Danny Ocean said:
Since when does ones equipment classify the photographer's skill? Such an amateur thing to say.

Danny, you misinterpret what I meant by Amatuer and Pro. I wasn't talking about skill level. I've seen some Amatuer's that are more talented than Pro's. by Amatuer, I meant people who have photography as their hobby, and either don't sell, or sell just enough to cover their gear, not their rent.

I was talking more about Nikon's business model than skill level. I meant no offense.

Well, ive been doing DX for the last 7 years, but i do get your point. And Im currently debating between a d700 (used) and a d700 (new). Seems with the new price point, not really a whole lot of advantage going the used route.

(Im also having a hard time not thinking about the d800, but i realize i dont need it) Of course need and want are often two different things. :-)

mirtos said:
Ok this may seem a weird topic, but do you ever think Nikon is going to offer a non-pro (or "prosumer") line FX camera? One of the things about FX vs DX is that FX is more true to 35MM, I have to wonder if I am the only amatuer prohotographer out there with a bunch of lenses from film days (when camera bodies werent the super expensive item) that wants FX just to use older lenses to their full capabilities.

Mirtos: Consider the cost of film and processing (do you do your own darkroom work? Add up all those costs, too) and your (used) D700 will be a bargain in a hurry. I was biting the bullet three years ago and got myself a D700, although it has been almost 40 years since I last made any money with photography. I am no pro, I just do it for fun. That D700 revived everything - the fun is back. I now enjoy photography again like I did when I was a teenager or in my early twenties.
I say: go for it!

mirtos said:
The business reason is this. Nikon is splitting their customers into the following:
(ignoring the P&S audience for this discussion)

Pros - use FX camera and lenses.
Amatuer - use DX camera and lenses, unable to upgrade body without upgrading lenses
Film - using film camera, and FX lenses

Since when does ones equipment classify the photographer's skill? Such an amateur thing to say.

tcole,
that was unclear. better said, the D3/700 are the "absolutely-good-enough plateau" for a stills FF-DSLR. this was said in combination with nikon FF having never been cheaper. cheaper also means, that you do not buy the ultra-latest tech. D700 is 4 year old tech + the new cameras are better for sure.

but- just my 2 cent- before the D3/700 i NeedeD to upgrade to the newer = better camera. no need anymore. the new cameras are that much better, but D3 or D700 are still good enough in case you have limited funds. speaking as a stills-camera guy. i now realise, that is maybe rather narrow minded ;)

jorgen said:
really, FF and cheap just do not go together. FF-sensor will always be more expensive, lenses will have to be larger, FF-bodies will always be viewed as superior to DX bodies (of similar age or class). the point of DX is being chaep(er). and smaller, lighter, easier, etc.
FF was never cheaper than now btw. DSLR-technoliy has reached a plateau with the D700/D3.
get a cheap D700 and spend the rest for good glass.

I haven't seen a plateau yet...I think it is more like the technology of digital has finally caught up with results that people see as satisfactory even with the lowest level dSLR cameras. I am sure the $5500, 2.6 MP D1 was considered a great camera at the time, but people scoff at it now. It isn't as good as film yet, but I think the results are getting very near and the MP counts are letting people print fairly large now.

Technology wise there are still improvements. Improvements with the speed of processing, better sensors, better focusing systems, better video and I am sure more to come in things we haven't even thought about.

The D700 is still a very competent camera even with the D800 coming out. The bottom level D3000 or D5100 now provide better results than many of the aging pro bodies.

really, FF and cheap just do not go together. FF-sensor will always be more expensive, lenses will have to be larger, FF-bodies will always be viewed as superior to DX bodies (of similar age or class). the point of DX is being chaep(er). and smaller, lighter, easier, etc.
FF was never cheaper than now btw. DSLR-technoliy has reached a plateau with the D700/D3.
get a cheap D700 and spend the rest for good glass.

scoobysmak said:
I could see the $1500 price if Nikon keeps selling the D700 for years to come, I just wonder if the pricing now is to get rid of excess stock on hand. If the D700 does sell out then I see it sticking around the $1800-$2100 mark depending on condition.

As with some others, I believe that there is a glut of parts that were ordered before and shortly after the Floods and the Earthquake that have been delivered and they need to do something with them. With the price drop, I would say they are trying to dump them all and not loose money on the parts delivered. If they were actually going to try to keep the line going, they would not be dropping the price to within 100's of a D300 replacement.

mirtos said:
hmmm.. with the new price points on the d700, maybe the d700 is just that opening i was looking for.

One thing that I find crazy is that a couple of years ago before the yen strengthened against the dollar, amazon was selling the D700 for not much more (2300 or 2400, I think). I'm also considering the D700 sometime in the futue.
edit: I checked on that price claim. I wrote in a blog post that I saw it new for $2160 in December 2008.

I could see the $1500 price if Nikon keeps selling the D700 for years to come, I just wonder if the pricing now is to get rid of excess stock on hand. If the D700 does sell out then I see it sticking around the $1800-$2100 mark depending on condition.

There are some (valid I think?) predictions that in about 6 months a used D700 will sell for about $1,500. That will put FX just a few hundred dollars above a D7000, probably a few hundred dollars less than a D400 (or equal to a D400) and make a nice "entry level" FX or a nice "amateur" FX. I also have lots of 35mm AF lenses I purchased inexpensively a few years ago and I would like to give them a "new lease on life" with an FX body.

hmmm.. with the new price points on the d700, maybe the d700 is just that opening i was looking for.

mirtos said:
So upgrading from "hobby" to pro... I think Nikon might be shooting itself in the foot.... (of course part of this thread is really about "is DX a bad thing?"...

DX is not a bad thing, Coolpix neither... It all depend on your photographic ambitions and your greed for the best. There is an offering for all and Nikon like others are covering all the lucrative segments of the marke while obeing to the forces at play. That's what they must do to survive.

One that might upgrade to FF is shooting himself on the foot by massively investing on DX lenses.

If all of the suddent, medium format become a high-demand commodity and lots of people are willing to shell big money for it, it would be suicidal for any responsible compagny not to provide an offering and the fittest would be the leader. If that was to happen, investing heavily on FF glass would be shooting oneself on the foot.

At the end, it is the buyers that drive the market. If you are happy with DX, stay with it but dont complain if it is not as good as FF. By nature, bigger sensors will always be better than small ones.

mirtos said:
I think Nikon might be shooting itself in the foot.

I would say Nikon has us all on the hook.

I think Pierre hit the nail on the head - people make choices how much to spend on their tools, hobbies and passions. Just because people choose (and it is a choice) not to spend 2, 3, or $6,000 on a camera does not equal a company shooting itself in the foot. Shooting itself in the foot would be choosing to loose money just to hopefully pacify some customers.

How low would it have to be priced? There are people on here screaming about the new 50mm 1.8 being too expensive at $225. When the D400 comes out, I'm willing to bet it will be close to $2000, and I'm sure people will scream about that. Point being, no matter what price Nikon needs to charge, there will be those who want it cheaper so it fits their choice of what they are willing to spend.

$8000 for a carbon-fibre bicycle? That is almost 3x the cost of my first car in the mid 90's.

Pierre, thatskindof my point though. Even DX glass isnt cheap in the long run if you buy a lot of lenses. So upgrading from "hobby" to pro is in the long run more than upgrading camera bodies. I think Nikon might be shooting itself in the foot. (of course part of this thread is really about "is DX a bad thing?" which probably belongs in another thread. Im lucky in that most of my glass is "FX" glass, and when i do upgrade, ill only "lose" a little DX glass.

In the going for FF, the price of the body (say a D700) is relatively low compare with the price of good fast FF glass (say the F2.8 trinity). I have a friend that just threw $8000 to get a carbon-fibre bicycle and he is not a pro, so compared to that, I would say a D800 + N24-70 F2.8 are pretty cheap. These two would last you very long time (say 10 years) so your cost-per-year would end up being pretty low, probably comparable to the ownership of a cell phone (+ monthly plan) or cable TV.

If we start counting the money most of us waste on junk, FF is not that expensive and they cost nothing to operate on years-end.

Last year, I spend a couple of D4 worth, driving through Europe for only 3 weeks.

You also have to factor in the "Made In Japan" tax on currently available FX bodies. I'm sure it costs more to pay Japanese workers than the Thai workers that make DX bodies. The sensor alone is not the cost, so keep that in mind. The FX bodies use faster/higher end processors, etc. Even if each body had an Expeed 3 processor, that doesn't mean they all the same spec.

mirtos said:
So it makes me wonder, actually what the cost difference REALLY is.

shawnino said:
Given that "everything" is available online today when it comes to information, it strikes me as odd that the question of cost difference between DX sensor and FX sensor has not been conclusively settled.

Just as an example, outside experts have more or less been able to cost out every component that goes into an iPad, Kindle, etc. Finding out the cost of sensors should be quite easy for these people, shouldn't it?

No one will ever know unless a camera company releases the numbers, which they won't since they are all publicly traded. The main reason why is that if a company starts releasing per/part cost, then analyst dig like crazy and put that into their numbers. It may not sound like a big deal, but it really is. When I worked as an analyst and a rival published or we learned of costs, we dug, calculated, and worked like crazy to figure out their worker compensation, margins, cost of contracts with suppliers, etc. If you know what you are doing, you can get really close to the actual numbers and use that as a competitive edge. Nikon is quite good and better then most at playing this game in their annual reports. But of course, Olympus proved to be much better. ;)

There is a huge difference (although not obvious) between Cameras and say an Ipad (computer). Computer board parts are widely available for purchase as they are not item specific to one or another brands. When they tare apart an Ipad it is filled with parts that really are "Off the shelf" and are used widely. It is the software that is the difference. Cameras on the other hand are filled with custom very specific parts that are proprietary to each company and are not sold on the open market. Even the sensors that Sony makes for Nikon and others are designed and/only used by Nikon.

Numbers are hard to come by especially with FX. How many of each camera were built is terribly hard to find over it's lifespan. When the D3 was released, Nikon said it could produce 12,000/month and the D300 could be produced at 60,000 per month. Both of those lines were multi purposed so they could produce other bodies as well so you can't even average it. To this day, I have not been able to figure out how many were ever made. Nikon only will release "all bodies sold" and there are too many breaks in serial numbers to go off of that.

Given that "everything" is available online today when it comes to information, it strikes me as odd that the question of cost difference between DX sensor and FX sensor has not been conclusively settled.

Just as an example, outside experts have more or less been able to cost out every component that goes into an iPad, Kindle, etc. Finding out the cost of sensors should be quite easy for these people, shouldn't it?

studio460 said:
Mirtos:

I feel your pain. I had a lot of "FX glass" from my film days as well, and was dying to "see" them again.

Its also the lenses i bought when i got into digital around 2001 (or was it 2002? I dont remember).

I guess my real curiosity really has been the cost of the sensor. I bought into the 20 times argument, and it might be correct, but when i started to read that other blog/comment, which talked about the difference between 200mm wafer and 300mm wafer, he really got into specifics. So it makes me wonder, actually what the cost difference REALLY is.

I think the price point of the D700 and D800 is suitable for non pros, but maybe a reach unless one is serious. I see people riding ATVs once every two months that cost more than a D700 with two or three lenses, so if a non-pro is just looking for another toy to use once a week or so, FX is an expensive toy, but no more expensive than others. If a non-pro is looking for something they can do every day, a D700 or D800 is reasonable now. and as the D800 shows, the prices for large sensors are dropping as the technology matures and the foundries improve their processes.

Note that FX sensors are more expensive because you can only put so many on a wafer, and yields also suffer when you have so many active elements per unit area. I used to make scientific camera sensors, and when we went from 2/3 in to 1 in the costs went up 4 times, and when we went to color the cost went up 10 times! I sell these cameras now, and a 2/3 inch camera goes for 2,800, 1 inch for 6,800 and 1 inch color for 14,000!

Like many others with a life long love of making photographs that does not reach the levels of passion required to make it a career, I have found plenty of money making opportunities. I have one gig coming up where I will be shooting with a D4 and the trinity set of lenses. Alas, I won't be able to keep them, but I will be getting paid to do it. I'll use the money to buy a D800 and one or two new G lenses that I have not been using due to backward compatibility issues.

donaldejose said:
As soon as Nikon can produce and sell an FX camera body for less than $2.000 they will. Then amateurs will buy that camera. Nikon will sell tons of them. It is all about the cost difference of producing a DX sensor and an FX sensor. Nikon has no desire to "deny" a digital sensor the size of 35mm film to amateurs.

I agree, I don't understand the OP's question, "FX for non Pro's", anyone can buy an FX camera now, I don't see that FX is pro and DX is amateur, buy whichever camera you need and can afford. FX cameras are dearer because they cost more to make. The D300/s was/is an excellent DX camera that is as up to being used daily as a D700 or D3s is. In my opinion the concept is bogus, the camera round your neck doesn't make you one group or the other. Now if the question was "When will FX be affordable to most people?" that I can understand, and as with all technology, I believe it's just a matter of time.

PB, if the materials used for both are exactly the same or in any case the cost thereof is the (only) decisive factor, then of course you're right. I was asking because I didn't know, not to try and break out an argument. I should make myself clearer next time.

kenadams, it isn't. Silicon is expensive, so the smaller the chip the cheaper it is, as explained in the earlier links. By your logic a compact car should be more expensive than an USV. If you take your logic to the extreme a cell phone camera (super tiny sensor) should cost more than a DX sensor, which is simply ridiculous.

Tao, if I thought my CPU chip was 45nm in overall size, I'd stop looking for it on the mainboard, because it'd be too small to see then ;-)

What I meant was it must be cheaper to produce something less complicated, and an FX chip should be less complicated than a DX chip for size/number of photosites and all. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I'm comparing apples and oranges.

Thx mirtos for that insightful and interesting link into sensor production.