where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
NikonMick said:
and secondly using the familiar Wall Street concept of "follow the money".
So is the money in the Kindle or the new ipad
it is said Amazon are losing money on the Kindle, no one is suggesting Apple are losing money on the ipad
Porsche still make a 911 but the 924 range died
more friends are buying a D800 than bought a D7000
No dont kill this thred, it's too good for a rant
I think the release of the D400 will be the end of this thread because all DX and DX future discussion will move to a new D400 thread and this one will die a natural death. Surely that D400 will be released this year?
sevencrossing said:
So is the money in the Kindle or the new ipad
it is said Amazon are losing money on the Kindle, no one is suggesting Apple are losing money on the ipad
They actually do loose money on the Ipad - actual cost to manufacture is about 40% more (at least the last two versions). They make all their money from their Apple store where margins are over 50%.
This is from the first page - 2 years ago:
"There's a really good article in the current Pop photo about this. Their conclusion, most people are just fine with APS-C sized sensors, but due to pixel size and density issues, the format tops out at about 15 MP"
HA! Oh and people were looking at the D300 at the time.
Let this dead horse go to the glue factory.
Wait, my three stuffed animals from the website have something to say about this thread:
" "
Oh, golly, they just whispered in my ear, "if one cannot say something nice, do not say anything at all."
SkintBrit said:
Stranger things have happened (ask Betamax / Philips Laserdisk / Kodak instant or disc camera owners). Now I know those examples are not directly comparable, as most if not all were not with the manufacturers blessing, but history shows that companies are not afraid of dropping something that they have invested heavily in, and which has a strong following, if they see the future heading in another direction. DX certainly has some advantages over FX, but I suspect that if they could be reproduced in an FX body which was the same price as the DX, I think it's following would dry up pretty quickly. Obviously we are not there yet, but who knows what the future holds?
skintbrit - none knows, but I doubt it will be turned down quickly - too many advantages over FX - much cheaper sensors = more units sold = higher profit
I was just curious so i looked it up. Betamax was released in 1975. In 1980 it only held 25% of the market share and dropped like a rock after that. Sony made it's last Betamax VCR in 2002.
Laser disk, APS, Disc camera, 110 film, and a whole slew of other technologies had similar existence of never having high market share.
DX has the dominate spot in market share for DSLRs going on almost 10 years. It has been integrated as part of the mainstream, not the exception.
Hi all,
I'm not sure that has to be any early demise of the format. There are too many assumptions that are being made that seem to be bit off.
Formats in the film days were necessary for the manufacture of cameras for film developing. That isn't the case now. Digital doesn't do developing tanks. The slew of compact cameras use the same imaging chip because it's handy and off the shelf, not because it's necessary.
The idea that consumers buy lenses in droves for their DSLRs is out the window, too. Average camera buyers don't. NR readers might, that accounts for a minuscule part of the worldwide market.
Most people buy a DSLR and a stock lens and 'think' they will expand upon it and never do. Ever.
Nikon will make whatever it thinks will make it money. (Personally, I think the company screwed up with the V/J mirror less simply by not joining the micro 4/3ds community and becoming dominate in that space. I think they were wussies for not wanting to put up and compete. Shame on them.)
As for the SLR market, Canon was in the right market space at the right time for video - and it shows, and and Canon has also enjoyed a price point advantage for sometime, too. Canon is driving some major market space, more than ever, so that the topic question is more than a Nikon question, too.
I have both DX and FX lenses (some so old that they weren't 'FX'), and I 'think' I'll get a D800, but I'm in no hurry (in's that convenient?), then I might mind if DX dies. ;-)
My best,
Mike
TaoTeJared said:
I was just curious so i looked it up. Betamax was released in 1975. In 1980 it only held 25% of the market share and dropped like a rock after that. Sony made it's last Betamax VCR in 2002.Laser disk, APS, Disc camera, 110 film, and a whole slew of other technologies had similar existence of never having high market share.
DX has the dominate spot in market share for DSLRs going on almost 10 years. It has been integrated as part of the mainstream, not the exception.
That's interesting, Sony stopped in 2002! Wow I'd never have guessed it was so late. Of course you're right, they weren't good examples of the point I was trying to make, I suppose a better one might be VHS (by far the greatest market share) and recordable DVD or Hard Drive recorders (initially very expensive and niche market). Now the price of them has dropped to that of VHS (or less), who produces/buys VHS? Now the question I guess is can an FX camera EVER be produced for almost the same price as a DX, and if so how many here would jump ship? I'd be interested to know how many people here shoot DX purely or majorly because they can't afford or justify the cost of the larger formats? I would love to buy a Pentax 645D or a Hassy, but just can't justify that expenditure. If I could buy one for D4 money, I might be tempted :-)
SkintBrit said:
Now the question I guess is can an FX camera EVER be produced for almost the same price as a DX, and if so how many here would jump ship? I'd be interested to know how many people here shoot DX purely or majorly because they can't afford or justify the cost of the larger formats? I would love to buy a Pentax 645D or a Hassy, but just can't justify that expenditure. If I could buy one for D4 money, I might be tempted :-)
What one can afford is a relative term. I suppose I could have a D4 plus a D800 like a friend has on order. But, I see the formats as having a slightly different function. The D4 will be doing all the primary work in the shooting of race cars and bikes. But when I need the super tele... 400mm + 2X teleconverter + DX, I end up with a magnification factor of 24 times in a 1200mm equivalent. Of course the 600mm with the 2x would do this on FX, but I do not see having a 400mm plus a 600mm. But, I can effectively have it in a D400 DX body which will produce photos very close to the ones form the D4. And at about $10,000 less bucks. SO, unless one has an absolutely unlimited amount of money, which most of us do not, the DX format will be with us for a long long time. And as sensors improve, the performance in a couple years from the DX may look like the FX today.
Most of us do not know what is going on in the research area with sensors. An entirely new technology may be coming. The sensors may be up to a 500MP on a DX as technology produces a new type of pixel/sensor design. And this may be compressed into something like 10MB through new programs we do not even imagine now. If one thinks about the computer power in a simple notebook and realizes this is a hundred times as powerful as the computers that sent the boys to the moon, it gives us a perspective on the potential.
If anything, the smaller sensor will survive over the larger. But, I suspect there is way too much "tradition and emotion" for FX to go anywhere soon.
Oh, the cost of FX will be the same as DX about the same time a 3000 sq ft house costs the same as a 4500 sq ft house. Do not think this will happen. Ha, ha, ha....
What is funny and a bit different about cameras is that in actuality Betamax = FX and VHS = DX. Solely on its merit, Betamax and FX are better - DX and VHS less so. In the end what won was what was cheaper to make. In photography, that doesn't work the same as the question would be, how long will FX be around.
Msmoto touched on something that most continue to leave out - quality of DX is not a slouch nor is that much worse than FX. On the extreme limits of low light and a tad on detail is all that FX technically has over DX. Everything else like bokeh, etc. is subjective to the photographer. If there were vast quality differences then there would be a chance of something changing. I just don't see if for many body releases in the future.
Of course DVD killed both Betamax & VHS because it was so obviously better.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that mirror-less cameras will kill DX before DX kills FX. The Nikon V1, Cannon G1X, and the Sony NEX 7 are all flawed cameras, but if you could combine what's good about them, DX dies the next day. The quality is almost as good, its far more portable, & I suspect the margins are actually a little better (at least for now).
Compacts are getting killed off by smartphones, and for good reason. I get far better pictures from my iPhone than I do from a point & shoot because the quality is close, but I can post-process and share on my smartphone in a way that puts my any other camera to shame. So if its a casual shot, its done on my iPhone.
If I care enough about a shot to lug a camera around, than I want a camera that is easy to shoot (and adjust settings), focuses quickly, lets me style the shot to my liking, and is still functional in low light. That's mirror-less. If i'm going to actually get paid for a picture (which would never happen because I'm a terrible photographer, but the Mrs. isn't so bad), than I'm leaving the toys at home and bringing the best quality camera I can afford. You only have to be a little bit better than your competition in order to book the next gig. Why would you shoot with anything less than the best?
Actually price was only one thing. One other major thing was length. To many consumers quantity (length) was more important than picture quality. Sony completely misjudged the needs of the home user, which was the driving force of the home video industry in the beginnings. While there is no argument that the quality of the tales wasn't as good, it turned out that wasn't as important as length, and for almost all the time, VHS got twice the amount of length on its tapes... So to get equal amount f programming recorded you'd have to buy twice the number of beta tapes. Sony thought quality was all that mattered.
The lesson? Learn about your customers and find out what they need/want, and provide it to them, NOT the other way around.
msmoto said:
What one can afford is a relative term. I suppose I could have a D4 plus a D800 like a friend has on order. But, I see the formats as having a slightly different function. The D4 will be doing all the primary work in the shooting of race cars and bikes. But when I need the super tele... 400mm + 2X teleconverter + DX, I end up with a magnification factor of 24 times in a 1200mm equivalent. Of course the 600mm with the 2x would do this on FX, but I do not see having a 400mm plus a 600mm. But, I can effectively have it in a D400 DX body which will produce photos very close to the ones form the D4. And at about $10,000 less bucks. SO, unless one has an absolutely unlimited amount of money, which most of us do not, the DX format will be with us for a long long time. And as sensors improve, the performance in a couple years from the DX may look like the FX today.Most of us do not know what is going on in the research area with sensors. An entirely new technology may be coming. The sensors may be up to a 500MP on a DX as technology produces a new type of pixel/sensor design. And this may be compressed into something like 10MB through new programs we do not even imagine now. If one thinks about the computer power in a simple notebook and realizes this is a hundred times as powerful as the computers that sent the boys to the moon, it gives us a perspective on the potential.
If anything, the smaller sensor will survive over the larger. But, I suspect there is way too much "tradition and emotion" for FX to go anywhere soon.
Oh, the cost of FX will be the same as DX about the same time a 3000 sq ft house costs the same as a 4500 sq ft house. Do not think this will happen. Ha, ha, ha....
Depends where you get that house, I guess. And what that house has. A house in a crime ridden area will be cheaper. But the smaller house in a nice area, near stores, will be more expensive, ;)
mirtos said:
Depends where you get that house, I guess. And what that house has. A house in a crime ridden area will be cheaper. But the smaller house in a nice area, near stores, will be more expensive, ;)
OK, You have me on that one..... let's change this to a Mercedes then.... a "C" Class Vs. an "S" Class.... just like the FX sensor has a lot more size, mass, pixels, and space to move, and the viewfinder has to be bigger, the electronics have to buffer more data, and the storage most likely will be more.... the "S" Class Mercedes cost a heck of a lot more than the "C" Class because of more weight, room, power, etc. In other words, given the same basic performance the larger FX will always be more expensive to manufacture. Of course, you can get a Dodge Charger which will run with the Mercedes, carry as much, and have leather interior, but it will not be a Mercedes. It does cost less. So, no doubt an FX camera can be made at the same price as a DX, but the DX most likely would outperform the FX if the costs were the same.
Such a silly discussion, but it does get us all thinking....
with Nikon filing a patent for a 24-70mm f/3.5-4.5 full frame lens
http://nikonrumors.com/#ixzz1rX5MrovO
one wonders if they do intend to continue with DX
the above lens would be of little interest to most exising full frame users
They just do not have a cheap, small zoom left in production for FX in that range.
They had it before and it is sitting on my desk - 24-85mm ED 3.5-4.5G - Upgraded Kit lens that is a fantastic little lens. Not much larger than the 60mm macro.
sevencrossing said:
one wonders if they do intend to continue with DX
No question about it. My personal first thought was that DX is good for another few product cycles... as not everyone who wants better than cx/P&S/m4-3 quality can splash out $3k on a body *and* another $1-3k on lenses!
I was speaking with a couple of our marketing peeps at work when the first D4 and D800 came in - they agree that in the broadest sense, Nikon need to retain DX, which outsells more than FX (no surprise) for a few reasons. These stood out in the discussions;
1. To provide an upgrade path for those coming FROM m4/3, J1/V1, P&S at lower than FX prices.
2. To provide profit contribution to new product development, and stockholders as DX (not FX) is where the SLR profit is.
3. To provide marketing dept with a way to compete the brand in the non-pro markets, with low price of entry to SLR shooting and to up-sell packages/accessories, which is where bigger profits comes from.
4. To provide a platform on which to introduce new developments without risking the pro's, who want traditional platforms, with improvements to existing specifications & features avoiding too much disruption.
5. To provide a way for the many enthusiasts to contribute to Nikon bottom line by buying (more) intermediate products on a shorter life cycle. A step up from the purchase made in #3 above, but not to FX "yet".
With the entry level D3200 at 24MP, I wonder how they'll differentiate each new DX model? Could we see yet higher MP counts? Higher D.R.? More scene and SFX filters? Better video? Lower high ISO noise?
One person I know has suggested a feature to shoot m4/3 lenses or CX on low end DX bodies (via adapters) which has limited appeal to most traditional DX/FX shooters here, but you never know...
Heck no DX is NOT DEAD!! Are you kidding me? You get longer "effective" reach with cropped sensor, much cheaper DX only optics, and this segment (sub-FF) is the bread and butter of Nikon and Canon users. Just watch tourists and what they shoot. How many $3,000 FF cameras do you ever see?
Plus, Nikon has made and continues to make more and more DX only lenses. Like 35/1.8, 40/2.8, and 85/3.5
bjrichus said:
can splash out $3k on a body *and* another $1-3k on lenses!
What you must have meant to say, bjrichus, was another $6-10 K on lenses, right? ha,ha,ha.....
No question, DX is alive and well... and I am waiting for the D400....... where is it? Help. Someone, let me know....
Is DX dead? No, but this thread should be - I'm getting dizzy from going round and round...
msmoto said:
What you must have meant to say, bjrichus, was another $6-10 K on lenses, right? ha,ha,ha.....No question, DX is alive and well... and I am waiting for the D400....... where is it? Help. Someone, let me know....
Just spend all your 401k on lenses and you'll be fit and healthy...
D400 will be FX, not DX.
OOPS - heart attack... Maybe wise NOT to spend all that 401k cash on new glass after all?
bjrichus said:
Just spend all your 401k on lenses and you'll be fit and healthy...D400 will be FX, not DX.
OK, I will ask... what will replace the D300s? Now, bjrichus, I will admit, there is no D700 replacement... so is that what the D400 will be? Or will the D500 replace the D700? Maybe the D7100 will replace the D300s?
TaoTeJared said:
I was just curious so i looked it up. Betamax was released in 1975. In 1980 it only held 25% of the market share and dropped like a rock after that. Sony made it's last Betamax VCR in 2002.Laser disk, APS, Disc camera, 110 film, and a whole slew of other technologies had similar existence of never having high market share.
DX has the dominate spot in market share for DSLRs going on almost 10 years. It has been integrated as part of the mainstream, not the exception.
Sony's Betamax, while producing superior video, died an untimely death due to Sony's resistance to allowing other manufacturers to market the technology. Just one of many examples of a superior product failing to gain market share because of a poor business strategy. Of course a superior product does not always capture the market where cost is a significant factor.
You must log in to post.
