What no-one seems to appreciate is that both DX and FX are evolutions along the way. Don't get hung-up on thinking that FX is the end of the line for imaging sensors because it's the same size at 35mm. I guess the next evolution will be 24Mb '2FX' or 'FX+' or whatever the marketeers choose to call it. The only restriction on sensor physical sizes is the compatibility with the range of existing lenses. A new camera system with new lenses? Don't write the idea off.
But then, if you are a 'hobby' photographer, producing 12 or 16inch prints max, is the difference going to notice on the image? No. If you think it is then take out a mortgage and buy a Hasselblad!

Without a doubt if my ability exceeds that of my DX, I will upgrade. For that to happen, I would have to be taking much better photos than I am now and if that happened, I may even be making some money out of this hobby and so could justify it.

I'm not holding my breath....

LOL! I am just a naughty stirrer.. ! In this thread I have actually stretched the truths a bit and asserted more strongly than I actually belief.. :-) But I think its for a good cause. There is way too much sentiment expressed that FX is the better format without qualifying it. eg "The best results may be in the FX line, but the best technology clearly isn't." The best results in many cases is in the FX line but clearly in many other scenarios the DX line also has the "best results". HOWEVER, on say 95%, of the cases there is NO Difference between the result of FX vs DX if you use equally good lenses. Although as you know FX is more forgiving on lens quality.( a big plus for FX! see I am not really biased! ) .. and Yes Top Down is good. cos, without top down there would be nothing to bottom up ! ;-)

spraynpray said:
Hey Mike,

Perhaps the real problem is that you need to push those 50" prints harder... ;^/

:-)

Hi Drab,

"...what IF EVIL had a DX sized sensor and a body with the features you have come to expect of your current DX body?

"Would you go for that?

"I'll be honest. I likely wouldn't."

In all likelihood, I probably couldn't get accustomed to it, either. I did start out with a rangefinder - an Argus C44, well, actually, a Brownie Hawkeye, but that probably doesn't count.

But no, I really don't want to get use to another way of shooting.

My best,

Mike

Hey Mike,

Perhaps the real problem is that you need to push those 50" prints harder... ;^/

Mike Gunter, what IF EVIL had a DX sized sensor and a body with the features you have come to expect of your current DX body?

For that is what I see as the eventual future of crop sensors. The unleashing of their true advantages (cost, size, LENS SIZE) by removing the legacy F-mount limitations. This is somewhere FX could not go very easily.

Would you go for that?

EDIT:
I'll be honest. I likely wouldn't. I love the IDEA, but I bet I wouldn't move. I'm too set in my ways. A SLR is what I grew up with and I'll likely be an old man carrying one around while all the old whippersnappers are simply blinking to take a photo with their fancy retinal gigapixel cameras.

Hi Drab and others,

I'm agreeing with many of you.As I said, I have FX envy.

FX is the bomb. I can _afford_ it. It's just had to justify (as much as I'm trying) it when my small customer base really can't 'see' any difference in the products they use.

It won't make my life 'easier' in using FX in toting the cameras and lenses around shooting. And it won't help my pocketbook buying all the equipment to do the work. (Even though I'm sort of at a point in my life where I've reached the means to be able to afford these sorts of things.)

Heft of equipment is also a concern for me, too. While some folks are looking to add battery packs to add weight to balance a heavy lens, I'm looking to streamline a package to ease up on a package to lighten the load. An extra pound will make a big difference to me over a few hours in a day.

Will FX make the work be better? Well, probably. I should think so. I might even be able to put it under a microscope and 'measure it' and see it. But I don't think my customers will see it or pay me a nickle more for it.
While it might warm my heart, it's not going to increase my bank account. And since I'm in those 'golden years', I do have to manage my costs. Even if that's not for me. ;-)

Right now I'm still looking and noodling the D7000 and D700 and the D700 replacement (shall we call it the D800? - I'm suspecting it will be $2800-3200 - Ouch!). We'll see.

My best.

Mike

TaoTeJared said:
Cutting edge design and focus is currently with the FX line. There is a parallel (Chip) and shared design aspects (pipeline, cash, firmware, etc) that move into the DX lineup.

The best results may be in the FX line, but the best technology clearly isn't.

What heartyfischer and I (mostly) agree on is that FX sensors logically and visibly are the last to get new sensor technologies.

Cache and is off the sensor die and is not a FX/DX issue. It is a matter of how much Nikon decides to include.

But take actual sensor tech and FX lags behind DX lags behind small sensors on every measure.
Every new tech has started at the bottom and moved up, primarily for the cost considerations I mentioned before.

Sensors are not dirt cheap. As I tried to explain before with many many examples, this is a false belief brought upon by diminishing computer prices. Computer prices have fallen because less silicon is needed today than ever before. Sensors are larger than ever before. The price of doped silicon has not fallen significantly since before you were born.

Call bullpucky all you want. The misunderstandings expressed should be enough to give your judgment more pause.

spraynpray said:

Explain please?

I think his calculator is wrong :-) check out this thread http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2165

TaoTeJared said:
I'm not sure if I want to get into this one but the current conversation is so backwards it is just funny.
....
I call bullpucky on all of them.

LOL! Its not back wards! top down is backward and old school and "ivory tower". Reality has always been bottom up!. Market forces dictate! so how is BSI top down? I can name dozens (well maybe a handfull) of features in P&S that are not in the "top" cameras that would be really nice if they were there.

kyoshinikon said:
The issue with Fx lie with the Dof scale which is unreplicatable with Dx.The depth of field you get shooting f4 on Fx is roughly the Dof you get shooting a f2.8 on a Dx body

Hi Kyoshi,
I have seen this on this forum before, but as you brought it up here it seems like a good time to clarify the DoF thing:
Take a look here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm the calculator says that for the same focal length, aperture and distance, the 35mm sensor has a greater DoF than the DX. You are saying that at the same aperture FX gives a more shallow DoF and is therefore better?
I have seen this concusion on all the other calculators I has seen on the web too but as I don't have FX and DX I can't compare. It does seem intuitive that the larger sensor has a shallower depth of field than the smaller but - hey - if it is on the web it must be true right? I expect I am being stupid in some way. :)
Explain please?

Segura said:
...
I have shot both, and FX is it

You may be right but how many people have the money to spend on FX gear? if my budget is 1K its dx, If my budget is 2K its DX if my budget is 3K or even 4K its still DX but with some nice lenses and strobes and other bits. 5K Thats a lot of money for most people to spend on photography. Sticking with DX gets the most "bang for buck". and will continue to be the case. to some minority FX is IT and remember it is the minority who will really need it. other wise most of us will be very happy playing with all the wiz bang features that are not in the FX line.

Still, i am curious, tell me why is FX IT? maybe its just the lense?

;-) so you are enjoying the lack of DR in your FX camera ? (sorry cant help myself.. I am naughty I know..)

I'm not sure if I want to get into this one but the current conversation is so backwards it is just funny.

Cutting edge design and focus is currently with the FX line. There is a parallel (Chip) and shared design aspects (pipeline, cash, firmware, etc) that move into the DX lineup. P&S I don't think can be put in the same category other than design principals and maybe some internal chips. Some have had CCDs now most if not all have CMOS, that started with the FX line. Some have CF cards which are much faster than SD cards. Dual cards, burst rates, video on each different sensor, bus speed, metering, AF Drives, interface, and so on. The top of each of these are developed and then work their way down the FX line to DX and to a much lesser degree P&S as the more advanced technology become more affordable - not up. The D3 & D300 are 4 years old and D700/D3x/D3s are 2-3 years old. Just now the newest Nikon (D7000) is finely well past the D300 and close to the D3/D700 and no where near the D3s or D3x.

Chips, sensors or/and silicone are dirt cheap once the manufacturing mechanism is built. It is the manufacturing process; the design of the machines to make the sensors, the manpower to design said machines, man hours of design of new chips, that are the enormous cost. There is an all too common reference of computer design engineers to oversimplify and encompass all of this "other stuff" because they are not interested in it, into the word "silicone".

I have read the earlier PDF before and about 20 others. I believe it was about 5 years ago when one was released that said current lens resolutions could not resolve above 10-12mp. We are now at 24mp and the images just get sharper. The commonality of all of the so called expert analysis consists of: the most extremes currently known (who could have thought anything above iso 3200), oversimplified physics, and ignoring the really complicated design aspects of lenses and sensors. I call bullpucky on all of them.

Anyone who says that DX or the D7000 is better than FX or the D700 has never shot more than 100 frames in FX. Make that a qualifier to someone that says one is better than the other.

I have shot both, and FX is it

"If it is so logical I ask of you an example of a technology which will not apply to the FX sized sensors."
Its logical cos the surface area of the light gathering pixel can be 100 times larger than a P&S. Other issues on the large sensors include electronic timing issues due to the distances the signals need to travel.
I am no engineer and I am sure there are other techs that I dont know about. but technology like BSI is not needed in the FX sensor because you gain 1% more light gathering ability on fx sensors but gain 50% on P&S sensors.

Due to these physical issues every $ spent on P&S sensors will not flow to FX sensors. FX sensors will need their own R&D effort with a smaller amount of $ thus slowing the progress while the smaller sensors steam ahead more so for P&S vs DSLR but the logic still applies to the DX vs FX

"Until sensor technology is mature P&S sensors will have higher tech than DX will have higher tech than FX for any given generation.
Using this as a basis to say "DX > FX" is just as flawed as saying "P&S > DX". "

And how is that flawed ?? I think you have made my argument :-) for any given time DX will have higher tech than FX and the gap will probably get larger. You can then make then make a non fallacious comparison of "generation N DX compared to generation N-1 FX." and as time goes on you will be comparing N DX with N-2 FX. which is almost the case now.

BUT, and a big BUT, there are market forces at play here. the cost of bringing a DX sensor to market is about 1/10 that of FX and the volumes and profits from the DX market is probably at least 10 times that of the FX market.

Again, I do not disagree. This is why the D3x was the first to equal the previous generation's DX sensor in terms of density.

Fact is, though, that the one limitation of FX is cost. Doped silicon is expensive, and litho'd as expensive as gold, and if DX sensors have yield issues the random flaws force you to toss 1/2 as much silicon. Add in the volume numbers and it is no wonder FX is not the cutting-edge test bed.

Flaws do get reigned in with time and practice, though, so mainstream (read affordable) full-frame sensors will (as I said) remain at least one generation behind because it is apparently too costly to use cutting edge techniques.

So yes although DX lagged far behind in first few years when the tech generation were exactly the same

When was the deployed tech the same? DX has of generation N has always been at higher densities and greater SNR per unit of light gathering than FX. As I explained it always will be, until physical limits are hit. The same is true of P&S vs DX. It's all about the cost.

its obvious that the R&D $ will be spent on DX and more so the P&S sensor .. so much so that the P&S sensors these days are really a different beast with different tech. similarly so will the DX line be. There WILL be tech built into the DX sensors that will not apply to the FX sizes. Its just logical.

Every R&D dollar spent on DX can be applied to FX, just as every R&D dollar spent on teeny tiny sensors can be applied to DX.

If it is so logical I ask of you an example of a technology which will not apply to the FX sized sensors.

Again with the silicon costs as a very negative motivator. P&S sensors at 1/10th the size of DX means new tech "hiccups" cost you at most 1/10th of what they cost you when the same techniques are applied to DX. Thus one is forced to wait until the techniques are mature before risking them on your more expensive sensors.

TL;DR
Until sensor technology is mature P&S sensors will have higher tech than DX will have higher tech than FX for any given generation.
Using this as a basis to say "DX > FX" is just as flawed as saying "P&S > DX".

Drab said:
It can't. Unless you make the fallacious comparison of generation N DX compared to generation N-1 FX.

...

But Its not really fallacious.. I know most of us here are tech heads and it would seem technicaly logical that the N generation DX will never be better than the N FX. BUT, and a big BUT, there are market forces at play here. the cost of bringing a DX sensor to market is about 1/10 that of FX and the volumes and profits from the DX market is probably at least 10 times that of the FX market. (This was all discussed in "that other thread"). So yes although DX lagged far behind in first few years when the tech generation were exactly the same its obvious that the R&D $ will be spent on DX and more so the P&S sensor .. so much so that the P&S sensors these days are really a different beast with different tech. similarly so will the DX line be. There WILL be tech built into the DX sensors that will not apply to the FX sizes. Its just logical.

As I have asserted before, the DX line on average will be closing the gap with the FX line and in areas where there is no physical limit, it will over take the FX sensor. This has occurred already and the gap will get ever larger. FX cameras will either be 1-2 generations back or FX cameras that try to meet the DX features will blow out in price further, both scenarios making the FX line more of a specialist tool and making it even less accessible. The volumes will get ever lower, feeding back into the cycle. sorry, FX is DEAD! :-)

PS: Just look at the amazing features in the P&S and Camera phones these days. Would be nice when the dslrs catch up to some of those features!

Nikon made a great decision when they created the DX line.

kyoshinikon said:
The issue with Fx lie with the Dof scale which is unreplicatable with Dx.The depth of field you get shooting f4 on Fx is roughly the Dof you get shooting a f2.8 on a Dx body

I know, it totally sucks how I have to choke down my aperture on FX to get a decent DoF!

:P

The issue with Fx lie with the Dof scale which is unreplicatable with Dx.The depth of field you get shooting f4 on Fx is roughly the Dof you get shooting a f2.8 on a Dx body

bjrichus said:
At what point does this break down? What if a smaller (DX) sensor ends up doing as well as an FX sensor in a few (perhaps as few as 3) years time?

It can't. Unless you make the fallacious comparison of generation N DX compared to generation N-1 FX.

Until one hits the limit of human perception (at what magnification though???) all a DX sensor is is 1/2 a FX sensor. FX sensors aren't made as dense for cost reasons today. They will be. The D3x is more dense than the D200. Soon enough the DNx will be as dense as the D300, then the DN+1x will be as dense as the D7000, and on and on.

This seems to be a bit of a non-question really because presumeably the next FX released will have at least the same technology in the sensor as the newest DX and so the DX will never catch up with FX.

Hi bjrichus,

Keep in mind, a DX is always going to be smaller than a FX. ;-)

Your point might be it's not how bit it is, but what you do with it.

My best,

Mike

Mike Gunter said:
It doesn't take too much of a brain to figure out that more real estate on a chip will make more imaging magic happen - which I 'think' should be clear enough.

At what point does this break down? What if a smaller (DX) sensor ends up doing as well as an FX sensor in a few (perhaps as few as 3) years time?

Mike Gunter said:
I had though the OP was trying to get a discussion as to the current state of DX imaging - particularly in light of the D7000's bright image. It might be a silly conversation, but as johhyapple's pointed out in the above pdf (thanks ja!) it might not be so silly.

Mike,

Indeed ... particularly in light of that interesting PDF doesn't it kind of makes sense to consider the D7000 as a potential pointer towards the end-game for DX (using current technologies that is)?

Extrapolating this further into the future, if we can get a DX camera body at the 20 to 24MP level with 8 or perhaps at a pinch 10 stops of DR (as I read it this is the theoretical limit as per the PDF), then what kind of FX body would need to be on the market to keep FX alive (I'll duck and run for cover with that remark)? 40 to 48MP? and at what price to make it a practical manufacturing proposition?

I note that the PDF made it quite clear that they were working with 2009 sensors. Now we are 20 to 24 months further on, where are things likely to go for this and maybe next years product set, all yet to be announced?

Fun times...

For the "data content" part of your post - It has been said that a digital sensor will need at least 25 MP to match the resolution of 35mm. DX, FX and film all have their strengths and weaknesses. It is just a matter of what is most relevant to the needs of the individual.