There was a heated discussion on this topic at the NR blog - you can continue it here.
Is Nikon DX format dead?
(297 posts) (84 voices)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted 4 years ago # -
NOT. AT. ALL.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Nope. Not right away.
There are too big a base of users for the DX format to simply "die."
I never listen to chicken littles on message boards anyway. Whatever their motivation -- trolling or trying to rationalize purchases of expensive gear -- I can be certain they don't have my best interests in mind.
Posted 4 years ago # -
There's a really good article in the current Pop photo about this. Their conclusion, most people are just fine with APS-C sized sensors, but due to pixel size and density issues, the format tops out at about 15 MP, which is still plenty. Let's not forget that full frame also tops out because of pixel size and density. Each format has it's strengths and weaknesses, people didn't stop shooting 35mm when they found out about medium format, and likewise with large format. I think there will always be a group of sports and wildlife photographers that will cling to the extra reach afforded by crop factor, and those wildlife photographers will love the decreased size and portability when they're out on safari.
Posted 4 years ago # -
My little d60 produces images that I love. I don't think that it is about the size of the sensor, but rather the quality of the technology in the sensor. I don't believe that a Full-Frame sensor of 2003 vintage, will be up to par with a Nikon DX, or for that matter, a Canon 1.6x sensor.
Posted 4 years ago # -
NO! Not for a very long time.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Given the qty of DX lenses, I am sure that all mfg will try to take advantage of the market, while forcing a slow migration to FF. They need to pick our pockets with more than with just bodies.
The state of the economy will play a great role in this.
The next question is: we all know they are after the chinese market where few have DSLRs, so as they go after entry/new buyers, do they shake them down for DX or FX? I believe that FX will be here sooner rather than later.
So me thinks.All of my lenses are FF, and refused to buy DX believing that DX would have a relative short shelf life, after which ....
Posted 4 years ago # -
After which your FX lenses get updated? FX lenses aren't a totally gold standard, although I am keeping an eye on second-hand FX lenses that pop up in camera stores near me with one-eye on eventually buying (not necessarily 'upgrading') an FX camera. Need the lenses first after all and Rockwell's reviews of the mature film zooms are interesting. (If only DxO would crank out modules for these lenses we'd be golden.)
Posted 4 years ago # -
Given some nice extensive line up of lenses from Nikon and other third party producers, I doubt that the format will die any time soon. too much investment has been already done. Not to mention it's a very lucrative market. Nikon won't let that happen unless Canon or other competition will force them to do it.
I would imagine that it costs less to produce DX cameras than FX. Profit margins are probably quite higher than that of FX cameras. Which Nikon will use this to keep the label of "high end" for the FX for a nice hefty profit. Nikon won't try to destroy a nice consumer market. Hell I don't even want to call this a consumer market because I am sure that there are pros who prefer using DX than FX. Be it lower weight or the "low" cost of replacement.
Anyway, two things will only force Nikon to kill of DX, that will be the market and Canon. the consumers have the power to influence this. Simply boycott DX, if you hate it so much, and Nikon will have to do something. Or Canon will push Nikon to killing of DX.
Posted 4 years ago # -
^^^ That is not a very strong argument at all. You're saying that if it's newer it's better, but that is not always the case. CRT's went out because of a combination of bulkiness and quality. FX is bulkier than DX and they are both capable of the same quality, by your argument FX should go. Cassette tapes went out because of the convenience of tracks in CDs, as well as the reliability of an optical media as opposed to a magnetic one. If anything DX is more convenient for both manufacturer and user than FX and they are both equally reliable, so again, by your argument, FX should go. BTW, we still use the magnetic tape media in my experiment for data storage (RHIC, my buddy who works on CMS says they still use them, too, and when I worked on ATLAS in undergrad they used them as well).
Posted 4 years ago # -
DX will die someday just like APS film cameras. However it won't die until a FX camera sells for a D40's price.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I Expect not. I love compact size and reach. ISO Advantage is not a diff on normal conditions 85%. I only miss a larger viewfinder but i think that in a near future all DSLR will be mirrowless (Electronic Viewfinder. like it or not)
Posted 4 years ago # -
^^^ ISO Advantages are a byproduct of how each pixel is handled by the readout electronics not the size of the sensor. You can make a sensor with equal ISO performance in any size. The only things that limit DX and FX are the pixel density which is proportional to pixel size. Smaller pixels are less sensitive to light than bigger ones assuming the pixel substance is the same. Therefore there is a trade off, bigger pixels = more sensitive to light = less overall pixels for the same size sensor, smaller pixels = less sensitive to light (more noise) = more overall pixels for the same size sensor. There is an optimum pixel density, and being a density, it is independent of area, in this case it is independent of sensor size.
Posted 4 years ago # -
There's a lot of snobs out there that think that a D700 or other FX camera will make them a better photographer. As long as that illusion causes a flood of cheap DX gear on the used market I don't mind.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I think it's a dead format walking - but I think it has another decade or so to walk :)
If we agree that 15 or so MP is as far as APS-C should go, then when FX gets into the 32 - 36 MP range, we're at about the same point. Unless physics for technology changes, what's next? Price have to come down. Eventually, FX will get down to the point where it's cheap enough to stick into entry-level bodies.
Plus, with all the "lust" for more MP out there, someone - Canon, Nikon, Sony - will make an entry level camera with an FX sized chip. When Joe amateur goes out to buy a camera and sees he can get a 30MP camera for the same cost as a 15MP camera, what do you think he's going to do?
Steve
Posted 4 years ago # -
I had considered the possibility that DX might not go very far. If you look at previous instances in which Nikon made specialized lenses, such as the Nikonos RS lenses, the E-Series lenses, the Pronea IX-Nikkor lenses, they didn't last very long. They were limited to a functional set of lenses, but they never fully developed into a wide range of lenses for different purposes. DX could easily become like these other examples; after all, they haven't made really extreme DX lenses (300mm or more). But I think that if they're going to keep making digital SLRs, then they've got to keep making lenses to go with it.
Still, should DX vanish one of these days, Nikon would have to update all of their cameras to FX, wouldn't they? That would make a D40 ten times better.
Posted 4 years ago # -
No, Some people that I know doesn't care about it's DX or FX.
They buy from it's price!!
Posted 4 years ago # -
DX has some MAJOR cost advantages when it comes to making lenses--particularly on the wide angle side. The sensors will always be cheaper than FX sensors to manufacture as well. There are thousands of DX lenses out there already, and more being purchased every day. I don't think DX is going anywhere anytime soon. Don't sell your DX lenses quite yet.
A more interesting question to me is when the D300 level camera will become FX (if ever). I wonder if Nikon has given us a hint about their own expectations by naming their low-end FX camera the D700. Does that mean we can expect the D400, 500, and 600 to be DX, and after that Nikon expects the manufacturing cost of FX sensors to drop enough to make the next iteration an FX body? Just a thought.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I agree with that. My sites are set for the D700 right now, but I used to eye the D300 before I learned it didn't have FX format. . . . I would really like to see a more affordable FX format camera. But that really is one of the only things that separates the pros from the amateurs.
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
