Is Nikon DX format dead? « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Is Nikon DX format dead?

(297 posts) (84 voices)

Tags:

« Previous 1 234…12 Next »

Newfie

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 186
offline

Lets face it folks, Nikon is still a business and the only objectives they absolutely have to meet are profitability and return for their investors. The Pro level equipment is most likely not a money maker for them. I would estimate that over 80% of their R&D dollars go into developing technology for this tier. While this technology that eventually trickles down to the pro-sumer and enthusiast level equipment it is usually once the a newer version emerges. What Pro level products do achieve is an incredible amount of media attention and excellent brand development and recognition.

My guess is that Nikon wants to sell cameras in this order:

Coolpix
D40/60
D90/300
D700/3/3X

A D3 will no doubt sell for up to 20X the amount of a typical Coolpix camera and net a profit more than an handful of Coolpix are worth. But I would bet that Nikon sell 100+X Coolpix for every D3. A similar argument can be made for the D40 to D300.

Back to the FX/DX argument, DX will be around for some time yet. For a purely business perspective the DX cameras are worth a heck of a lot more to Nikon's bottom line.

Well that's how I see it anyway.

Posted 4 years ago #
aotoyota

member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 11
offline

DX has to survive for a the Nikon Business model
especially since they keep developing new DX lenses.

it would be crazy if they dropped the DX format
with all there invenstments.

Even back in the day of Nikon APS cameras ( yes APS !)
the Pronea was around for a few years.

Posted 4 years ago #
heartyfisher

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

I can only see more Pro level DX lenses being made if not by Nikon then by Sigma(30mmf1.4,50-150mm f2.8), Tamron(60mm F2.0 Macro) and Tokina (16-50 f2.8, 18-60mm F2.8 ? ). I don't think Nikon can ignore the DX pro photographers much longer.

Posted 4 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

with pics of the D5000 out, and it looking like the next sucessor in the long line of DX bodies, I'm thinking DX is going to be around for a bit. . .I don't know why they'd even think of updating the D300, at 12.3 mp, it's pretty much near that "ceiling" we all speak of. . .I don't want or need video on my pro dlsr, thank you very much. . .

Posted 4 years ago #
davidtoc

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 29
offline

Suneil, I agree with you about the video, and to some degree about the megapixels, but there are other ways of improving a DSLR, as I'm guessing we will see when the D400 is finally released.

I don't actually *mind* having video on my DSLR (I'm sure there are times it will come in handy). I just don't want to pay extra for a DSLR with video capabilities. I'll take the cheaper non-video camera anyday. But I have a feeling video will be with us from this point forward.

Posted 4 years ago #
adamz

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

I just hope, that the high iso capabilities of the new D400 will be comparable to this what one can get from d3/d700, also wouldn't mind it's AF system; as for the video I really don't care if the price will stay at the same level as d300.

Posted 4 years ago #
LSE

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 30
offline

DX is not dead and won't die. soccer moms around the world like the fact they can use cheap lenses to take pictures of little bobby. until nikon figures out how to make fx glass that is as cheap and light as dx glass, it would be suicide to make an FX entry level D60.

Posted 4 years ago #
andrewz

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 143
offline

I want to change to subject just a little. Whether or not a product is dead tends to be a function of whether it can be sold and a company can make a profit from it. So the DX format is not dead.
But what are the physical limits to the DX/APC-S sensor size? I make this assumption that more large pixels on a larger sensor are better, yea that maybe over simplified. So how small can you push the actual pixel size and how many pixels can you pack in to a DX/APC-S sensor before the wave length of the light is greater than the pixel? Or am I thinking wrong is there no lower limit to pixel size? Current technology aside what are the sacrifices you make with smaller pixels.
I expect that technology will progress, image processing will get better, and noise reduction will improve etc…but where are the physical limits.
The practical considerations are as I think about my next camera should consider a D400 or a D800. If Nikon continues to improve the low light capability and image quality it may not make sense for me to go to the FX format but if we’re reaching the physical limits of the DX/APC-S format it maybe about time to jump.

Posted 2 years ago #
scoobysmak

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 226
offline

Wow I thought this horse was dead...just kidding. Here is my take on it, technology is a wonderful thing. Just like computers, the sensors will advance over time. It may take sudden leaps or might seem to creep up at a snails pace (I admit I do not see any sudden leaps in the near future but hey my crystal ball broke years ago so take that for what its worth). I still remember when I used an 8086 processor, just for the young ones, that is before the original intel pentium chip was produced (uh like 30MHz, not like today's 1.8 GHz chips).

This is what I am and will do from now on, maybe smart maybe not but here goes....

I have a D700 and ordered a D7000. All of my lenses are FX format, yes I do pay a price for them and not quite as convenient as DX lenses. I will continue to buy both types of cameras as they improve in quality (not just MP but low light and other important factors that will help me to get better shots or reduce the time it will take me to create the final product). I might buy a consumer DX lens or two for that travel factor, for instance if I find a 18-200 for a steal I might get it. It will be a dust magnet most of the time unless I take a vacation and really cramped for space (note I normally travel with two bodies and at least 5 lenses if not all 8).

In the end I see I can have the best of both worlds, I will be able to use all of my lenses on both of my cameras with out sacrificing half of my sensor to do it (aka put a DX lens on an FX camera and it still works just at a reduced output).

I see this could happen but maybe not....

Nikon stops producing high end DX lenses and only makes consumer lenses for the convenience and cost factor. If you want a pro lens then you will pay for the FX lens (which if your buying pro lenses you probably/might have a full frame camera anyway). I would say the only lens that might be high end for DX would be an extreme wide angle or fisheye type lens, this is just to remove the crop factor. I do not see DX as dead mainly because of the crop factor, if I were a "birder" and DX died I would cry. I see eventually in like 2000 years someone makes a product that can replace the human eye and cameras will be extinct, but until that happens happy shooting..

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Oh no not this again!
How many threads have I closed recently because people can't "win" an argument and the discussion boils over? Everyone has an OPINION and no one will win the "debate". The "usual suspects" need to keep that in mind. Don't make me close another thread.

KEEP THE DISCUSSION FRIENDLY

Posted 2 years ago #
casperwb

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 558
offline

NikoDoby said:
Oh no not this again!
How many threads have I closed recently because people can't "win" an argument and the discussion boils over? Everyone has an OPINION and no one will win the "debate". The "usual suspects" need to keep that in mind. Don't make me close another thread.

KEEP THE DISCUSSION FRIENDLY

Niko, there are just so many new topics that one can start, and you close many because the person posting did not do a proper search, therefore I do not see anything wrong in someone digging up a old thread if it is interesting to them.

I personally find it very interesting to see what people thought one year ago, and how technology [as in the D7000] proves some of them wrong.

There is a lesson to be learned by everyone reading this, for without history we are doomed to repeat our mistakes.

Please note this is not a personal attack on anyone, just my opinion that I find it refreshing to see what people thought one year ago, and how much they were off the mark.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

casperwb said:
I personally find it very interesting to see what people thought one year ago, and how technology [as in the D7000] proves some of them wrong.

Reading the entire thread just now I don't know if a single person was proved wrong by the D7000. The consensus seems pretty solid and reasonable.

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

NikoDoby said:
Oh no not this again!
How many threads have I closed recently because people can't "win" an argument and the discussion boils over? Everyone has an OPINION and no one will win the "debate". The "usual suspects" need to keep that in mind. Don't make me close another thread.

KEEP THE DISCUSSION FRIENDLY

I understand your frustration, but this discussion has yet to boil over, so don't worry yet.

Nikon still makes some pro-level DX lenses- the 10.5 fisheye and the 17-55 AF-S.

The D7000 proves that DX is here to stay. Perhaps Nikon may even introduce a 1.3x crop? Why did Canon even do that?

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

casper I don't mind you guys digging up old threads. I'm refering to what happened in the "DX vs FX DXO sensor resolution" thread, the "DXO lens resolution DX vs FX" thread, the "D7000 DX vs FX sensor out resolves lenses" thread, the "does aperture change DX vs FX" thread and most recently the "Japan nucear crisis vs Chernobyl" back and forth.

I'm not referring to anything that has been said in this thread (yet). I'm just giving an early warning to the "usual suspects" to NOT "ruin" this thread too.

If Nikon introduces a smaller family of lenses for their EVIL mirrorless pro cameras then DX becomes even less important. I know several photogs dumping their DX lenses and buying only FX glass now.

Posted 2 years ago #
adamz

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

Niko - dumping DX lenses and buying FX glass doesn't mean anything. There's still a lot of place for DX cameras, especially those ones with higher MPx's - perfect for wildlife closeups.

Posted 2 years ago #
andrewz

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 143
offline

It’s not a question of winning or losing. Each format has its strengths and weaknesses.

The question is what’s the physical limitation on pixel size? How small can they be made? It’s question of physics, light and manufacturing.

This is where I get way out of my area of expertise but I imagine if it were possible to manufacture a sensor with pixels smaller than the wave length of visible light they wouldn’t work. The light would essentially be too big to enter the pixel. Am I right? If so there then must be a theoretical maximum number of pixels per sq mm. Anybody know that number?

Posted 2 years ago #
casperwb

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 558
offline

NikoDoby said:
casper I don't mind you guys digging up old threads. I'm refering to what happened in the "DX vs FX DXO sensor resolution" thread, the "DXO lens resolution DX vs FX" thread, the "D7000 DX vs FX sensor out resolves lenses" thread, the "does aperture change DX vs FX" thread and most recently the "Japan nucear crisis vs Chernobyl" back and forth.

I'm not referring to anything that has been said in this thread (yet). I'm just giving an early warning to the "usual suspects" to NOT "ruin" this thread too.

If Nikon introduces a smaller family of lenses for their EVIL mirrorless pro cameras then DX becomes even less important. I know several photogs dumping their DX lenses and buying only FX glass now.

okay, thanks, sorry if I read it wrong

Posted 2 years ago #
kyoshinikon

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

NSXType-R said:

The D7000 proves that DX is here to stay. Perhaps Nikon may even introduce a 1.3x crop? Why did Canon even do that?

I am puzzled by that too as the D3 already has a crop option just in case. That makes a great tele shooter but a useless true full frame or apsc body... Isnt it nice to have a Fullframe sports shooter like the D3 and 14-24mm (Ive been doing alot of motocross lately and need the wide angle with a fast burst speed)

I would dump Dx too if it were more cost effective. I agree that a evf/evil would cause dx to be less important...

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

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

Sigh I am one who would prefer some of those threads if not reopened but not closed just because some get a bit hot. Its not the Thread's fault! warn the posters by all means! but why close a thread with valid discussions!

Ok back on topic.. well I am looking forward to the new 45MP DX sensor that is coming out this year from sigma. so the MP improvements are about to get a big jump.

Posted 2 years ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

If this thread is resurrected next year, the year after and the year after that +++, I reckon DX (in some incarnation) will still be around. Too many reasons (and people buying it) for it to go away.

My 2c.

Posted 2 years ago #
gelu88

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 295
offline

I think we should just resign ourselves to the fact that the debate will rage of forever and just make it a tradition to revive this thread every year, unlike most the level of discussion here is quite high. Its worth preserving.

For a slightly different take on the issue, i think that with the D7000 and TXi, the DX category has reached the same stage as pro-compacts where increases in resolution result of visible quality degradation (at least until a revolutionary change in sensor design takes place, black silicon et al)

the pro compact market has stabilized at 10mp, with the few models that go higher tend to not benefit. it seems to me that we will not see a Dx sensor above 20MP for a while, as companies get a grip on dealing with this density.

Posted 2 years ago #
PB PM

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

Sony was making a 24MP DX sensor already (at least they were), so I think the point of not seeing one over 20MP is already a moot one.

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

kyoshinikon said:
I am puzzled by that too as the D3 already has a crop option just in case. That makes a great tele shooter but a useless true full frame or apsc body... Isnt it nice to have a Fullframe sports shooter like the D3 and 14-24mm (Ive been doing alot of motocross lately and need the wide angle with a fast burst speed)

I would dump Dx too if it were more cost effective. I agree that a evf/evil would cause dx to be less important...

I didn't know the D3 had a 1.3 crop mode. I'm just curious why Canon had a little crop camera too.

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

heartyfisher said:
Ok back on topic.. well I am looking forward to the new 45MP DX sensor that is coming out this year from sigma. so the MP improvements are about to get a big jump.

I'd be interested to see a comparison of that sensor with a competing bayer sensor (15MP or, hey, the D7000's 16MP is a handy one in the right range). I know that sounds like it has such impressive resolution, but I'll bet you'll have a 3-fold increase in RAW image file size without a corresponding increase in resolution, color depth, etc. The Bayer filter is still a very tidy way to get and store color info.

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

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

jonnyapple said:
I'd be interested to see a comparison of that sensor with a competing bayer sensor (15MP or, hey, the D7000's 16MP is a handy one in the right range). I know that sounds like it has such impressive resolution, but I'll bet you'll have a 3-fold increase in RAW image file size without a corresponding increase in resolution, color depth, etc. The Bayer filter is still a very tidy way to get and store color info.

The calculations say it will be equivelent to a 30MP Bayer.

Posted 2 years ago #