optimaforever....exactly right....who wants to talk about silly camera topics on a photo forum when we can talk football!!.....Rooooooll Tiiiiiide... Roooooolll!!!!!

Yeah you are totally right optimaforever. This is still a very small forum and it would be nice if more people contributed thread topics other than just me and bmxdad :^(

I think the whole "Versus" and "What's the Best" deserve their own sections!

""Why FX is a dead format."

For me, simply because....no mon...no fun!!

I think you've got them all, optima. I'm addicted, too. Maybe stuck in the rut of repeating myself every time one of these threads comes up. I think it's fun, and even my wife laughed at Niko's tilt-sh*t toilet plunger lens comment last night. Oh, no—am I turning this into another Niko-focused thread?

Lol
I love the title of this thread; full provocating :D
Being lurking this forum for months now, I can see a trend here:
FX vs DX threads like this one;
Low Mp High ISO vs High Mp Low ISO dilemma threads;
Life after the D700 threads;
I bought a big lens how am I gonna tell my wife type threads;
what's the best lens for my camera threads (again FX vs DX smells);
Nikodoby focused threads :D ;
and of course the old Can(ik)on war threads (5DmkII vs D700, 7D vs D300s, 1DmkIV vs D3s, etc.)

All in all, I can't understand why I'm still here reading the same kind of threads for months now, but the truth is I'm addicted now to nikon rumors and this forum :D

What I would really like is something like Nikon 35 Ti type digital camera with D3 FX sensor, uncompromised optical design in a compact body.
I do not see any reason for exchangeable lenses in compact cameras; if you want it go for DSLR, DX or FX no matter.

It's obvious that if the coolpix P1DX is real, it's going to have a non interchangeable zoom with probably something similar to the 18-55, however I believe they could make a different focal length in order to make the lens smaller, not sure how all this works.

it wouldn't be "coolpix" if it had the F mount.. and there would be no point to it IMO. The idea is to make DX affordable in a all-in-one compact point and shoot

Dont know if that P1DX is true.. But would be nice to have a Nikon like the olympus E-P1..Doubt that it will happen though..
There is too much that still needs to be done in DX and FX ranges...

If the Coolpix P1DX is real and it somehow has an F-mount, then DX will get a big boost.

FX is not going to die, it's gonna be more and more popular as it gets cheaper. The 5D2 is a good example... in a few years I guess Nikon will sell their FX at about the same price of the 5D2 now and we are eventually going to sell smaller, less pro, FX bodies such as a brand of something like a D90 with FX sensor.

However, it doesn't mean DX is dying. DX will stay for a long time because it's always going to be cheaper than FX and when some will need the 1.5 crop with telephotos.

I believe that even if all the DSLR becomes FX, we are going to have DX compacts... Anyway... DX will stay for AT LEAST 10 more years, so saying it's dying is a bit inaccurate considering how fast technology evolves today.

So here we go again, FX DX MX blah … blah … blah …
DX is cheaper for one thing, it will always be cheaper because it requires smaller lenses (smaller expensive optical glass elements) and it has smaller sensors and built in filters. And it is lighter.
DX has enough resolution and density even for professional work, 6 Mpix is enough for an average full page newspaper picture (HQ monitors have no more then 2Mpix) and even best quality magazines do not require more then 12 Mpix, resolution all current Nikon DX cameras have without cropping.
And for cropping you can go for D3x or you could use longer lenses, much easier, lighter and cheaper on DX.
Let us take Nikon 70-200 for example, fantastic on DX but not so great on FX (infamous corner issues) and it is 105-300 FX equivalent on DX, and if you use TC-17 it gives you about 180-500 and there is nothing even close in FX world (200-400 costs 3 times as much).
For an average amateur not willing to spend more then 2000$ on a camera set DX is a great choice.
IMHO even professionals should have D300 and D700 set, D300 for convenience and D700 for low light shooting.

"DX is not dead, and is neither going to be soon - as it has a great price/delivery factor. FX OTOH is never going to be a dominating standard, it is and will be a niche format - IMO, used mostly by professionals in areas not related to wildlife."

That pretty much sums it up (again). The average consumer, as well as wildlife shooters will use DX. That's he majority of the market right there. The FX users, as mentioned are a niche market. Just go to a local theme park or zoo ( I work in one) and see all of the DSLR's carried around by thousands of people on a daily basis. Each day, I see all kinds of DSLR's from every company although currently Nikon seems to be in the majority. Every DX model comes through every day. It's special when you see anyone with an FX. I mean it's rather rare. And remember, these are people from all over the world and I talk to them. Some have even let me hold their cameras.

The few people who have FX cameras are either a). because of a certain type of work that they do and that just happens to be their camera or b). more frequently as adamz mentioned, they wanted the top of the line and now have more camera than they can possibly use.

Oh and yeah, the same lenses on FX give a very different FOV than they do on DX. I've seen it and a wildlife shooter would actually be at a disadvantage.

soap - once again, to get the same reach on FX the density must be at least as high as on D3x - I presume we agree on this; therefor why do I need to buy a FX camera, if can get at least the same results on DX for a margin of FX price. From the efficiency point of view, there's simply no sens to do this, unless to show everybody that I have a nice camera and have no idea about wildlife photography. Once again, I'm not saying that D3x is a bad camera, it's just not a tool for wildlife photography. OTOH D3 will work quite good, once You have a good set of long-range lenses. So just to sum up this topic, DX is not dead, and is neither going to be soon - as it has a great price/delivery factor. FX OTOH is never going to be a dominating standard, it is and will be a niche format - IMO, used mostly by professionals in areas not related to wildlife.

I don't recall either adamz or myself stating that FX or anything was a "technical limitation". In fact, I believe the post above yours says something to the effect of "Does this mean that FX has no advantages over DX? No, that would be silly". Oops my mistake, that's exactly what it says.

Soap, I'm sure you can do some great photography, or else you wouldn't be on here. My question is, how much wildlife stuff do you do? How well can you actually relate to what we're really talking about? It's one thing to point out technical reasons, it's another thing to actually apply those to a specific type of photography.

Adamz - and that is a reflection on what? There is no reason to expect it to stay that way much longer. A FX sensor is nothing more than a DX sensor plus the addition of extra pixels surrounding the DX sensor. None of the advantage you and Gentoo are hailing as inherit benefits of the DX sensor are anything other than examples of Nikon's poor implementation to date - they are not technical limitations, period.

Adamz, exactly on point! I wasn't trying to "do the correct math" but was attempting to make a point. You said it better than I could have.

I repeat once again, this is one advantage (not to mention the 2nd one adamz just mentioned) that DX has over FX. Does this mean that FX has no advantages over DX? No, that would be silly to say that but that wasn't question.

soap - the only one FX camera that has the same pixel density to even the cheapest DX D5000 is D3x, which is in it's best mode slower than the cheapest from Nikon lineup not to mention cameras like d300 and the fact that for the price of d3x You can have d300+grip+300/2.8vr+TC17+at least 6 good quality CF. Moreover, for the price of D3x with 300/2.8, You could actually have a d300(with all the accessories above)+Nikon 600/f4, and it's still gonna be faster than D3x, with almost the same weather sealing. So I agree with Gentoo, that DX is a blessing for all wildlife photographers.

Gentoo - you're missing the fundamental math.
A FX sensor at the same pixel density of a DX sensor allows the same 1.5 crop (and yes, it is forced, as you have no option on a DX camera - be it a desirable trait for your line of work or not.) if you want it - and full FoV if you want.

"People keep saying "DX has its advantages" - but what are they?
Given a FX sensor with the same pixel density as your DX sensor you can crop yourself to "zoom", no need to have the crop forced upon you."

When you do wildlife, the crop is not "forced" upon you, rather it's a blessing. So for wildlife shooters, one advantage is the "forced" crop factor which eliminates some of the cropping required for most wildlife shots (especially birds). When doing this type of shooting, you're always going to do some cropping and as we all know, the closer you have to crop, the more quality you will lose. With a full frame frame sensor, one would almost be required to use a minimum of 500mm, where as DX allows us to get away with a minimum of 300mm.

Let me define what I mean by wildlife. I'm not talking about the tame animals one can see in a city park. Pigeons are feral, warblers and sandpipers are wild.

People keep saying "DX has its advantages" - but what are they?
Given a FX sensor with the same pixel density as your DX sensor you can crop yourself to "zoom", no need to have the crop forced upon you.

This was a dead post, why wake it up? To "cover all focal lengths that are worth covering" means that you should have 10-400 zoom lens in a compact camera body ... very unlikely IMHO until glass is replaced by something very much different ...

"cover all focal lengths that are worth covering"

Define that. That's highly subjective.

@ heartyfisher "I think Nikon will be releasing DX format cameras that are in the D3 pro level soon as well as glass to complement that camera"
WOW a Dx camera at pro level!? That's nothing new....wasn't that the D1, D2, and even the D300?
If any manufacturer tomorrow puts out a compact and sensor with the speed, image quality (res, color, dynamic range,ISO)and non TTL viewfinder at the same level as a pro DSLR, wouldn't that make this whole discussion almost pointless. It may sound technical fantasy at the present, but it is likely in the future all digital cameras will be compact sized with a versatile zoom lens (or a few primes/zooms on a rotatable dial) to cover all focal lengths that are worth covering.

so it's pretty much the same case with me and sony, I love a900 as You can really feel the spirit of minolta in it - which was my first slr, and I've loved it, but I also love Nikon ergonomics and since I've finally pretty much build up my photo bag (one more lens and it will be full tailored to my needs) so I just hope that Nikon will release some goodies this year and at least keep the distance from sony at current level, if not there's gonna be some changes in the market share of 3 biggest players

I really only considered Canon for bird photography only as Canon has a lens (400mm 5.6) that Nikon has no competitor for. But then I decided against it. Mainly because I shoot wildlife in RAW and I'd have to get more software. I also have a good investment in Nikon Glass, true I could get adapters and lose AF to use the Nikon lenses on Canon but it doesn't seem worth it.