"FX was never ment for general public"
That confirms what heartyfisher and myself said, it's already a niche market.
where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
"FX was never ment for general public"
That confirms what heartyfisher and myself said, it's already a niche market.
yup I also agree that FX is a niche market - at least for now, especially when You consider the overall cost of FX system and it's usability; however I have to agree with Chris that the viewfinder on any DX body sucks comparing to the one used on i.e. D3 - the question is what we will see first - the first cheap FF body or FF viewfinder in DX body - I hope the second one
I agree adamz. When I looked into the finder on a D3 and D700 it was like a movie screen compared to my D300. I too hope, and would make an educated guess that Nikon may give us better view finders on DX in the future.
Ok, fine Heartyfisher, since you insist.
I'm a DX guy- it's cheaper, and plus I plan to get the 35mm 1.8. Not to mention I have a D40.
As long as FX stays above $1000, I will never buy a FX camera. The D90 is all the camera I need- with perhaps the exception of a metal body. I really love my dad's metal FM2 body. The heft is different. But if they ever come out with a D90 with a metal body and much better weatherproofing, I'm sold.
Besides, it's the lenses that matter. I'll worry about FX when I get a steady income. I don't need crazy ISO performance. I'm no professional. I won't be taking photos to pay for my bills. What the hell do I need FX for?
The biggest advantage of FX is the larger field of view. This could be corrected, of course, if Nikon redesigned all their lenses for DX. But they haven't done that with the fast pro lenses and it doesn't look as if they plan to. If you stick with consumer gear DX is fine but I wouldn't buy a D300.
As for 4/3, time will tell. In a way it makes more sense than APS-C because the gap to full frame is so large that using the same lenses is out of the question. If you go 4/3 you'll have to fully commit to that format. The way APS-C has been implemented is a bit half-hearted by comparison.
Price only matters in the absence of Value. People make purchases based on what they need, and what they have. FX gives you cleaner images and high ISO performance. FX will always cost more than DX, because it requires more sensor \chip (the expensive part). Bigger chips = fewer chips per wafer = more wafers = higher production costs. The only reason to buy FX is to get the full frame advantages I named above. Some people need that, but those people are not consumers. I don't need FX to take snapshots of my dog (or my kids if I had them). I need FX to create art, but sense I'm not an artist, I don't need it at all really.
Of course that won't stop me from buying it, because my inner gearhead tells me I need it!
Turritus - Just to be clear, the 35mm DX prime looks exatly the same as my 24-70 FX zooom set to 35mm on my D40. If I stuck the same lenses on my "FX" film camera, they would also look the same (but wider than they looked on my DX cameras), the only difference being that my 35mm prime would have dark corners. Lenses don't need to be redesigned to work with DX, they just need to be wider to get the equivalent angle of view compared to the smae focal length on FX.
Well usually you get a better picture when you put an FX lens on a DX camera, as the sensor will record from the center of the visible area, while an FX camera records a larger area with the often added bonuses of vignetting and loss of sharpness. :D
@ Willis : "Bigger chips = fewer chips per wafer = more wafers = higher production costs." True but not only that. You would expect that since fx is twice the size of the Dx chip that it would be twice the cost. nope! due to the larger wafer size the percentage of loss due to defects is much higher. Coupled with the increased in complexity and circuit designs and the multi layers of micro lenses and circuits the loss is even higher. Thats why the DX sensors cost up to 1/10 the FX sensors.
"Of course that won't stop me from buying it, because my inner gearhead tells me I need it!" LOL and thats why FX will survive better than MF for many years.. (opps ... am I switching sides.... can I? am I allowed to?)
you're a gearhead, there are no sides. I contemplated buying Canon gear for a long time before I got my D90. It's what we do :)
So heartyfisher, what if Nikon makes an "affordable" MX medium format sensor? Then both FX and DX would die and MX rules? What about Leica's S2. If the S2 sensor found a Nikon body the only thing we'd complain about would be the price. The viewfinder on an S2 is the size of a roll of toilet paper!
@ Gentoo : "you're a gearhead" LOL! sadly that is true ! Wish I could take better pictures.. May be a better camera will let me take better pictures !!
I started this thread partly because almost everywhere you see people saying DX is dead because FX has arrived. I would have gotten FX if I had the money when the D700 came out.. but now ... I dont know not so sure .. I think the D400 is what I will be waiting for. 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. On the other hand I also think that they will release FX format cameras that are in the Advanced consumer D90 range soon as well... (wonder what they will call it? ( FX70? D70F?)
@ NikoDoby : I would buy a MX camera with a 75mm or 40mm lens if it was the same price as a D300/D90! ( Drool !! ) especially if it was one of those without a mirror and you only used liveview to compose ( with a flip screen like the D5000 !!) Darn I am getting excited !!
Hey heartyfisher, lets just hope Nikon is the first to give us a full frame camera for the price of a D300/D90 before Canon or Sony do! But yes an MX camera as you described would be drooled upon.
Can you imagine an MX sensor that shoots HD video, WOW! With a WOW price, I'm sure :(
gentoo "... I contemplated buying Canon gear for a long time before I got my D90..." I'm still thinking of getting Sony a900
as for FX, once I was already at the counter with d700, but just before paying for it I've realize that I don't need it for my kind of photography, and would love to see either d3x with at least 5-6fps in 14bit or a dx sensor (12Mpx or more) in D3 body
niko - I also hope that Nikon will be the first to launch FF in $1k range, if they do so will probably buy it just to play with it, but before that don't need it really
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.
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
@ 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.
"cover all focal lengths that are worth covering"
Define that. That's highly subjective.
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 ...
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You must log in to post.