where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
I'm actually not looking to switch for a year or two (I'm loving my D90), but I'm curious to know what, if anything, would keep people using DX.
My thoughts: a 50-150 f/2.8 DX VRII would make me very tempted to wait for a D400 instead of a D700 update.
Of course, even that would be nixed if there was something like the FF D90 (D700 sensor) for ~$1500 that has been discussed around the forum lately.
YES, jonnyapple's generosity in using his insurance money to buy me D300S replacement. If it's still DX I mean :^)
I am sometimes tempted by the "see in the dark" capability of FX, but with sensor development progressing, I can't help but wonder if we aren't a few generations from FX being obsolete just as Nikon kept insisting before they were forced to create a "me too" marketing response to Canon's pro line. With technology moving forward, it is easy to imagine a 30 megapixel ISO 1,000,000 DX sensor within the next 10 years and it is hard to imagine not having it within 20 years. Once we get there, what is the point of FX? Is it for the guys who truly need 60MP ISO 2,000,000? The obvious advantage would be shooting wide, but once sensors get to a point that additional performance doesn't buy you much in real terms, I suspect most will prefer the additional reach of DX. The real market opportunity then might be to get the smallest and lightest camera possible with a sensor that is shrunken to whatever becomes the sweet spot in terms of performance. But any FX purchase in my mind would be to get some immediate benefit with an interim format and not a permanent migration.
EDIT: As was pointed out later in this thread, I was very very wrong. I'll leave this post up as a testament to the folly of assumptions but please see below for further details.
I'll give u 2 reasons to stick DX out...
35 1.8G
85 3.5 micro
I'll have to say nikon is making it a difficult choice....
And after looking at DxoMark and comparing my D200 to the D5k/D90 to the D700, you only gain one stop going from my gen 1 to gen 2 DX...2 stops from gen 1 DX to gen 1 FX...not inticing enough yet...especially with the $1700 minimum FX entry point...
However, jonny, if I could score an FX body for about $1799.99, offer a 3 stop advantage, I might whip out the cc...
Until then I'll flirt with cheaper options like the gen 2 DX sensors...
I'm a fan of FX because 35mm has been THE format since around the 1950s! My next personal camera will hopefully have a 35mm sized sensor. The view through the viewfinder looks and behaves as it has always done for me long before digital ever came into the "picture".
NikoDoby said:
I'm a fan of FX because 35mm has been THE format since around the 1950s! My next personal camera will hopefully have a 35mm sized sensor. The view through the viewfinder looks and behaves as it has always done for me long before digital ever came into the "picture".
That's the sad thing for people like me. I think in DX. I shoot in DX. I haven't spent enough time with 35mm to really get to know it. When I get my FX camera eventually it's going to be difficult to break out of old DX "habits".
I wouldn't mind an FX body just for novelty purposes IF one day I could afford it. For the most part I will always bee a DX shooter for what I like to do.
JohnC - astrophotographer has posted here before the numbers, but the D3s is getting awfully close to theoretical limits on light collection. You can not safely extrapolate current trends forward to predict sensors nearly as sensitive as you describe.
A wall will be hit soon, and maybe that wall will come tumbling down, but there comes a point where no more tricks can be played - you can't collect photons which aren't there - and larger sensors will always be able to collect more than smaller sensors. DX's only real advantage is its need for a smaller image circle, and thus smaller lenses. But the same can be said for 4/3s cameras and even whatever fingernail-sized sensors are in P&S cameras.
I'd expect SLRs to be obsolete before 35mm film-sized sensors. If you really want to save glass size dropping the mirror and moving the rear element closer to the sensor will get you there faster than shrinking the sensor.
Gentoo said:
I wouldn't mind an FX body just for novelty purposes IF one day I could afford it. For the most part I will always bee a DX shooter for what I like to do.
I agree, it depends on what one shoots. I like shooting outside during the daylight and as much as I'd like to have a D700 or a D3s, it wouldn't serve me much more than owning a D300S.
soap -
Your comments made me curious and a little investigation proved quite enlightening and supported everything you said. I really enjoyed getting a little smarter. Thanks for the pointer.
If anyone else is interested in this topic, here is a link to one of the sites I really enjoyed perusing: LINK
I do quite a bit of bird photography. At this time I have a D700 and a D300. In using these two cameras there is a use for both. If I could afford a D3x, then I could get along with only FX. Could crop down to DX when needed. And yes, there are times using the D300 on a 500mm when I have to use a TC17 also to get the shot. The D700 wouldn't work in these situations. The D700 does have less noise at higher ISO's. But I try not to shoot at anything higher then 1600. Most of the time I shoot between 200 and 800 ISO.
So for now I'll use both FX and DX.
Woah there! 500mm+1.7x+DX? That's nearly 1300mm!
So what would really make everyone happy would be a high ISO, high MP FX camera that shoots 12mp in DX crop mode? Best of all worlds right?
NikoDoby said:
So what would really make everyone happy would be a high ISO, high MP FX camera that shoots 12mp in DX crop mode? Best of all worlds right?
Actually, when I think about it, it sounds pretty good to me. As long as it's fast in DX crop mode, and their's a "downsized-RAW" option for when you want to use a 14mm lens plus a high FPS.
soap said:
JohnC - astrophotographer has posted here before the numbers, but the D3s is getting awfully close to theoretical limits on light collection. You can not safely extrapolate current trends forward to predict sensors nearly as sensitive as you describe.
Not really, say d3S at 12 mp quad that is 48 mp lets say thats is close enough to 60mp ok that = 2 ev improvement ? if its the same ISO capability of 100000 ISO.
To get to 2,000,000 iso from 100,000 ISO you double it 4.5 times.
So you need a total of 4.5 + 2 ev improvement ie 6.5 ev improvement to get to the specs stated by JohnC.
Well what do you know. Black Silicon provides 7 EV improvemnet ! and that is available now!! Just needs to be comercialised.! The wall has been broken!
Yup! Sometimes when shooting ducks and other water birds I need that focal length. I haven't learned how to walk on water yet. TEE! HEE!. Last winter in Florida I found a Purple galinue on some water lilies some distance away. He wouldn't come in and I couldn't get any closer. Got some OK shots, but even then it was a little to far. This was in the everglades and I was on a boardwalk. Didn't think it was wise to get those gators all excited if I went in the water.
What's your ƒ-stop with that combo? It must be slower than ƒ/5.6 right?
I just checked the photos and they were at F8 and F9.5. And a few at F11. Wide open with the TC1.7 with the 500mm F4 will give you F6.8. I always try to stop down a litle if I can. I was shooting at ISO 320. For some reason I like 320, it seems to be a good compromise between 200 and 400. Most of the time If I have to use a TC, I try to get away with the TC1.4. Oh by the way I did not have a D700 yet when in Florida last winter. Am planning on going back this MArch again. It will be interesting to see how the D700 will work. To get aprox. the same framing with the D700 I'll have to use the TC's. The 1.4 will give me 700mm. With the D300 without TC will give eqivalint of 750mm.
That's awfully slow! How can you shoot like that with such long teles? Have fun and good luck in March though!
Spoken like a true fellow bird photog. :)Johndbr said:
I do quite a bit of bird photography. At this time I have a D700 and a D300. In using these two cameras there is a use for both. If I could afford a D3x, then I could get along with only FX. Could crop down to DX when needed. And yes, there are times using the D300 on a 500mm when I have to use a TC17 also to get the shot. The D700 wouldn't work in these situations. The D700 does have less noise at higher ISO's. But I try not to shoot at anything higher then 1600. Most of the time I shoot between 200 and 800 ISO.
So for now I'll use both FX and DX.
Yep I hear ya. I always chuckle at those who say things like "just walk into the water to get the shot". They have no idea why we didn't in the first place. Where I live mud can be dangerous and you could lose your gear in it. No use getting the shot if your equipment is ruined. Or in your case, if you're ruined. LOLJohndbr said:
Yup! Sometimes when shooting ducks and other water birds I need that focal length. I haven't learned how to walk on water yet. TEE! HEE!. Last winter in Florida I found a Purple galinue on some water lilies some distance away. He wouldn't come in and I couldn't get any closer. Got some OK shots, but even then it was a little to far. This was in the everglades and I was on a boardwalk. Didn't think it was wise to get those gators all excited if I went in the water.
I just checked and at F8 and ISO 320 the shutter speed was at 1/640. I was using a Gitzo carbon tripod remote release and mirror lock up part of the time. The bird was not moving around very much. Another thing I fine tunned the auto focus with this set-up. With this camera the 500mm and TC1.7 it was a +7. The tc1.4 fine tune AF is +7 and without a TC it is a +4. I don't know how many guys checked the AF fine tune, but I have found it to be very useful.
In a local forum that I visit there are guys that have those water proof fishing overalls and they get some amazing shots!
You must log in to post.
