where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Of course it's not dead. Otherwise they'd just have the D700 and D3. As of this post Nikon sells 6 DX bodies and 3 FX. If they dropped DX, a Nikon DSLR would be out of reach for most people. That's a good way to drive people to the competition.
DX will (maybe?) die once they figure out how to make a $500 FX DSLR and cheap FX lenses to go with it.
Where did you get 6 DX bodies from? D3100, D7000 and D300s are the only DX bodies in production right now as far as I know. I guess you could add the upcoming D5100 to that list, so four bodies. The D90 and D5000 have not been in production for 4-6 months now.
This is a very legitimate question, but asked in a wrong way. The real question has nothing to do with DX versus FX. It's what will be the impact of mirrorless camera technology on DX? To be more specific, it's how large a chunk of the DX market will be grabbed by mirrorless cameras with electronic viewfinders (EVF) and continuous focus (CF)?
Basically, dSLRs with optical viewfinders and phase detection focusing don't integrate well with video, while mirrorless cameras do. While the technology is just getting going, over the next year, there should be at least three companies with mirrorless cameras that flow seamlessly between stills and video, and also work fast enough to be considered competent. Panasonic's GH2 is the first and Sony seems headed that way with its not-yet-announced NEX-7. Nikon will also likely make the cut with its new EVIL, assuming it is geared towards the high end of the market.
Initially, these three will have higher end cameras with kits starting above $1K, but the technology will then drop in price rapidly, so that you'll have competition at every market segment. Will DX die? Certainly not initially. But if the mirrorless camera manufacturers can match DX still image quality and provide a similar ergonomic experience to optical viewfinders with EVF, then they will likely take a huge chunk out of DX sales.
Note, incidentally, that you can certainly expect both Nikon and Canon to hedge their bets with both formats.
I think Mirror-less is a separate but good question from "Is DX dead?" Why?- Mirror-less cameras can and are DX format as well. I think of Mirror-less in the same category (for some companies) as DX and that is why DX will not be going anywhere for a very long time. (food for thought - every digi compact is a mirror-less camera)
Three things have been proven over time - 1) The larger the medium that captures an image equates to the better quality of the image. & 2) The better built ($$) lenses and film/sensors, equates to better quality of the image. 3) A 5 year old will somehow take a great image with a $5 camera that we could not have dreamed of. :)
Image through a lens - must be seen by human eye - needs a way to limit the light (aperture or shutter mechanisms) - needs to capture the image - need to move image from camera to view.
More or less that is the basic concept goals of a camera system. There have been 1000s of ways people have been doing this for 150 years and there will be 1000s more in the future. What we debate now will look silly in 20 years.
PB PM said:
Where did you get 6 DX bodies from? D3100, D7000 and D300s are the only DX bodies in production right now as far as I know. I guess you could add the upcoming D5100 to that list, so four bodies. The D90 and D5000 have not been in production for 4-6 months now.
I just took a quick look on B&H. They are selling the D3000, D3100, D5000, D90, D7000, and D300s. All in stock except the D7000 body-only.
My point was more about the price (and sales) gap between P&S and FX. Nikon needs a mid-range line. Right now, DX is their only option. DX won't go away until something comes along that can not only fill that gap, but do it better than DX. Could be some new cheap FX sensor (and cheaper FX lenses) or some other form of crop sensor or something.
Personally I'd like to see a 24 f/2 DX and a 85 f/2 DX, with d7000's, you could have a great two body four lens kit (24, 35, 50, 85) without much weight
PB PM said:
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.
Sure, and the Canon G10 was 14MP, but its performance was so much worse that the G11 retreated to 10Mp. The sonsor in the A77 could be astonishing but at this stage i would doubt it, only reviews can tell.
if it IS very good, in a sense i would be even more dissapointed. Because can you imagine how good the tech could be if used in a 10 MP sensor? probably better than a D3s.
There is a DoF advantage to the DX format over the FX. I can't see the DX format going away soon.
Also, this point was stated a year ago in the first pages of the thread but i'll say it again: Sensor tech is NOT affected by Moores law. while some of the circuitry on the sensor will get cheaper in time, the pixel array(using current technology) prices remain stable. The only cost savings that apply are those of economies of scale.
So economies of scale, plus chip yields which drop relative to the area of the chip equals significant savings for smaller sensors.
Again, a breakthrough in materials will change this, but that's not affecting us anytime soon.
Sigh.. its the FX format that is ded.. :-) why are we still here ?
heartyfisher said:
Sigh.. its the FX format that is ded.. :-) why are we still here ?
i'd agree that FX has a greater probability of dying than DX, given the price reductions in medium format cameras. Why get a D3X if the pentax 645D is only slightly more?
But really, i think they will all survive for a while yet. medium format lacks the amazing lens selection of FX, as well as the performance and low light options (for now). And while the quality difference between DX and FX are shrinking for now (we'll have to re-evaluate after D4 and D800) its enough for pros to be willing to pay for.
heartyfisher said:
Sigh.. its the FX format that is ded.. :-) why are we still here ?
Then why are you planing to buy a D700?
gelu88 said:
i'd agree that FX has a greater probability of dying than DX, given the price reductions in medium format cameras.
Medium format cameras have been around longer than SLRs. They are a totally different "animal" and don't really compare to a 35mm system. 35mm (aka FX) has been the most popular camera format for over 50 years. If it were to die then it could have easily been killed off when digital cameras were all DX only.
Why did Canon and then Nikon go on to make digital "FX" cameras if DX was so great?
DX must die! Long live FX and the new mirrorless mount ;^P
LOL! I am also 'planning' to buy a medium format camera as well! and we know how ded that is! I did enjow playing with 120 film.... sigh... those were the days ...
You can't switch lenses on a 120 Holga Hearty :^D
thats why i said "probability"
no format is going to "die" anytime soon, they all service different markets and have various strengths and weaknesses. Plus everything from FX to micro 4/3 now has a significant collection of lenses that will keep them "alive"
NikoDoby said:
Why did Canon and then Nikon go on to make digital "FX" cameras if DX was so great?
Because at the current state of technology, DX is not capable of the same things that FX is. Once DX (or some other crop) technology is at a point where "more" is meaningless (more MP, more DR, more ISO, etc.) then there's really no need for FX other than perhaps UWA. DX can handle everything else, new DX lenses would be cheaper, and the crop factor provides more reach. At that point FX becomes a specialized market, just like medium format is today.
Oh, my how we can predict the future. It would be my opinion that as new technology arises from the clever minds of the scientists, the quality from a DX sized sensor will be much better than the FX of, say, 24 Mp images today. The only issue is one of lens resolution. How high can this go? And then one must consider the same tech advances applied to the DX size may be used in the FX so as to obtain an even greater depth of color and dynamic range, possibly even something with the capabilities to cover 12-14 f stops of dynamic range rather than the 8-9 currently being the best. Is bigger always better? Having shot 11" x 14" Ektachrome in the 1960's, I would say not. The problems with exposure in shadows being different color temp than highlights was a real bugaboo and the camera was only good for studio work unless you had a lot of help.
As technology progresses I think we will see improvement in the end results, and will always like the advantage of FX over DX when final quality is compared.
Gosh, opinions are so easily obtained. But the discussions are interesting.
Ms. Tommie Lauer
@msmoto: Sounds like a motorcycle racing photographer here? I too shot large format. Up to bigger than 11x14. In retrospect 8x10 and 617 (medium format ( 2 1/4 x 7 inches) were my favorites there. Compared to those photos I do think the D90 and D300 (DX) and D700 (FX) I am using are very impressive and the turn around time between exposure and seeing the results is way better now. I myself DO NOT believe bigger is always better.
More cars than bikes. But one of the interesting changes is the safety factor in shooting cars. In the '60's we could stand behind snow fence, twenty or thirty feet from cars going maybe 140 mph max. Now, the tire walls, Armco, and such make it a lot safer, but we are also sometimes 50 - 100 yards away, especially outside of corners. If one were shooting a Hasselblad, imagine the size of an 800 mm lens to get the effect we get with 400mm today. I think the longest lens we had with our Blad was a 250.... like a 135 sort of on FX. Of course one did not have to turn it sideways.
The current computer generated lenses make a DX format image today much crisper than the old 300mm f4.5 I used on the Nikon F in the early '60's and shot Ektachrome.
You will see sometime after the Suzuki Bikes at Road America in June 2012 some great bike shots..... ah, hopefully. I will try the 400 plus the 1.4 and shoot both FX and DX on the new D4, again, hopefully. I love the "in the cockpit" shots. And none of this could be done on anything greater than DX or FX.
Ms. Tommie Lauer
Right after the release of the D700 and D3 the forums had grumbled that perhaps DX might die.
But Nikon really hasn't showed any interest as of yet to stop the DX line, especially with the release of DX primes such as the 35mm 1.8 and the macros such as the 85mm 3.5 and the 40mm 2.8. Not to mention the excellent DX bodies such as the D5100 and the D7000.
So it's probably going to be around for some time more, and I'm glad, as there aren't any cheap full frame cameras yet.
Just about the only thing that's missing from the DX lineup is a pro DX (not D300 style) body and wide primes, which isn't too terrible when you can use pro FX glass to fill in the gaps.
hmmm Well now I've both DX and FX.Both are different.
DX has lot of advantages over FX and vice versa .
LIn film days we did have a number of different formats that co-existend. Some stayed longer (35 mm, medium or large format) some did not (who remembers the Kodak Photodisc - and I am not talking about the Photo CD). So why should this be different with digital cameras?
As long as there is a market for both formats to make a profit I am sure both formats will stay.
We are using VIO video cameras onboard motorcycles and high speed cars. We have tried DX format for stills and video files. FX just doesn't work to well here. Not that we have tried it too much due to size. There is a distinct market for both formats (FX and DX) as Corelli points out.
DX is not dead, we all know that, but with the excellent results obtained by the V1, I wouldn't be surprised to see a V2, or V3 in a near future with even better results, equalling DX. Since this new technology will also apply to DX, the gap will remain unchanged, and the format which may well suffer from this in the end is FX…
You must log in to post.
