LOL! yes a bit of a troll thread. But lets have ago anyway..
Why FX is a dead format. Dx will rule..(63 posts) (20 voices)
Heartyfisher, this is opposite of what most people say but IMO perhaps a bit more realistic. Everyone speculates how FX will one day replace DX and how new cameras will/may be FX. I believe all of this is simply wishful thinking.
DX is released more often and most, if not all new lenses released lately are for DX. Do I think FX is dead? No, not yet anyway but DX certainly isn't going anywhere anytime soon either.
agree with You gentoo DX is not dead, not even close to be dead
But at the same time, FX can't possibly die, it matches the format that all current, as well as legacy lenses have been designed for. The fact is, it's a matter of comfort, the 135 format has much more history behind it than the paltry APS format. 135 has been around for over 75 years, APS for only 13/14.
The only barrier preventing FX being the predominant format over DX as a specialty and entry level format is the price difference. Once 35mm sensors become affordable, I believe there will be a dramatic increase in buyers of those cameras. Lets be honest, if any of us could choose, I think a very very select few would choose to have a D300 over a D700 or D3. (D3X not included because it's more in class with high resolution medium format backs than the reportage and mobility intended for the D3 and D700/300)
chris please don't forget that dx is giving You the 1.5 crop factor and it's great when You shoot wildlife, but indeed it's all a question of price, but till the price of d3x like cameras is measured in $$$$ not in $$$ dx will be alive
Agree with adamz on every point. Also with the pixel quality improving as it is, the day may come when the DX sensors will have the ISO performance rivaling FX and there will still be not much reason to update. Nikon has made sure that those of us with DX who want wide angles can have them. It's why we have a 12-24 as the 14-24 meant for FX would not be ultra wide on DX. Most of the research and development seems to be aimed at DX.
Ok here are some reasons why FX is dead.
1) It may survive just like MF still survives. But for the majority of photographers it will effectively be just as dead as MF cameras.
2) By far DX format and smaller format cameras are dominant in the market place. Some 95% to 97% of SLR cameras sold are DX and smaller formats. Does any one really see this thrend reversing?
3) By the fact of the market forces in point 2 above. The Research and Dev will be directed to the DX formats. Look at the number of low end DSLRs? These are being release almost every 6 months.
4) Previously new Tech had always gone into the flag ship cameras first. Although this is still the case(by a nose). This trend is reversing. Look at all the new tech being put into the low end cameras. (Video, new processor(and software), Anti shake( sensor shift ), Dust removal etc)
5) the dx lenses are and will always be cheaper than the new FX lenses. This will continue to drive point (2)
6) The biggest and continuing advantage of FX over DX is the sensors ability at High ISO. but that is only one tiny feature in a list of many other camera features. ( video, DR, Colour Quality, Flash control, GPS, (anti shake)VR, lens quality, Handling and ergonomics, Weather and Dust sealing, FPS, Wifi, LCD screen, Menusystem, Buttons/dials, Mirror lock up, DOF preview, Live view, Remote Control.. etc... ) just wait a year or so and the DX High ISO technology will catch up to the FX High ISO. Just compare the High ISO capability of the High end camera and the low end camera, how much better is the D3 High ISO compared to the D5000? What features does the D5000 have that the D3 doesn't have? Price? How many more D5000 will be sold compared to the number of D3 sold? Probably about 1000 to 1 ( hmm.. maybe that why there are so many Zeros in the model number!)
7) Due to the points above the price differences between the FX cameras and the DX cameras will continue to increase. FX will be more and more Niche just like the Medium and large format cameras. The last great FX camera cost $8000. The next Great FX Camera will be cheaper? Nope it will be at least the same or even more expensive.
There are some more points .. but that will be enough for now. In conclusion FX format is dead. The writing is on the "forum". Dead format walking. Bwahahahahaha...!
FX is far from dead. With the cost of building sensor's going down, I feel in the future Nikon and Canon will be competing to get cheaper full frame camera's out the door. With Nikon, they put the new tech and let it trickle down the line to the next camera released. For example, the successor to the D300 with almost with out a doubt have video and such.
Plus enthusiasts and semi-pro photographers like my self will be purchasing FX cameras in the future because of their improved image quality because their sensor's are not so tightly packed that they have little dynamic range and an awful signal to noise ratio (like the canon g10).
FX is here to stay, and competition will soon be driving the price down (hopefully within the next 3-5 years. Nikon, please make a mid-range FX camera for me, please!).
I agree with heartyfisher for the most part. If the price of FX is dropping, then certainly the price of DX is dropping as well. I think FX will take up a position for specialty work. DX is really where everything is going. It will seriously have to be wishful thinking as I said before to say otherwise. DX seems to be more flexible. While ultra wides can be made for DX for example, it's much much harder to make super teles equivalent to what a DX tele can do.
All you have to do is look at the trends, they say it all.
No matter how good DX sensors get, that same technology helps to update FX sensors too. Due to the difference in size FX will -always- be superior to DX in terms of quality. At least when compared between contemporary generations.
adamz: I said "aside from a select few who need DX for special purposes" such as wildlife, I'm aware of the benefit.
Yes DX lenses are "cheaper" but, in my experience at the moment none of them feel right to me. I still use manual focus Nikkor lenses, such as the 85mm/1.4, which has an unmatched focus ring. I don't -care- about new DX lenses because they don't apply to the format I enjoy using, which is 135. Yes Nikon gave DX ultra-wide with the 12-24 and 10-24 lenses.
Sort of. They distort a ton, they cost a ton, and are still not as wide as the wide full frame lenses. I'm talking about the 14-24mm, 13mm, and the voigtländer 12mm. Plus there's no cool Fisheye lenses for DX like the 8mm Nikkor Fisheye. Why should FX die at all, not only is it the most widely used PHYSICAL format (as in film), it is also proliferating in the digital market.
DX has trashy low light ability compared to FX as well, even if one says "better pixels this, improved filtering that", a bigger sensor, with bigger photosites, or the same site ratio will always look better on FX, it's simple logic.
And why should it die? It's another tool/option to use, not some sort of Anti-DX warmachine. Both have their place, and photographers may choose which better suits their needs. Mine are satisfied by full frame, on film, and I want nothing to do with DX cameras since they don't behave how I want my cameras to behave.
8.) I shoot most (98%) of my shots at Base ISO. at base ISO ( and a bit above) all cameras in the same generation have the same image quality whether its DX or FX. In fact I would assert that the Image Quality of D5000 at base ISO is BETTER than the D3 due to the better software and technology! The lower end cameras just gets updated so often and gets all the new tech that in effect it is better!
When I still had my D70s I used it at base ISO probably 98% of the time also. That's why the upper level cameras aren't -made- for people like us. I'm just a university student, not a professional. Hell my dad -is- a professional photographer but he doesn't use the D3 or D700 because they aren't meant for him. He works in medium format digital. The D3 and D700 are photojournalist cameras, just like every premiere Nikon camera before them, all the way from the original F up through the D3 series. They're meant for people who need the extra ISO, or extra speed, or an extra solid body in the case of the film Nikons.
It's not all about the tech, its also about the build of the body, sealing, speed performance, its durability. This isn't an opinion, its a fact, otherwise I wouldn't see more than 80% of the reporters at major events or crime scenes (I live in Kauhajoki, Finland, where the school shooting was) shooting D3 setups with either two D3 bodies, or a D3 and a D700.
FX as a medium, is a professional medium, how many normal amateurs do you know that own a D3? Enthusiasts buy the D700 because its a great camera with a great sensor, and awesome backwards compatibility, plus it gives the ability to use older lenses in addition to newer ones as they were meant to be used, manual focus or otherwise.
I don't dislike DX, as I've said, I just have no use for it. The cost factor makes no difference when you make back the cost of your camera in a job or two (fashion industry), or when your employer outfits your system for you (newspaper journalists), or when your system is practically paid for by your work (National Geographic or Magnum Photo, but NG and Magnum guys really carry whatever they want...).
Of course the D5000 will have an advantage over the D3 these days, the D3 is two years old nearly, that's a completely unfair comparison. I've constantly been stressing, among -contemporary- generations of cameras FX will always have superior image quality, at least strictly at the sensor level.
It's quite obvious that Nikon has written off DX as far as the pro and advanced amateur markets are concerned. People may speculate about a D400 and Nikon might even produce it but the future belongs to FX in that market segment. The expensive pro glass is all FX and a DX body leaves you out in the cold at short focal lengths.
Just have a look at Nikon's German site:
You don't need to understand German to see the pattern. There's telephoto lenses, wide angles, macros, etc. ... and there's DX lenses. I think the message is obvious.
@ turritus : the link for me shows dx lenses first.... ?? You were being sarcastic?
That it's listed on top doesn't change the fact that it's just one category out of 11.
Let's look at the CURRENT nikon lineup (excluding all discontinued replaced models).
so the dead format accounts for 50% of their models...wow. Thats UP from 3 years ago whereas DX is DOWN from 3 years ago.
Well said LSE.
As of right now in Canon territory there's:
450D - APS
500D - APS
50D - APS
5D2 - 35mm
1D3 - 1.3 APS
1Ds3 - 35mm
again, 50% of their line is 1.6 crop factored, with two of the remaining 3 being full frame, and the 1D series being in between full frame and APS.
If full frame is "dead" or dying, why are more and more photographers using and upgrading into FF systems?
Yeah, there are a lot of good points being made for both sides of the issue. Keep in mind that years ago, when 35mm SLR came into the mainstream (which I DO still remember), the conventional wisdom was that lagre format would disappear. Seems you can still buy large format Hasselblad - in film or digital. So, for the foreseeable future, I think FX is not dead, but may become a niche format.
There's no point in me repeating a lot of what former posters have said, and I agree with them.
But you guys also haven't looked at what the competitors have done- what about the 4/3 format? It's an even smaller sensor with no mirror. Maybe it's a bad decision?
Also, I never understood Canon's lineup. What's with the 1D3 being in between AP-S sized and full framed? Does it keep the compatibility with the lenses and such?
@ turritus : Ok I understand now ... but it just means that
9.) the DX format has 15 more lenses that they can use. As they can use all the FX lenses as well. I have 3 dx lenses and 4 fx lenses which work very well on my Dx cameras.
@LSE and ChrisLange : Just because there are 5 brands that build MF and LF digital Cameras(with a dozen or so models) and 5 brands that build DX formats cameras (with dozens of models) does not mean that MF/LF are in anyway more "Alive". At one time almost every photographer had a MF camera. Now its a niche Tool. I assert that the FX format will follow the same path and become a Niche Tool. Opp.. sorry. It HAS become a niche tool and will only become more so.. Number of brands and number of models have little to do with it.
More photographers upgrading to FF? I guess there are more and more photographers Upgrading to MF as well. Does not change the fact that by far the majority of DSLR cameras are DX and the relative percentages of DX and smaller formats vs larger formats will continue to increase in favor of the DX format.
@ Gentoo : How am I doing? :-) Oi! You going to help out? 8-) stop Sniggering in the background there and give us a hand!
@ NSX-Type : Pick a side ;-) c'mon 8-) ! .... Who do you agree with?
Well if it stands to reason for anything, DX finders just plain suck.
Now don't go telling me you honestly think those tiny black holes of tunnel-vision are better than an F4's focusing screen or that of a D3.
I don't understand why you're so adamant about this, DX has its advantages in nature and wild-life photography while FX has its advantages in wide-angle and low light.
Get the over it, two systems, two different purposes. God forbid one system can't do -everything- perfectly, hell I might as well start microwaving my toast.
"@ Gentoo : How am I doing? :-) Oi! You going to help out? 8-) stop Sniggering in the background there and give us a hand!"
I would just be repeating everything you're saying and not as well as you say it either. In the digital age, the move is to make everything smaller, not bigger. I would need a good reason why cameras would be the exception to the rule in the digital age? Microchips are made smaller for everything else so DSLR's I doubt would go backwards and start using larger sensors exclusively (which are microchips) which would keep the price high as after a while, these larger chips would become very much the exception to the rule and therefore would be very much more expensive. Because of this, I echo heatyfisher and a few others who've said that FX will, if not already, be a niche or specialty format. I'll change my mind when I start seeing more research and development employed and subsequently released for FX and they release mainly FX cameras and they can somehow justify bringing the price down.
all well said but u still missing one point ... marketing
FX was never ment for general public (due to higher prices for body and lenses)
for the next few years (for sure) we not gone see domination of FX bodies just because they bigger and will always be a bit more $$$ then DX ones ... thats not what majority of ppl who decided that pocket camera is not good enf for them and want something just a bit better
in short: FX not made for mid class Jo to start with due to its costs (including FX lenses) will it shift DX market with decreasing prices for FX sensor, yeas
will it take over ? probly not for a while
You must log in to post.