FX for non-pros « Nikon Rumors Forum

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.


Nikon Rumors Forum

where there’s smoke there’s forum fire

Register or log in - lost password?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

FX for non-pros

(39 posts) (18 voices)
  • Started 1 year ago by mirtos
  • Latest reply from mirtos
  • Related Topics:
    1. What was the moment you realized that you needed to move up to FX?
    2. Best wide/standard FX prime - 24mm 28mm 35mm 50mm
    3. How much the actual cost for upgrading to FX?
    4. i own D7000 and FX Lenses, upgrade to d600?
    5. Beginners Lens Question

Tags:

No tags yet.

12Next »
  1. mirtos

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '11
    Posts: 159

    offline

    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, whereas with DX, obviously there is the crop and everything. 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.

    I get that pro cameras exist for pros, but what about the amatuers out there, that have wide angle lenses? It seems like we have three choices: 1. spend more on a camera than we need/have. 2. grin and bear it and dont get the full capabilities of our lenses, 3. switch back to film.

    im not looking for the super high ISO, the great MP, or the amazing camera bodies. Id just like the ability to use the same lenses I could use with my old SLR (not DSLR) that was relatively inexpensive to the same ability.

    Am in in the minority on this one?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  2. sevencrossing

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '10
    Posts: 1,265

    offline

    miros

    The honest answer is, non what so ever. I can't imagine why Nikon would bring out to a FX camera with a lower specification than the D700

    BTW it is a very long time ago, but dont remember my Nikon F being exactly cheap

    The good news is, by the time the D900 comes out, you should be able to up a S/H D700
    below £1000

    Posted 1 year ago #
  3. kyoshinikon

    preferred member
    Joined: Jan '10
    Posts: 1,200

    offline

    Many want Dx wide but Nikon seems to ignore it...

    Posted 1 year ago #
  4. mirtos

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '11
    Posts: 159

    offline

    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 FX has been in existence for quite a long time and DX is relatively new, they are hindering their amatuer line. What do Amateur people tend to want? They want a regular lense, they want a zoom lense, and they want a wide angle lense. Its also worth noting that Nikon had "DX" sensor before they had DX lenses. When the d2h was being sold, it was obviously a DX sensor, but you could only buy FX lenses. So I (and others) had a camera that wasnt able to support their lenses... you made due. Obviously you purchased FX lenses. then they came out with DX lenses. You thought, "hmmm... i guess i should buy it, its more appropriate for the camera"... now you have both DX and FX lenses. Then Nikon releases the first full frame, and amatuers think "wow.. cool, but beyond my price range". Same for the d700, and probably the d800, when it comes out. For people who are doing this as a hobby, and not a profession, its hard to justify that sort of money. But at the same time, they are pigeon holing their market.

    Where does the company make the most profit? Well, their P&S, obviously, but after that, their bodies. We know the statement: "glass lasts forever, cameras do not". From a pure business sense, it makes sense to create an FX camera that has lower specifications than the d700. You want everyone to be using the same lenses, so they only have to produce one type, and so its easier to upgrade bodies (again, because Nikon makes more profit from upgrades). right now, Nikon is missing a lot of people who might upgrade their bodies because to do so they also have to buy a whole new set of lenses. Its just bad business. You can make the counter-argument that if someone wants a great FX lense, they have to buy the great FX camera too, thus increasing profit, but I would postulate that Nikon loses more than they gain by keeping hobbyists out of the FX market.

    It made sense at one point in time. I dont believe it does anymore.

    also, your point about the d700 goes to further my point. Yes, they will be out there at some point, and cheaper, but Nikon gets none of the used camera money.

    I completely get that pros NEED to have better cameras than me, a hobbyist. I also think that Nikon is really dropping the ball on this one.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  5. donaldejose

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '11
    Posts: 1,043

    offline

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  6. kenadams

    senior member
    Joined: Dec '11
    Posts: 61

    offline

    Donald, I bet they could if they wanted to. They'd just have to get rid of that other latest fancy stuff and voila! It wouldn't be 36MP and dust sealed and couldn't refill your fridge via online ordering but it would work. Logically, FX would have to be a lot cheaper than DX, right?

    Funny thing is, I'm thinking, like hell I'm going to buy a 4yr old piece of equipment like the D700 over the latest stuff in our fast paced digital world although it may better suit my needs. But I enjoy spending a 10th of that money on a used F100. On the other hand, 35mm equipment stopped aging with the arrival of digitals. 2 or 3 yrs from now, it will still be top of the shelf simply because nobody cares enough to out-do it anymore. Digitals on the other hand are virtually obsolete the moment they leave the factory.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  7. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    kenadams said:
    Donald, I bet they could if they wanted to.

    I would take that bet - FX sensors are still ridiculously expensive. It is not a question could it happen, it is a question when the cost for producing it will be low enough for that price range. The only reason Sony was able to release a FX was because they chose to loose money on it to gain market share. We haven't seen a cheap FX from them again. Nikon and even Canon is way too small to be able to swallow that kind of loss.

    There is little to no chance of it for at least another full cycle (4 years). By that point, I'm not sure DX would be any worse than the D4/D800 now. The D7000 almost hits the IQ of the D700 now.

    mirtos said:
    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

    Everyone seems to forget that DX has been out for over 10 years and with the rash of lens updates in the last 4 years not too many are sill using their lenses from the film days. Many, many pros still use DX for various reasons. 70-200 = 105-300 f2.8 for under $2k is one of the major ones.

    I don't get the argument of "wide" lenses. The 10-24 = 15-36, 11-16 = 16-24. The 14-24mm is only a couple of degrees more that can be achieved by moving back 3-5 feet.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  8. mirtos

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '11
    Posts: 159

    offline

    DX sensor has been out for 10 years. DX as a lense, hasn't.

    As for 3-5 feet, I have been in plenty of situations where that just isnt always possible, so I dont think thats a fair statement.

    That being said, I get that producing an FX sensor is considerably more expensive. But that isn't the only reason the cameras are more expensive. Personally I think some of it has to do with marketting on both Canon and Nikon's sides. FX is pro, DX isn't.

    So, yes, I too believe, that if Nikon wanted to do a non-pro line FX, they could. And I also think they would sell, and in the long run it would be better for the company.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  9. donaldejose

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '11
    Posts: 1,043

    offline

    My argument is a bit different. Cost includes development cost plus production line cost. Development cost for the D3s sensor is already recovered since they are not using it in the D4. Thus, the cost now of that sensor is just its production line cost. Perhaps that is still very high, I don't know. Tao thinks so. It is just twice the size of a DX sensor so why wouldn't it simply cost twice as much to produce? I don't know. Add updated software and the latest Expeed processor to the signal coming off the sensor and what "bang do you get for the buck?"

    I am sure if it could be done Nikon would sell it cheaply in some DX sized or FX sized body. Apparently, it is not cost effective as Tao says. So DX stays DX and FX stays costly. But at least we seem to be getting significant "bang for the buck" in the D800 now.

    I look forward to what the D400 will be able to do.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  10. scoobysmak

    preferred member
    Joined: May '10
    Posts: 226

    offline

    I see difference in DX and FX cost like the price of solar pannels. The bigger they are the more material you have to put in them, the more the material the more the cost. The design may be done but until you find digital sensors reproducing in a test tube the cost is still there.

    Just like years ago the cost of making silicon chips for computers went up, needless to say the cost of a computer went up as well. The cost of material probably has gone up in the past few years as well, Nikon might be at a point of lossing money on the current cameras for the prices they are selling at.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  11. kenadams

    senior member
    Joined: Dec '11
    Posts: 61

    offline

    Tao, I'm wondering what makes FX sensors that expensive, could you explain? Without prior special knowledge about FX image sensor production, I'd have assumed the same is true for FX sensors that is true for CPUs: the smaller the more expensive. For a 45nm chip you'd have to build a new factory if all you've done so far is 60nm. More tech has to be crammed into less space, calling for more refined production methods, more accuracy, less error tolerance. I wouldn't think that the material that is used to cover the larger size is that more expensive in turn. Only other argument would be mass production versus expensive low number production runs.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  12. mirtos

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '11
    Posts: 159

    offline

    It seems like there is a big discrepency on the net as far as cost of production.... Some people claim 20 times as expensive, others claim 10 times as expensive, and some people claim 3 times as expensive.

    One interesting site is this (its a comment) that really gets into wafer costs...

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1039&message=27108526&changemode=1

    Wikipedia claims its much more expensive...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR

    Posted 1 year ago #
  13. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    mirtos said:
    Wikipedia claims its much more expensive...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR

    The quote in Wiki was from a Canon Press release stating it was 20x more expensive to produce.
    Here is another Canon article giving a brief description: http://canon-digital-photo-pro.com/photography-system/exploring-different-image-sensor-sizes/

    scoobysmak touched on the basic element of it. Cost is exponentially more with increased size and not just doubles.

    kenadams said:
    For a 45nm chip you'd have to build a new factory if all you've done so far is 60nm.

    That is not "chip" size - that is transistor manufacturing size. It is cramming more into the same space. Completely different type of technology.

    mirtos said:
    DX sensor has been out for 10 years. DX as a lense, hasn't.

    Sorry you are correct. First DX lens, the 12-24/4 G IF-ED was introduced in March of 2003.

    donaldejose said:
    Cost includes development cost plus production line cost. Development cost for the D3s sensor is already recovered since they are not using it in the D4.

    I don't think I would go that far to assume the cost was recovered. Weather it was or not, they had to upgrade the sensor or people wouldn't upgrade.
    I would believe the D3/D700 sensor probably really did recover it's cost due to the larger production run.

    Look how long Olympus and Panasonic used the same 12mp sensor and just changed the processing software - 3-6 bodies each. They do not have the resources in their camera divisions to upgrade as much.

    Recovering manufacturing costs has too many factors to even touch on it here or could it due justice to the complexity of it. There are more than enough Wiki articles on that topic.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  14. studio460

    preferred member
    Joined: May '10
    Posts: 1,231

    offline

    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. About a year ago, I finally ponied up for a fancy D3s. Your best option is to bite the bullet and look for a used D700. Perhaps their prices will drop a bit during all these new Nikon product roll-outs. Once you mount, say, your old AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D on an FX body, you'll see what you've been missing. FX is quite lovely--I highly recommend it!

    Posted 1 year ago #
  15. kenadams

    senior member
    Joined: Dec '11
    Posts: 61

    offline

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  16. PB PM

    preferred member
    Joined: Jan '10
    Posts: 2,217

    offline

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  17. kenadams

    senior member
    Joined: Dec '11
    Posts: 61

    offline

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  18. SkintBrit

    preferred member
    Joined: Jul '10
    Posts: 1,149

    offline

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  19. Wataru

    preferred member
    Joined: Feb '12
    Posts: 248

    offline

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  20. mirtos

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '11
    Posts: 159

    offline

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  21. shawnino

    preferred member
    Joined: Jan '12
    Posts: 234

    offline

    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?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  22. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  23. PB PM

    preferred member
    Joined: Jan '10
    Posts: 2,217

    offline

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  24. Pierre

    preferred member
    Joined: Mar '10
    Posts: 1,023

    offline

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  25. mirtos

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '11
    Posts: 159

    offline

    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.

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

NikonRumors Forum (http://nikonrumors.com/forum) is proudly powered by bbPress
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon USA or any other subsidiary of Nikon. Please visit the official Nikon website at nikon.com
Copyright © 2008-2011 NikonRumors.com