Is Nikon DX format dead? « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Is Nikon DX format dead?

(297 posts) (84 voices)

Tags:

« Previous 123…12 Next »

Juergen.

junior member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 7
offline

davidtoc wrote: "The [DX] sensors will always be cheaper than FX sensors to manufacture as well."

That's very true!
To produce an FX sensor costs roughly 9x (nine times) as much as a DX sensor - yes, 9x!
So if a DX sensor costs 40 USD, then the equivalent FX sensor costs roughly 360 USD. Now take a typical 3.5x markup for the end user buying price... ==:-((

Or look at it another way: Take the price difference of a Nikon D700 and a Nikon D300 and you get the idea how much more expensive an FX camera is.

Posted 4 years ago #
warprints

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 769
offline

The question is "Is the DX format dead?" The answer is, obviously, no. Look at current sales. If the question were, will DX survive, then you've got to ask "what time frame are we talking about?" Well, if it's open ended, sure, DX will die. So will FX (some day). But as noted above, 35mm didn't die when medium format SLRs came along. 35mm is still with us, and despite rumors of its demise, is still going fairly strong, altho admittedly on the downswing. I like DX for the size, weight, and extra reach - I do mostly field work and have to wag cameras and lenses around. The end result with DX does fine for me. Will I buy an FX camera? Yes, primarily for studio work, but the DXs will go on road trips.

Posted 4 years ago #
davidtoc

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 29
offline

Also, the advantages of FX are disappearing (or at least becoming less relevant). The bigger pixels on the FX sensors give a better quality image still, but with an increasing number of wide-angle lenses appearing for DX cameras, what does an FX sensor really afford you anymore, other than a smaller bank account?

Posted 4 years ago #
tai

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 315
offline

DX is a long way from dead. FX is still very expensive, and Nikon is certainly showing it support with their recent lenses. My next digital camera will, however, certainly be FX. I just love the big bright viewfinders and IQ you can get with a bigger sensor area.

Posted 4 years ago #
Tony M

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 14
offline

The point is that yesterdays technology is dead, everyone wants the latest. It's called 'Supply and Demand'.
Yup, Cassettes still exist. Yup, so do do CRts, but if one considers hwo amny of each are produced vs newer, alternative technology? It's not even close.
Yup CRT is probably more accurate for colour rendition - now - although there are some very good LCDs - at a price.
However, as the number of CRT's diminish so the price goes up (cost of manufacture), at the same time the price of LCds will go down.
As for Mag tape, what's the life span of data stored on a material that is susceptible to even the Earths magnetic field, not to mention anything that is even more magnetic (like your fridge magnets). Anybody who wants to preserve data does it on optical storage for exactly this reason.
DX will die, so too probably will FX when MX becomes more available. if there was no reason (financial) to go to better technologies they wouldn't exist and no one in their sane mind would inc=vest in R&D.

Posted 4 years ago #
gravity84

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 40
offline

^^^ supply and demand is a business property, not a technological one. It has nothing to do with new vs old technology, it just describes the price of a product based on the amount of goods and the public interest for said goods.

Do I have to say again that this is a flippin SENSOR SIZE. IT IS NOT A "NEW TECHNOLOGY."

It is about as new of a technology to CCD's as a bigger car is to automobiles.

Posted 4 years ago #
Tony M

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 14
offline

It's a sensor size that is resticted by physics (quantum mechanics). It has limitations that cannot be surpassed at the current physical size of the sensor. to get better performance one needs bigger sensors. It's elementary.

Posted 4 years ago #
gravity84

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 40
offline

Please elaborate. Feel free to post papers if you wish or reference texts. I have a masters in physics, I can handle it.

Posted 4 years ago #
Tony M

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 14
offline

Oh Goody!

Then you understand luminescence. You also understand efficiency too. Then you combine these two based on sensor (pixel) size. Take the result of this and then compare it to electronic noise.
As the pixel size diminishes then the ratio of noise to excitation voltage must decrease because the incident light on the sensor site has decreased.
Electronic noise is temperature dependant. Thus the higher the temperature, the greater the noise level.
So, if one needs to improve the resolution of a sensor:
One needs smaller photosites.
if one uses smaller photosites then the noise level must increase proprtionately.
Thus there is a limit to which a certain sensor size can be used before one reaches the point of no return and that noise levels will degrade to an unacceptable level beyond that point.

Unless you want to carry a dewar flask of liquid nitrogen along with you camera to cool the sensor then this is a real contraint.

Tell me I'm wrong?

Posted 4 years ago #
K1W1

junior member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 6
offline

Please don't tell my D50 or D300 that DX is dead because they are liable to both stop taking great photos.

Posted 4 years ago #
gravity84

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 40
offline

@Tony M: I suggest you read the rest of my posts in this thread I don't feel like explaining it again because I just spent the whole day shooting great photos with my "obsolete" D60 in Joshua Tree. I talked about pixel size, I talked about noise.

Posted 4 years ago #
davidtoc

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 29
offline

Hey Gravity. Post some of those photos!

Posted 4 years ago #
gravity84

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 40
offline

OT...but ok!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattmendoza/sets/72157615965978383/

I'm slowly adding them, but they should all be up eventually.

Posted 4 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

IMO till the time You can use FX lenses on DX bodies the DX format will be alive - maybe one day it's gonna be a niche, but not for the next couple of years, as the extra reach is definitely a pro not a con. Also I don't agree with some of You, who writes that FX is pro and DX is amateur - what a bull...t. It's not the equipment You have, but the skills and what You do with Your photography that classifies You as a pro or amateur.

Posted 4 years ago #
Tony M

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 14
offline

@Gravity84,
Yes, wer're on the same page. there is a limitaion to the DX format. My point is, however, that all technologies become obsolete, if not now then later. One can call it 'supply and demand' if one wishes but ultimately today's technology is history. The same goes for 'obsolete' film, still some of the best photographs were taken with it. Now and always.

Posted 4 years ago #
gravity84

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 40
offline

I still don't think you quite understand my point. DX and FX have the SAME limitation when it comes to sensor sensitivity vs noise. There is an optimum pixel density (pixels/area), this optimum pixel density is independent of sensor size. According to Pop Photo, the optimum # of megapixels for DX is around 14-15. This means optimum pixel density is around 37.8k-40.5k pixels (APS-C sensors are around 370 mm^2). A full frame sensor's area is 864 mm^2, this means that the optimum pixel count for Full Frame is around 32.7-35 MP (OT but note, we're almost there). Now there are serious benefits to shooting DX. If you are shooting sports or skittish animals crop factor works to your benefit. Yes, you can crop FX but if you will consistently be using the crop factor, DX is much more practical because not only is it already cropped, but the camera bodies are smaller, the viewfinder shows the cropped image lowering the chance of focus errors. It's really all ridiculous anyway because 35mm is arbitrary, chosen because of people's preferences when they used an old technology, and people chose this size because of people like Henri Cartier-Bresson who chose it because...it's smaller, more portable, and less conspicuous. HOW IRONIC. It doesn't matter anyway since photography is an art not a science, like I said before. Sensor sizes (among other things) are our brushes, painters don't paint everything with one size brush, and bigger brushes didn't make smaller ones obsolete.

Posted 4 years ago #
Tony M

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 14
offline

I understand your point which is really a differentiation between 'needs' and 'want's. By the same token, not many people still use 3MP DX cameras any more because 10 -> 15 MP is seen to be better. Is 15 better than 10?, probably no real discernible difference but anyone would buy 15 instead of 10 if of similar price.
Right now DX has a price and size benefit over FX but I'm not convinced the differential will always be as large as it is currently. On the size aspect, Olympus brought out the OM1 back in the early 1970s I think it was at a size much smaller than any competitor at the time. There's no reason why the same cannot be done with FX as far as I know.
So DX may not be dead but if a manufacturer brings out a similar sized FX camera at a similar price point then I would guess that the FX camera would be purchased preferentially. Do they need it, maybe not, but they will want it - and that's what will drive the purchasing power.

Posted 4 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

Tony - most people are not using 3Mpx cameras not because they need more resolution, but because now 10-15Mpx is a standard, and You will not find any serious new body with less than 10Mpx. OTOH I agree with gravity84 that in the areas such us sports/wildlife there's always gonna be need for DX (and it's ability to reach further).

Posted 4 years ago #
davidtoc

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 29
offline

Tony M, you may be right about the price differential between DX and FX lens disappearing over time, but my guess is that it will be with us for quite a while. DX lenses cost MUCH less to manufacture than the equivalent FX lens (particularly on the wide end, which is why you don't see a 300mm DX lens or a ). An engineer who understands these things much better than I do explained that in many cases it would be the difference between a lens costing thousands instead of hundreds. In the same vein, look at the cost difference between a 50mm lens for a 35mm camera vs the same lens for a medium format camera. The analogy is the same. And I don't see that price difference disappearing either anytime soon.

I certainly prefer to buy FX lenses when I can, but if I want wide angle on my DX camera, I don't have any choices other than DX lenses to choose from.

Posted 4 years ago #
Tony M

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 14
offline

AdamZ,

It's a matter of 'Horses for Courses'. I agree that DX is great for tele work. However, FX is better for scenery and portraits IMHO.
If one has FX then one can always still use the DX facility to get DX type 'reach', so one has the best of both worlds. FX lenses will also give better pictures (IRO light fall off) than DX lenses on DX frames too.
I'm biding my time and buying FX lenses until the price of FX decreases sufficiently but it might well be a long wait :-) - as long as they reduce the weight too which is the bigger evil.

davidtoc,

That's the other problem with DX, no real ultra wides to choose from that gives one the same view angle on an FX.

I have a D40X and am quite happy with it. However, having seen photographs from the D3X, the difference is obvious. I also have an F80 so DX lenses aren't really suitable and it's silly having both lens types.
I'm not slating DX by any means, I'm just saying that technology marches on and what we use today, will not be what we use tomorrow.

Posted 4 years ago #
gravity84

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 40
offline

Well they're getting close, tokina can get us a 15mm efl with their 10-17mm zoom. Thats only 1mm shy of the FX widest of 14mm. Take a few steps back.

If you're going to talk about scenery and portraits then yes, the larger format always wins because of resolution. But if you're a serious landscape photographer, you're going to shoot large format. If you're a serious portrait photographer in a studio, you're going to shoot a hasselblad or a mamiya.

Posted 4 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

Tony,
sure, DX is better for scenery and portraits, I'll say even more it's getting better the wider lens You use. However, I disagree with You that using the DX facility on FX camera will create the same effect as using DX camera. On Nikon D3 when You use the DX mode You are limited only to 6Mpx, which is great for even big enlargements - but only when You don't crop. If You start cropping (and at least I don't know any wildlife photographer who is not doing this) than from 6Mpx You get 3 or less, and this is unfortunately insufficient - so it makes a lot of sens for me to use DX camera with 10+Mpx, to be able to get excacly the shoot I want. As for the lenses, sure FX lenses are great, and IMO wouldn't trade any of them for DX, as the IQ is much better (personally I use only DX lens on the widest angles), and also like davidtoc wrote there's really no sens for Nikon or any other company to create any long range telephoto lenses, as the price wouldn't decrease with the width of the lens.

Posted 4 years ago #
Tony M

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 14
offline

@Gravity84

I was talking in the realms of 35 mm photography in this discussion. Agree that large format would be better
tho.

Haven't seen the Tokina U/W - must look like a fish bowl I guess? :-)

@adamz

I was referring to when the DX and FX reach their max theoretical resolution, as outlined by gravity84, when I was talking about using the DX crop format on an FX. As gravity84 says, the pixel density will be the same for both so ultimately one could use an FX (at that stage) with a DX crop that would yield the same resolution as the max DX camera could (15MP)

In any event, when DX gets to 15 MP then I'll invest in one for general photography (light weight) and tele work (low weight teles). Ultimately the 35MP FX would be used for scerious landscape and portraits which I hope I'm still around when it hits the shelves/has a decent price point!

In between time, waiting for Nikon to upgrade their FX lenses, particularly on the wide angle end.
Would make sense to buy DX telephotos though.

Posted 4 years ago #
scottkemp2

new member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1
offline

I think we will continue to have both DX and FX cameras for the foreseeable future because it works well for Nikon from a marketing perspective. The reason we have DX sensors is because FX ones were not initially available. Now that they are, we have them because of the huge population of 35 mm lenses in the world and in Nikon's current product line. If the FX size sensor had been available from the beginning we probably never would have had DX SLRs.

But we do have DX SLRs and they are working out nicely for Nikon. The fill a product niche in what is called the "semi pro" level. This is good because it helps define the professional camera and give it market value. It is different in a obvious way, like medium or large format is.

I think to say the difference is based on what the sensor can ultimately do is misleading. We are talking about computer chip production and design here. They keep getting smaller and better; if we want them to. At any given point in time there is a limit to performance to be obtained from a give size of sensor. But in the next generation that limit is upped. There is also a limit to how much sensor performance we will ultimately need. We do, after all, view the images with human eyes on illuminated computer screens or printed on paper.

DX sized chips will evolve to provide all the resolution and sensitivity we can make use of. The reason we will have FX is because of the 35 mm lenses which exist and continue to be produced. The reason DX will not be dropped is because they work for Nikon, from a marketing perspective.

Posted 4 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

This 15mp limit... does not consider new technology (I was going to say RUBBISH but then my polite self took over :-)) Just look at nikon's patents and you will see that they have a patent NOW that will more than triple the density. So using the same sensitivity material they can make 36MP Dx sensors. Now if you add the Kodak Patent that improves the sensitivity by 2 stops just by changing the pattern of the grid and adding a white sensor You can get a 36mp DX sensor that is has high ISO capability greater than the D700. Now, if you add the new discovery of Black silicone( just google it ) which provides as they say 100 time the sensitivity (ie about 6.5 stops) then you can see that in a few short years just with current technology we can have a 36MP Dx sensors with ISO sensitivities that would take a page to enumerate. And these are just the technology that I know of. I bet there are dozens that I dont know of and there will probably be a few more that will be created in the next few years.

So DX is not going away.. new technology will always be expensive to incorporate into a sensor. FX is always going to cost much more to produce. However DX performance will be MORE than good enough!

Posted 4 years ago #