DX future

[Mariozi]

I have expressed this thought in other threads but now I decided to create one thread specifically for it and ask you to share your opinions:

When we shot with film we used Nikonos or Nikon bodies that lasted for a decade at least so we need to concentrate on building our lens quiver. But in 5 years since I moved digital I changed bodies 3 times (and only because I do not jump at every chance!!! I forcibly missed the D100 and D70 generation!). This adds a new medium-long term planning for us and this is the picture we have in front of us as I can paint it:

When we became digital one thing happened:
- We were given the DX format because it was economically viable at the time. At the time I got a little upset (I like WA), but after the Nikkor 10.5mm, Sigma 10-20 and now the Nikkor 14-24mm I don't see much difference. In I fact prefer it for UW work with the 10.5 being better than the 16mm fisheye-wise and the good 1.5 crop on the 60mm and 105mm gave us basically a 90mm and a 160mm for the same price!!!

But one thing kept it's place in the back of my mind:
- The lack of good lenses for the DX factor. Aside from the 17-55/2.8 and the 10.5mm/2.8 no good professional primes were created, even though Nikon stated it's compromise with the DX format many times.

If you take a look at this chart you can clearly see how the DX format descended the line from PRO to ENTRY level cameras. And it's not hard to foresee the same pattern for the FX format.

On DPreview.Com Canon's 50D review it was said and I quote:
"It appears that Canon has reached the limit of what is sensible, in terms of megapixels on an APS-C sensor. At a pixel density of 4.5 MP/cmŽ² (40D: 3.1 MP/cmŽ², 1Ds MkIII: 2.4 MP/cmŽ²) the lens becomes the limiting factor. Even the sharpest primes at optimal apertures cannot (at least away from the center of the frame) satisfy the 15.1 megapixel sensors hunger for resolution. Considering the disadvantages that come with higher pixel densities such as diffraction issues, increased sensitivity towards camera shake, reduced dynamic range, reduced high ISO performance and the need to store, move and process larger amounts of data, one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that at this point the megapixel race should probably stop."

It clearly hints that we are currently limited by the number of pixels we can place in one area. And it lurks around to 12Mp on a DX sensor and 24Mp on an FX sensor.
This could be a strong reason for a step-down movement of the FX sensor down the line increasing the overall pic quality. This normally happens at a pace of 2 years per step between the lines (Dx > Dxxx > Dxx).

This is where my concern for the future of the DX ( along with an unwillingness to spend bucks on DX lenses) comes from. I love it for UW work and I might keep my D300 or the next D400 (if still DX) forever or until they come up with a good D800 or D900 with a decent (10Mp+ DX crop on it).

What do you think?

 

[AussieByron]

Honestly Marcelo I think you have to stop worrying about what the future has install for us and just use what you have in the mean time. Worry about what FX wide angle lens to buy when they bring out a Nikon SLR in FX on par the the D3x but a D300 price (like the Canon 5dmkII).

I believe tht most lens companies will be forced to bring out a range of wide angles for FX when it becomes the industry standard. Which you really wont see at the moment with them still making alot of DX cameras.

I will be doing the same as you keeping my D90 and use it at the moment and look at something in the next couple of years (D800/D900) and decide then.

Regards Mark

 

[Mariozi]

Yeah you're right Ozzie, "Shoot with the best you can get today", that's why I got the D300.

This is another thing, it's just speculation, long-term planning some call.
But can help you save a few bucks on the way.

 

[simonmittag]

I think with the amount of DX cameras out there, there should be a good market for these lenses for many years to come. Nikon makes the same lenses since film days in some cases (which are FX okay), such as the 200mm micro.

I don't think FX is going anywhere at all, it's going to remain the mainstream technology. I think Leica has come up with a bigger hi-res chip and new lenses, but that's not much more than a niche market.

I agree, probably don't worry too much and just use what you got.

Cheers,

Simon

P.S: the screens need to catch up! Still only 2 megapixels on a 1920*1080 monitor to use. Higher res is only driven by print magazines, posters and marketing.

 

[Chuck Tribolet]

IBM had a 9 megapixel display several years ago. It took four video cards
to drive it (the video cards of the day only did about 2.5 megapixels).

 

[Christian]

Nikon just released a 35/2.8 DX-prime! TRhey should have done it several years ago, fast primes are what's missing in the DX line-up. Hopefully there will be more later this year.

DX will definetely be there in the future. I also hop it will be inh 'pro' bodies like the D100, D200, D300 and sucessors, which I like a lot.

cheers

 

[Mariozi]

I don't know... One thing is interesting though.

Recently it was announced by Nikon that "DX is not over", I think I hear an "yet" being eaten at the end of that line... but just to announce it like that, sends the message that it will be one day.

Another thing is that Nikon has never disclose how much they sold per model, but recently same person said D40, D60 and D90 were 80% of it's costumer base. If that is true, and we have no reason to believe otherwise, that is a serious industrial slip. With simple maths (taking in account the MSRP of each model one can easily draw a model and I come to the conclusion that the other 20% (D300, D700, D3) accounts probably for 50-75% of the income generated by DSLRs. More informed competitors can make even deeper analysis on that.

Then comes the obvious question: DX users are loyal to the format or the price?
I guess the vast majority is in it for the price. It's kinda sad for us, I think DX is great for uwphoto... but we are tiny in their market.

The catch: The D300 is a DX in the 20% slice.
Whatever happens to this line of camera, be it a merge with D700, or going FX in a different line, is clear sign that the DX will go down the line, which eventually I thought it would happen as sensor dropped in price. Initially I thought about 2-6 years, but the economic downturn might make it 4-8 years...

Since I am in the "top-of-the DX line", I try to keep the least possible DX lenses in my quiver, because if the DX comes down the DSLR lines I will have to be the first to jump.

 

[Mariozi]

Oh, and it is a 35mm/1.8G. That was one of the stronger arguments vs DX format.
The lack of good primes, but that one was a simple one to make, just a smaller 50mm. I guess the argument was about WA primes.

Well, we'll see.

 

[Gombessa]

DX isn't going anywhere. P&S cameras with tiny sensors are pushing >12mp now and their image quality, while nowhere near APS-C/FF, is still improving via cleaner circuitry, enhanced light collection and better processing. I don't think we've seen the best of what can be accomplished on APS-C yet.

Also, afaik FF sensors still have relatively low yields, require multiple steppers and other fab complexities in manufacture, and even after 7-8 years is still exhorbitantly priced compared to smaller sensors.

FX is definitely more exciting for the time being, but I don't think we've seen the end of the line for DX yet.

 

[Nemrod]

FX will replace DX, that is my bet. N