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…678…12 Next »

spraynpray

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

Willis said:
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.

I don't get this thread.

@Willis: - Surely whatever improvements come in FX or phones also comes in DX as camera cost is linked to sensor cost and as crop factor is a positive reason for choosing DX, your reasoning above seems wrong to me.

Posted 1 year ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

donaldejose said:
"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.

If tech moves as fast as it could (note that I said could, not would), I think that unless there is a major disaster (war, flood, typhoon etc) every few months, more like something closer to 3 years tops.

Consumer product life cycles are closer to between 9 months and a year. Major camera makers are stuck in the last decade when it comes to this, and yes, I am sure I am aware of the technical reasons why, but the general marketplace (not the typical NR reader), expects something different once each Christmas.

Nokia have demonstrated a technology that could (note that I said could, not would), shake up the imaging world in one or two product cycles, in a market where life cycles are shorter still. I am pretty sure that whoever licenses the Nokia technology (and brings product to market with version 2 or 3 of it FIRST, that is) will wipe out the rest. IQ improvements with a bigger sensor for it, and, well...

Posted 1 year ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

Gabbb said:
I would much rather have 12 megapixels and good performance at iso 100k than 100 megapixels in a d7000 like body :D

Whatever you prefer is fine.

Do you remember the early days of digital?

"It'll never catch on"/"Quality is too low"

"All that noise (grain) in the shadows"

"Too contrasty"/"Not contrasty enough"

"Picture files won't fit on a floppy disk"/"My hard drive is too small"

These are all the same kind of comments I have heard said about the Nokia stuff. We'll see how it all goes... give it version 2 and in a larger package...

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

I agree the Nokia PureView technology is quite impressive from the few images I have been able to view in large size. It would be great if larger sensors (and faster f-stop lenses) were put into cell phones but I suspect this would require thicker cell phones which may not be what people want. For example, I don't see how a CX or DX size sensor will be able to fit into a cell phone because the lens would have to be too far from the sensor to enable the cell phone to fit into a pocket. The Nokia PureView system should not be able to replace DX DSLRs.

By the way, I haven't seen much about how this Nokia system works? Is there some sort of "binning" going on in which many pixels are combined into one? Or is there some sort of division of the signal from one pixel into many pixels? At times they seem to talk about 5 mega pixels and other times about 41 megapixels and other pixel sizes for other image ratios. The reason this could relate to DX is that they same type of pixel combination or division could be performed with the pixels on DX chip. Anyone know?

Posted 1 year ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

donaldejose said:
I agree the Nokia PureView technology is quite impressive from the few images I have been able to view in large size. It would be great if larger sensors (and faster f-stop lenses) were put into cell phones but I suspect this would require thicker cell phones which may not be what people want. For example, I don't see how a CX or DX size sensor will be able to fit into a cell phone because the lens would have to be too far from the sensor to enable the cell phone to fit into a pocket. The Nokia PureView system should not be able to replace DX DSLRs.

By the way, I haven't seen much about how this Nokia system works? Is there some sort of "binning" going on in which many pixels are combined into one? Or is there some sort of division of the signal from one pixel into many pixels? At times they seem to talk about 5 mega pixels and other times about 41 megapixels and other pixel sizes for other image ratios. The reason this could relate to DX is that they same type of pixel combination or division could be performed with the pixels on DX chip. Anyone know?

Yes,

To find out how it works, go to the Nokia web site they have a white paper on there that is not too heavy reading (in other words it's a little bit light on some of the deeper detail). The photorumors blog page has links.

I had a discussion with one of the other photographers at work about this device today and he raised a great point. In effect his view was "So what about the style or other parameters of the camera used if the image you open in Photoshop is the equal to or even better than what you'd get from other devices? I accept that version one of anything is not the end game, but if we can end up with 7700x5500 pixel images from something compact that has the qualities of DX images about them in all other aspects, then goodbye my dear old DX dSLR!"

I am paraphrasing, a little, but it makes the point -- this is about the image (as in picture), nothing else.

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

For those who are interested in the technology here is some explanation.

http://blog.gsmarena.com/the-amazing-science-behind-the-nokia-808s-mammoth-camera-sensor-explained/

http://europe.nokia.com/PRODUCT_METADATA_0/Products/Phones/8000-series/808/Nokia808PureView_Whitepaper.pdf

Now I have to ask, what would we have if this technology was incorporated into the D400?

- Look at the diagram of sensor sizes. If you can get 41 megapixels on that size sensor how many can you get on a DX size sensor? Over 100 megapixels? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside.svg

- If the electronics parts which do the oversampling from 7 pixels into one can fit in the physical dimensions of a cell phone certainly the electronics can easily fit into a D400 size body or any DX body? It seems like it is done in another small chip. "To make this all happen, we developed a sensor with a special companion processor that handles pixel scaling before sending the required number to the main image processor."

Seems like it could be revolutionary in DSLRs.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/27/Nokia-808-PureView-with-41MP-sensor

Posted 1 year ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

Well, time for the old lady perspective.... ha, ha,, ha.

In attempting to get a handle on all this, which is really quite impossible with my brain, it seems intuitively that the limiting factor ultimately is the lens resolution. And degree of magnification of final product. And, I think I mentioned in the past I have shot billboards in the 60's with Hasselblads, and the magnification is around 240 X. They looked sharp.

But with the same lens, taking a DX size image to 10 feet wide vs. an FX sized image to 10 feet wide, viewed from 20 feet away, I would suspect this is when we see a difference. Maybe not so much in sharpness which is obvious, but in a lot of subtle differences in color depth, maybe in something like eyelashes, almost always a giveaway, and in geometric shapes with crisp edges. But shown by itself, my experience says the DX holds up just fine. It is only when we look at two images side by side we are able to say one is really better.

And, being a real ...... when it comes to criticizing photos, I see so much in the post processing which affects the final product, the DX/FX difference is often lost. And I am not talking about inexpensive shots... I am looking at post shoot errors in processing in mega buck shots, sometimes with big name clients. All these are things which make the difference between the two formats of possibly less importance.

Having said all that, the larger FX will most times be more forgiving simply because it contains more data. My suspicion is if one has larger pixels somehow this is better if only just for the fact they can gather more light.

But, when the new DX from Nikon comes around replacing the D300s, I think I might get this rather than another FX like a D800. The one big factor is with the long lenses... wow, 1.5 makes the 400 w.2x into a 1200mm f/5.6 which is amazing. And that is one enormous advantage from DX. It does bring up the argument of shooting DX on an FX body and I am not certain I have any thoughts about this.

So, just some more bologna to keep the thread going, chuckle.....

Posted 1 year ago #
Siliconvoid

new member
Joined: Feb '12
Posts: 1
offline

I am sure this will start a wildfire of flames, heh, but its just physics..
DX sensors do not actually provide any photographic benefits, however to some they may provide a financial benefit. This is simply because you can digitally zoom in to your subject where you would have had to get closer or use a longer lens on FX - therefore lowering the overall cost of your equipment.

The crop factor of DX sensors only effects the field-of-view, it does not increase the focal length of a lens in any way, at all. Therefore you only 'gain' the smaller sensors ability to show more pixels across its smaller field of capture - very similar to uprezzing. Though that is assuming the smaller sensor is of the same quality and performance specifications of the larger sensor and is at a higher pixel density - which none are now with the D800.

To give you an example: If you put a 300mm lens on a DX body (say a D7000) and frame your subject in the smaller field of view, you will have effectively captured the image at a longer range of the 300mm magnification. If you put the same lens on an FX body (say a D700 or D3x - both with less pixel density) and get closer to the subject so you have the same framing, you have effectively captured the image at a higher magnification than the D7000 and you will have a higher level of image resolve even though the pixel count is less.

This brings up an interesting aspect of the D800, which has the same pixel density as the D7000, where you gain absolutely nothing by using a DX body over the D800. The image you capture with the D7000 will be the same as shooting the D800 in cropped mode, and when you use full frame and get closer you will have twice the resolving power.

Phones and compact cameras do not pose any significant threat to the longevity of DX bodies for 'photographers', the only technology that does pose that extermination is FX sensors being less expensive to manufacturer and the camera companies producing less expensive FX bodies.

Posted 1 year ago #
Gabbb

preferred member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 251
offline

This is all true, however a dx only lens if well made has more resolution then the Fx counterpart, if u think about this logically let's pick up a FX lens design, change some elements in order to reduce the image circle (focus the light more), the overall resolving power of the lens won't change a lot, but the optical resolution will certainly be better, than if you use ur FX in crop mode, if u get what i mean.

Siliconvoid said:
I am sure this will start a wildfire of flames, heh, but its just physics..
DX sensors do not actually provide any photographic benefits, however to some they may provide a financial benefit. This is simply because you can digitally zoom in to your subject where you would have had to get closer or use a longer lens on FX - therefore lowering the overall cost of your equipment.

The crop factor of DX sensors only effects the field-of-view, it does not increase the focal length of a lens in any way, at all. Therefore you only 'gain' the smaller sensors ability to show more pixels across its smaller field of capture - very similar to uprezzing. Though that is assuming the smaller sensor is of the same quality and performance specifications of the larger sensor and is at a higher pixel density - which none are now with the D800.

To give you an example: If you put a 300mm lens on a DX body (say a D7000) and frame your subject in the smaller field of view, you will have effectively captured the image at a longer range of the 300mm magnification. If you put the same lens on an FX body (say a D700 or D3x - both with less pixel density) and get closer to the subject so you have the same framing, you have effectively captured the image at a higher magnification than the D7000 and you will have a higher level of image resolve even though the pixel count is less.

This brings up an interesting aspect of the D800, which has the same pixel density as the D7000, where you gain absolutely nothing by using a DX body over the D800. The image you capture with the D7000 will be the same as shooting the D800 in cropped mode, and when you use full frame and get closer you will have twice the resolving power.

Phones and compact cameras do not pose any significant threat to the longevity of DX bodies for 'photographers', the only technology that does pose that extermination is FX sensors being less expensive to manufacturer and the camera companies producing less expensive FX bodies.

Posted 1 year ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

Gabbb said:
This is all true, however a dx only lens if well made has more resolution then the Fx counterpart, if u think about this logically let's pick up a FX lens design, change some elements in order to reduce the image circle (focus the light more), the overall resolving power of the lens won't change a lot, but the optical resolution will certainly be better, than if you use ur FX in crop mode, if u get what i mean.

Sorry, The argument sounds good, but I think this is an assumption which has no bearing in fact.... It would actually be my opinion, in experiencing the Nikkor lens lineup that the heavier "Pro" FX lenses which are considerably more expensive than the DX counterparts are so sharp one can use them on DX as well and the DX only lenses are no sharper. If there are objective tests of DX format lenses which demonstrate a sharper image then the FX counterparts, I would love to see it.

My experience is based on using the FX lens lineup , which includes 16-35, 20, 28-85, 50, 85, 135, 70-200, 80-400, 400 and DX 10.5, 12-24, 18-105. All shot on D90 or D200. Maybe others experience is different, but that is what these forum thread are for... exchanging our experiences.....

Thanks

Posted 1 year ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

Well, I think I will just talk to myself. Hi.

This looks like the forum where one might say about DX, "I think I am waiting for the new D300s replacement (D400?) and will use this along with my D4, as the versatility one gets by having both formats in dedicated cameras has clear advantages. Ha! I like this. And the D200 is so close to the "Pro" cameras, D2, D3, et al., it is easier to use for me than the D90 a more sophisticated software item, but which functionally has a few drawbacks in how one adjust certain things like fps, focus, and so on.

Thus the statement above, which I think supports the DX format along side FX as a good pair.

Posted 1 year ago #
spraynpray

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

It isn't that nobody is talking to you msmoto, it is prolly that people just don't want to contribute to this thread anymore - at least that is the way I feel. All the supporting arguments for the title have come out and been shot down, and also possibly it's that newer more interesting threads are up now.

I personally will be glad when the 5D3 Vs D800 babble goes away too...

PS I agree

Posted 1 year ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

I understand, the issue is a bit on the silly side if one looks at all the facts.

I think the DX format will be with us and as technology improves, we will find this continues to be popular. Actually, I like the idea of a 15.8 mm X 19mm sensor, (8 X 10) as this has in the past been the "standard". I am looking forward to the "D400" with a 16-20 Mp sensor.

Maybe we should think about a Nikon 1L (Large), ha, ha, ha.

I will most likely give the 5:4 size on the new D4 a good run just to see how it goes. My suspicion is the folks on the forum who spend as much time as I do have little else to do, chuckle, and the administrators.... what a job that must be...

Oh well...

Posted 1 year ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

Does any one remember half frame cameras

they had a lot of advantages but never really caught on

my gut feeling is that Dx may go the same way

Want a professional DX camera get a D800 and set it to Dx mode

realise FX is a better better after all, switch it back

best of both worlds

Posted 1 year ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

sevencrossing said:
Does any one remember half frame cameras

they had a lot of advantages but never really caught on

No half frame, but I had a Minox IIIc in the 1960's along with a Canon 7 w/ f/2.0 Summicron. The Minox did well at 8" x 10" print size.
For this thread, however, the premise is still DX is alive and well.

And now I have to think aver this darn D800 in DX mode stuff.... maybe I should not keep sticking my nose on here. Gets so costly......

Posted 1 year ago #
Frankzor3421

member
Joined: Mar '12
Posts: 14
offline

There is still money to be made by keeping the divide of cropped sensor DSLR's and Full Frame DSLR's. It creates a mystique, and makes people want to upgrade to Full Frame. Lets be honest, it just doesn't feel the same shooting with a cheap cropped sensor camera after going Full Frame. I'm not even shooting for work as of now and I cant see myself ever getting a cropped sensor / DX camera again. Had a Full Frame since my D700 in 2009.

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

Frankzor3421 said:
There is still money to be made by keeping the divide of cropped sensor DSLR's and Full Frame DSLR's. It creates a mystique, and makes people want to upgrade to Full Frame. Lets be honest, it just doesn't feel the same shooting with a cheap cropped sensor camera after going Full Frame. I'm not even shooting for work as of now and I cant see myself ever getting a cropped sensor / DX camera again. Had a Full Frame since my D700 in 2009.

Cool story bro (sorry every post you have made on here so far you sound like an a-hole).

Not everyone can afford $3000 cameras though. If we all had unlimited money we of course would all buy the best of the best. If price wasn't a factor then more hobby oriented people would buy FX. Not to factor in the cost of FX glass which is also more expensive. Plus DX gives people a place to start and learn.

Posted 1 year ago #
NikonMick

member
Joined: Jun '11
Posts: 32
offline

I disagree with the proposition that Nikon DX format is dead, firstly using the Bauhaus principle of "less is more" and secondly using the familiar Wall Street concept of "follow the money".

In a recent discussion thread about why the D800 may be no good for sports photography, I made the following post which may be of interest.

Apologies for cross- posting if that is bad netiquette in this forum.

And by the way, using secondhand FX lenses on DX bodies is brilliant, as is using manual focus AI and AI-S lenses.

"Everyone on this forum can take more than reasonable pix with the gear they have at hand, even if it's not going to cut it for page 1 of the New York Times.

The photo in the link below was from the Australian National Track Cycling championships, held in late January at the Adelaide SuperDrome. And yes, there were great photographers at the meet with high-end Canon and Nikon gear, but we all had the same problems to confront - low, uneven and erratic light, plus cyclists travelling at near 80kph (50mph).

Pan, shoot, check LCD screen, was the regime for everyone, whether me or the AFP photog or the specialist cycling photographers.

I'd simply say that it the same as it ever was - it's the photographer, not the gear.

BTW, this was taken with a D3100 and a hired Sigma 70-200/2.8, non-stabilised.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/6845194433/in/photostream

Cheers

Michael
 Adelaide AUSTRALIA

Posted 1 year ago #
Frankzor3421

member
Joined: Mar '12
Posts: 14
offline

tcole1983 said:
Cool story bro (sorry every post you have made on here so far you sound like an a-hole).

Not everyone can afford $3000 cameras though. If we all had unlimited money we of course would all buy the best of the best. If price wasn't a factor then more hobby oriented people would buy FX. Not to factor in the cost of FX glass which is also more expensive. Plus DX gives people a place to start and learn.

WOW. I think you read into shit too much. I was siding with DX staying around smart ass. Just because I said DX is cheap compared to FX you dont need to get your panties in a bunch. I'm sorry that you pay so much attention to my "asshole" posts :/

Posted 1 year ago #
photoguru2

member
Joined: Mar '12
Posts: 15
offline

^Ditto.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

This is getting annoying. So this thread has been going on for 2 years and if anyone has bothered to read it, there is almost no one who has said DX is dead, going away, or is bad.

Why this thread still exists is beyond me.

Posted 1 year ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

Posted 1 year ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

TaoTeJared said:
This is getting annoying. So this thread has been going on for 2 years and if anyone has bothered to read it, there is almost no one who has said DX is dead, going away, or is bad.

Why this thread still exists is beyond me.

How are these threads killed? Of course, most of us seem compelled to look at these hang on type threads, kinda like rubber neckers at a motor vehicle accident scene..... and I am always guilty!

Posted 1 year ago #
NikonMick

member
Joined: Jun '11
Posts: 32
offline

Que? (re: threads & killing of)

Many people visit this forum infrequently, others may spend hours every day here.

Just because some participants are bored with a thread, it doesn't mean that others are also un- or dis-interested.

Let a 1000 threads bloom, as an eminent Chinese photographer once said, and if you don't like this one, start another, or stop reading.

Simple I reckon.

Posted 1 year ago #
spraynpray

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

NikonMick said:
Que? (re: threads & killing of)

Many people visit this forum infrequently, others may spend hours every day here.

Just because some participants are bored with a thread, it doesn't mean that others are also un- or dis-interested.

Let a 1000 threads bloom, as an eminent Chinese photographer once said, and if you don't like this one, start another, or stop reading.

Simple I reckon.

Nobody is saying delete it, only to close it because all of the relevant arguments have been aired on it by now. It will still be there for others to find by search, but it will not stay near the top due to repeats of earlier points.

Posted 1 year ago #