where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
First NR rumor on the D3200 DX sensor to be released later this year moves it from 14mp to 24.2mp. Amazing, if true.
Surely there will be sufficient quality in upcoming DX sensors to keep it the "best bang for the buck" format.
One has to wonder if lenses will be able to resolve sufficiently with high megapixel DX sensors.
Well, say if the D3200 is true and not just a rumor, I would say this kinda proves that DX isn't going anywhere just like others have said (I said this to keep myself on topic).
The question of the lenses being sufficient quailty to resolve at this level. Well with your average kit lens you might start to see a few "problems". I believe the "pro" line that you don't want to buy donald will probably still be way above this problem. Do I think it will matter, not really. The technology of most cameras are way beyond what most people can shoot anyway. Since this is a consumer camera (based on model), would they even be able to tell there was a problem?
Just to throw my 2c in (again?) on this, the answer is no, DX is certainly not dead. Far from it in fact, considering the cameras in the DX format that are due this month/year out of Nikon.
The idea of a high megapixel D3200, and a D7100 is going to keep it going all year long, even without the other models due, just because the prices will be lower for these that the others. I am not 100% certain yet as I have heard several conflicting stories from sales reps, who are probably just as in the dark as the rest of us at this point in time (as it is not due until autumn this probably means manufacturing probably won't have got underway just yet), but I wonder if we can all say D7100 and 32MP at the same time without feeling ill? I have also heard it will be 18MP and even 24MP, so stay calm and don't panic...
These two should push Nikon DX sales very high this year, especially as Nikon marketing prepare to fail miserably pushing the Nikon brand in front of the watching world at the Olympics this summer. I'd like to say they will succeed at pushing the brand to enthusiasts and non-photographers alike this summer, and make all of us here feel warm and fuzzy about them, but experience kind of makes me think otherwise.
Now if Nikon marketing would only realize that there is a market for something with the image quality of something like an FX sensor (think Fuji X-Pro-1) but put in a small body with deeply retro style (think Nikon S rangefinder style), all those after top quality and not wanting something that looks like it comes from the set of the latest "Hello Kitty" movie would be happy too. So long as it takes interchangeable lenses and have a wide range of extras, perhaps that WOULD kill off DX...
:)
Why is everyone talking about a D7100? And where is this D3200 coming from?
NSXType-R: People are starting to talk about these to cameras because NR has stated both the D7000 and D3100 are on two year refresh cycles. For some time NR has stated their replacements are due out this year. Apparently the "upper level" or "pro" cameras such as the D300 and the D3 are on four year refresh cycles. Since technology can move so fast in this area the best "bang for the buck" in lower cost technology advancements may be in the D7000, D7100, D7200 line.
When you ask "is DX dead" two good measurements of its value are what you get for the money in the entry level and top level of the models that change every two years.
I think better questions are:
1. "Is DX dead for the pro-shooter?" Maybe yes, since they can all soon shoot with used D3 generation cameras if the D4 cameras are too expensive for them. Subquestion: "Will any pro shooters be shooting the D400 or will they all move up to FX this year?"
2. "Is DX dead for the advanced amateur/partial pro shooter?" (Someone who does some work for pay but doesn't rely upon photography for his/her full income.) Well, lets see what the D400 offers to this shooter. FX cost may still be too much higher than the income it would generate for this category of shooter to move to FX.
3. "Is DX dead for the advanced amateur shooter?" I think no because the DX bodies coming out this year offer far more than the advanced amateur needs. If there is a $700 premium attached to shooting FX I think DX will be around for a long, long time as the advanced amateur's chosen purchase.
The D3100 was Nikon's top selling DSLR in 2011. It's a DX body. It's probably safe to say that the top 5 lenses were DX lenses.
There is plenty of room for FX in a stable of DX cameras. FX has it's place, but it is certainly not a high volume product compared to the large number of DX DSLR bodies being sold year after year.
It is also probably safe to say the D3100, D3200 and D5100 will be Nikon's top selling cameras of 2012 even though the new D7100, D4, D800 and D400 will be out this year. Why? Simply value compared to quality and a whole lot more shooters in this dollar value market segment.
Here is a question? Considering the accolades heaped upon the Fuji X100 and considering the "perfect" original Leica rangefinders shooting 35mm film, would an FX mirrorless body sell in large enough numbers to produce? Would a DX mirrorless body? Nikon chose to make a CX mirrorless body so I assume Nikon determined both FX and DX are "dead" in the mirrorless body market. Mirrorless? CX. Amateur? DX Professional? FX That seems to be the future as Nikon sees it. I am anxious to see just how good DX can get over the next few years. If the D3200 is really 24mp we may all be surprised at what a top end DX sensor can do in the next few years. Far from being dead, I think the DX may be the fastest growing market segment.
I do not think anyone is calling DX a dead format. I would say, like most everyone else, that it will live so long as people are buying DX gear (which obviously is doing rather well). Unless something revolutionary comes along I see DX and FX going for a long time. The mirrorless idea, depends on how many people like it for their particular shooting style or subjects. I would hope even if a mirrorless FX camera came along I could still use my FX glass (if not someone would need a beating, IMO).
I will probalby buy a few more DX cameras in the future, I am also "eyeballing" the D400 because I want the extra reach with a DX crop. I like my D7000 but due to me fumbling around with some controls I like my D200 that much better because its more like my D700 (which I have grown to love). The D400 is still just a rumor, if we only get the DXX00 line on the DX format I will have to go back and actually read the manual so I can use it more effectively.
For me, if anything replaces DX in the future, it would need to be better in image quality, have a view finder and use my existing lenses. None of these gimmicky EVIL type cams for me.
I agree mirrorless CX bodies won't replace DX. It should be easy to build a mirrorless body using a DX sensor (or even FX) and you would get a much larger increase in IQ relative to the increase in physical size. CX won't move up to replace DX and FX won't move down to replace DX because of the cost of producing a FX sensor with associated parts. If anything, I would expect to see mirrorless DX cameras coming out. Mirrorless FX? No, just too limited a market for it.
BUT, how about this new category for both DX and FX. Get rid of the mirror. No more SLR. Why do you need an optical viewfinder any more? Replace the mirror and optical viewfinder with a tiny HDTV monitor receiving a real time feed from the sensor. Now you have no optical size limitations on the viewfinder and you can export the EV feed to a laptop as easily as you can now export the laptop monitor feed to a large monitor or TV. You can have a large FX size viewfinder on a DX body. Low light photography is easier since the monitor can be brighter than the light your eye would see through an optical viewfinder. Also, you have no vibration caused by a moving mirror. Also, you have no shutter delay caused by waiting for the mirror to get out of the way. What should we call such a new camera category? EVRL Electronic Viewfinder Replaceable Lens camera. DX would be a good sensor size for such a camera because it keeps the camera small and allows the continued use of almost all Nikon lenses (DX and FX). If this happens we will be making our images while we look at an image.
No offense, donaldejose, but doesn't the Sony NEX line fit that description? DX sensor, HDMI out, mirrorless, (almost) no shutter lag, and they just released an OLED electronic viewfinder for it that I haven't tried: http://www.amazon.com/Sony-FDA-EV1S-Electronic-Viewfinder-Digital/dp/B005K8AUOI
If you've been waiting for the camera you're describing, you should go out and try the NEX-5N. It has the D7000 sensor and I have been so impressed with the way the camera handles in general. I also have an adapter for Nikon lenses for it, but the kit lens is very capable and they're also supposed to be releasing a pro-quality standard zoom sometime—probably this spring.
I agree, the Sony Nex-5n is the start of this possible new category of cameras. I have been impressed with it from the start of the line and I expected others to follow it. But Nikon didn't follow this design when Nikon created its mirrorless camera. As I recall Nikon stated it chose a smaller sensor for this line because it could get the needed IQ in a smaller form factor. I think Nikon didn't expect those who buy DX now to move to mirrorless and expect the same IQ.
I digested a bit hunk of this thread yesterday, and had some thoughts on it last night, when I should have been sleeping.
It is of interest to me as I currently am a D90 user and am watching the expected D400 release with acute interest, and am ready to step up a grade in my glass, and would love to see the basic range covered well:
17-50 or 55mm f2.8 VR
50-135mm f2.8 VR
I see putting pro grade glass on a DX body just pushing the shooting distances, particularly at the short end, out way too far. I expect this issue will really come alive with the better sensor capacity expected to arrive with the D400.
We are used to seeing a motor vehicle body which is the basis of several variations; different equipment levels, and even body variants like sedans and hatches. In cars variants engine, suspensions, tyres and rims all vary to create dramatic variations in choice and performance.
How viable might the same concept be to lens?
What chiefly separates better lens from middle lens? These days it tends to be lens coatings and VR. Maybe different aperture diaphragms.
How viable might it be from both a manufacturers and a consumers perspective to offer a lens in:
Basic form - less exotic lens coatings, no VR, and less sophisticated diaphragms.
Intermediate form - more exotic lens coatings, more sophisticated diaphragms, but sans VR
Premium form - all the top kit
These could all go down the same production line, but in different runs, possibly with more time on assembly and QC checking as the grade rose.
Each product could be differentially labelled, just as cars are.
What do you think? Viable?
Do you think there'd be distinctly different markets for lens at each spec?
I think this could enliven the market removing some of the big gaps and making it more attractive for people to keep active in migrating upwards.
Daryl
Sturgdw said:
How viable might it be from both a manufacturers and a consumers perspective to offer a lens in:
Basic form - less exotic lens coatings, no VR, and less sophisticated diaphragms.
Intermediate form - more exotic lens coatings, more sophisticated diaphragms, but sans VR
Premium form - all the top kitThese could all go down the same production line, but in different runs, possibly with more time on assembly and QC checking as the grade rose.
Each product could be differentially labelled, just as cars are.
As VR is available on 'lowly' kit lenses now, there would have too be a backwards step to achieve your suggestion and that is NEVER going to happen.
VR is essential to me (shaky hands) so I would have to buy pro glass to get VR? No chance.
One thing we should not overlook is: PRICE.
DX is going to outsell FX while its price is lower than FX and IQ continues to improve.
Dare we speculate about the D7100?
Remember, these bodies are on a 2 year refresh cycle so 2014 could see some very interesting (huge?) improvements too!
By then the even smaller sensor sized cameras (Nikon 1, M4/3, the Sony NEX stuff etc, are all on 1 year refresh cycles), will have improved by two generations... I suspect we will then see stiff competition from below DX (but only) while the price remains competitive and technical improvements continue to drive IQ up...
donaldejose said:
BUT, how about this new category for both DX and FX. Get rid of the mirror. No more SLR. Why do you need an optical viewfinder any more?
Because EVF's are not refined enough. Even the beautiful one in the a77 has issues. Slight lag/overexposure issues/eyestrain/and lifespan are just some to the issues that will take a few more years to kink out...
spraynpray said:
As VR is available on 'lowly' kit lenses now, there would have too be a backwards step to achieve your suggestion and that is NEVER going to happen.
You are right on this one as the more text nikon can stuff on the box the more "features" it has so the better it will sell. Nikon flamboyantly advertises their "Vr" system in consumer kits and won't stop doing so.
As to Fx it still costs more to produce the hardware so that is why it is expensive. Sure Nikon could put a D3 sensor in a D7000 and probably sell it for $1500 but why? It would cannibalize the sales of the D7000, D400 (its class) and the D800 and would require more R&D than Nikon is willing to invest in...
Here is a little bit of a new spin on the DX is dead issue.
DX will become incorporated into FX as a subset of the FX sensor. The D800 is the first to do that effectively with a DX crop mode containing enough pixels to equate to the D7000. So you can now use both your FX and your DX lenses on the D800 and not feel "pixel deprived." When you want a little more reach just snap on a DX lens. The D800 automatically converts to DX mode. Shoot your 70-200 at 70-200 in FX and when you want a little more reach switch the D800 to DX mode and you now are shooting 105-300 without changing lenses. The only issue will be high ISO ability. If native ISO at 3200 and 6400 is "clean enough" for normal use the D800 will be a do it all camera. Yes, very high ISO and very high FPS and very extreme shooting conditions may still require a D4 but most of us don't face those conditions. I want the high clean ISO of the D800 to be a little bit (one stop, half a stop) better than the D7000 and I will be happy. Maybe two years of technological advancement since the development of the D7000 can do that for us. Let's hope so.
I believe if Nikon abandoned the DX APS-C sensor format it would be deadly for them financially. There are a MAJORITY of DSLR users who either use DX on purpose or due to cost. THAT WILL NOT CHANGE. DX therefore is very far from dead. I also assume Nikon will survive and indeed thrive. The D400 is actually one of the most anticipated cameras ever rumored to be produced in the entire history of photography. Specifications and price of the D800/D800E almost rules it out as a serious amateur/pro first choice. Apparently size of the D800 is not a factor as that at least seems to be about right. Clicking to DX format from FX will I do not believe will rival a DX straight up as a DSLR from Nikon or Canon.
DX will remain the entry level DSLR for the foreseeable future. It is foolish to say it is dead or will soon die. The D3100 and D5100 and D7000 lines necessarily will remain DX through many upgrades due to cost. Most likely the D400 will also remain DX due to cost. As long as Nikon can produce and sell a "pro" body DX DSLR for about $1,000 less than a "pro" body FX, they will do so. If that price gap ever drops to a small amount Nikon could relegate the DX to the sensor for their less expensive plastic camera bodies and use the FX in their magnesium alloy shell camera bodies. The exact transition point at which a currently DX body is replaced with an FX body should be entirely driven by production costs. There has been some debate and speculation as to whether it could happen with the D7200 or D400. The weight of opinion is: not yet. We just have to wait and see. No reliable rumors on the D400 yet. Hopefully, they will start to flow soon. I imagine Nikon won't be announcing the D400 until they can also announce a production date for it.
donaldejose said:
DX will remain the entry level DSLR for the forseeable future.
Define "forseeable future"...
Two words for the entry level ... "Nokia" and "PureView".
Its a cell phone with a reasonable combination of optics and computer messing about.
Check it out on the main blog of photorumors.com and download the samples.
If production results are as good as the samples they have online (are they ever as good?) then this technology could easily destroy the traditional camera makers low end product lines of today.
bjrichus said:
Define "forseeable future"...Two words for the entry level ... "Nokia" and "PureView".
Its a cell phone with a reasonable combination of optics and computer messing about.
Check it out on the main blog of photorumors.com and download the samples.
If production results are as good as the samples they have online (are they ever as good?) then this technology could easily destroy the traditional camera makers low end product lines of today.
The product samples are nice for a phone, but they are made at iso 58! The contrast seems to be low and I wouldn't expect any low light performance with the flash not used..
"foreseeable future"? How fast will things change? I would say at least 4 to 5 product cycles which equals 8 to 10 years for the D3100, D5100, D7000 series. Likely more because what size sensor will replace the DX in Nikon's least expensive DSLRs? CX, no you wouldn't put that small a sensor in a DSLR. FX, no because it will be too costly.
No, I don't think better and better cell phone cameras will replace entry level DSLRs. But they will tend to replace the low end point and shoot cameras because people won't want to carry an extra item when the cell phone they already carry can take a photo equal to an entry level point and shoot. But remember, you are using a really small sensor in a cell phone so IQ can only get so good.
DX will stick around until FX gets cheap. The Squeeze in cameras is in the compact market (shoot It cause you got it). My iPhone easily outclasses every compact I've owned besides my G11, and even that doesn't really match up in terms of in-camera capeablity. Theore likely scenario is that Nikon 1 / micro 4/3 takes over the entry level portable market.
DX will be relevant until compact formats can match the performance of their dx counterparts. Coolpix will die first.
Gabbb said:
The product samples are nice for a phone, but they are made at iso 58! The contrast seems to be low and I wouldn't expect any low light performance with the flash not used..
I thought the images also had some sharpening done or that they were a little contrasty in places, but not quite the smooth contrast of the D800 images we have seen. Guess that is what you get for not spending the extra $2,500... LOL!!!
Looking at the largest of them it was shot at 1/160th, f2.4 @ISO 58. 7728x4354 pixels ... Interestingly, the WB info says "Tungsten (incandescent light)". Oh really?
As you say, darn nice for a phone. What we need is to put that kind of tech into a D7000 :)
bjrichus said:
I thought the images also had some sharpening done or that they were a little contrasty in places, but not quite the smooth contrast of the D800 images we have seen. Guess that is what you get for not spending the extra $2,500... LOL!!!Looking at the largest of them it was shot at 1/160th, f2.4 @ISO 58. 7728x4354 pixels ... Interestingly, the WB info says "Tungsten (incandescent light)". Oh really?
As you say, darn nice for a phone. What we need is to put that kind of tech into a D7000 :)
I would much rather have 12 megapixels and good performance at iso 100k than 100 megapixels in a d7000 like body :D
You must log in to post.
