the cost of the sensor might be more than half of the total cost of the camera? Not yet, anyway, because frankly I don't think the buyers of those cameras would be willing to pay for it. DX won't disappear for a long time.

I still don't buy the "DX is smaller cheaper than FX" argument. How is the 35mm DX lens smaller and cheaper than the 50mm FX Nikkor? 35mm (FX) lenses have been around for what something like 50 years and during that time nobody complained about the "reach" not being enough. Wildlife photographers did just fine without any 1.5 cropping.

If cropping was so important than why hasn't Olympus become a dominating force with their 2X lenses? Their lenses are smaller than FX, yes, but they are also more expensive. Quality glass is quality glass and whether it's FX or DX has nothing to do with it.

What happens to DX if Nikon's patents for smaller and higher crop lenses become a reality? So then you'll have FX lens with "1X" crop, DX with only a 1.5X crop and then new smaller lighter 2.5X crop lenses. Those of you who want better "reach" wouldn't you go with the 2.5X lenses instead of just 1.5? That's a bigger difference than just .5 between FX and DX. And if you want more pixel density then you'll also want a 2.5X sensor too, right?

Bring on 35mm for the win! :^)

They could also cripple it via, the same way they did lower end cameras in the film days, a 92% viewfinder.

if they ARE going to do it, it'll happen in a few years, AND it'll be using then "future" 12mpx FX sensor that would essentially be blown to the moon by the newer line of FX sensors introduced back in 2007. . .

so i wouldn't rule out a D90 equivalent with FX sensor (450 matrix metering, slower AF, etc.), and it'll probably "compete" with a D300s type DX body, but lack all of the sealing, nice view-finder options currently available in that line up . . .I would imagine. .

they'll have to cripple it somehow. . .

Nikon has been using tweaked Sony sensors and Sony just came out with new ones so maybe Nikon will use those new sensors to upgrade D-90 and other models.

That is just too many different models to make for a small manufacture like Nikon.

Thinking about this a bit more it does make sense to have the D3S/D3X lines on the D90 FX ranges as well ... May not sell as many as the D5000/G90 levels but would sure make us enthusiasts happy!

I will get 3 please.
1) D90 with the 14mp nex sensor.
2) D90 with the 12MP D3s sensor.
3) D90 with the 24MP a900/D3X sensor.

Hmmm looking at that list above .. Sure looks like a FUJI S6 pro with a 20 MP FF super CCD sensor in a D700 body. hmmm maybe that Russian camera IS a fuji.

poster said:
5) DX sensors pack more resolution into the same surface area as an FX sensor. For certain types of photography, this is beneficial and more cost effective

Really?

Right now we have 12mpx FX D700, but what if Nikon will put in the 24mpx sensor from Sony in the next update.

Really. Divide the FX pixel count by 2.25 (1.5 x 1.5) to get the number of pixels on a DX sensor with the same resolution. Even that 24MP sensor has a pixel pitch much closer to a D200 than a D300 (for those who care: 6.05 µm on the D200 and 5.94 µm on the D3x compared with 5.49 µm on the D300). Some will say it doesn't matter, but it is a difference.

I don't think DX will disappear because the production benefits are so big; cost doesn't scale linearly with area in semiconductor fabrication, so DX costs much less than 2.25x less money to manufacture than FX.

As I've said on the other threads about this, poster, I really hope you're right.

I would say it would more likely be somewhere between $1600-1800, same price that the D300 original came to the market at. Then Nikon could sell the D700 replacement for $3000 without any hesitation.

I wouldn't expect the price to be at $2000 body only, more likely $1500 range body only (same price as pro/semi-pro DX body) - at $2000 it would be to big competitor to d700

Agreed, even if there was a low cost, under $2000, FX body, I don't see DX suddenly dying off. First of all, there would still the $400-1200 price range for DX bodies, which is the part of the market that has the most sales among consumers.

I have to admit that poster's idea sounds very probable, it would boost their sales to put an affordable FF in a d90 body, and to put a d90 replacement (aka d4000 with DX sensor) - there will still be plenty of users who will not want to pay the heavy price tag of a FF. Believe me or not, there are some ppl who think DX is better than FX in many aspects. So I wouldn't be surprised what tomorrow will bring to us.

DX has been around since June 1999, when the D1 was release, so almost 11 years now, believe it or not. From a technology standpoint that is a very long time.

I would love to get my hands on a full frame camera, but frankly I'd rather stretch for the D700 than a plastic bodied camera. If I want a light weight body I'll get a EVIL camera.

From a newbie who doesn't know as much as some here have forgotten:

How long have DX Nikons been around? Not long? Seems like a massive statement of failure and smack in the chops for customers who have invested in them to drop the concept now or do anything which will precipitate their end commercially (which I don't think the above does given the market they are aimed at. Also, just because Nikon dropped DX doesn't mean Canon would which may be very important.

As Heartyfisher said above the 1.5x crop factor is a powerful seller to a certain sector of the market for the reasons stated plus for me the increased d.o.f. for macro.

5) DX sensors pack more resolution into the same surface area as an FX sensor. For certain types of photography, this is beneficial and more cost effective

Really?

Right now we have 12mpx FX D700, but what if Nikon will put in the 24mpx sensor from Sony in the next update.

I agree that sports photographers might like the crop factor, but for them speed is probably more important, so high ISO performance would win them over.

Usually people who buy beginner dslrs, they never upgrade their kit lenses, their investment into the equipment isn't that big.

FX is only heavier due to the magnesium alloy dslr bodies, you can put in an FX sensor into a plastic dslr body as well.

I don't think Nikon would shut down the DX line completely at least initially. Probably have two DX bodies. Something like D3000 and D5000.

I dont know how far a FX D90 with the D700 sensor will fly :-) I guess a bunch of people here would buy it. but the cost of FX lenses will put off many current D90/D5000 users. It would be competing with other DX cameras with the 14mp nex sensors. which will have
* almost the same ISO performance
* Higher resolution
* 1080 video
* Cheaper, lighter and smaller camera size
* Cheaper, lighter and smaller lenses
* 1.5 x for the tele enthusiasts. many non pro comsumers like the tele end.
* Higher FPS
Cant see it happening .. Would be good if it did happen. I would probably get one of each :-)