The future of Nikon DX sensors?

[Deleted member 4644]

So most Nikon DSLRs have used DX sensors (smaller than 35mm). Some of the newer ones (D3, D700) use FX, which is full frame.

You can now get a full frame sensor camera for $2600 or so from Nikon. So, what is the future of DX?

Does it have years of life left? Or will it be phased out within a few years.





Note, DX lenses cannot really be used properly on FX bodies. FX lenses can be used on DX bodies.

 

[ElFenix]

i suspect it'll be another couple of generations before 135 sizes sensors get into sub $1000 cameras and they may never get into sub $500 cameras. miniaturization doesn't really help much for cost savings when a 135 sized sensor needs to stay 36x24.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Will be phased out.. Nikon made a huge mistake and not embracing FF sooner.

 

[Fardringle]

ElFenix is right (as usual)

Until production costs on full frame sensors drop to the point where they can be included in sub $1000 cameras, manufacturers will continue making less expensive sensors (DX fits the bill nicely right now) for those cameras.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Will be phased out.. Nikon made a huge mistake and not embracing FF sooner.

and Canon did too? It was expensive as hell. And still is. Not everyone wants to buy used. So entry is still $2600 for FF... or.. ~$500 for crop sensors. I don't see them phasing it out soon either. There will likely always be a market for something cheaper.

 

[IronWing]

I think that DX will eventually go away but also that Nikon and Canon will not try to push FF into ever cheaper cameras. In the film world, the 35mm cameras were so much better than the smaller format cameras (110, disk, etc) that even folks who just wanted to shoot snapshots were willing to pay extra to get an entry level 35mm SLR or rangefinder. In the digital world, the compacts are really quite good and far more convenient than dSLRs. I don't think the market for FF dSLRs is ever going to be what the market for film SLRs was regardless of cost. I think the cost of good glass for FF cameras will provide a floor on the overall cost of ownership for FF cameras and steer most folks to compacts as well.

 

[jpeyton]

Follow the glass, not the bodies, if you want to know how many years APS-C sensors have left.

Nikon and Canon are still pumping out DX/EF-S lenses. Quality FF glass is still as expensive as ever.

I don't seen cheap, plastic-bodied consumer lenses going away anytime soon. Nikon and Canon will keep the crop/full-frame markets separated for as long as they can.

 

[tdawg]

Originally posted by: ironwing
I think that DX will eventually go away but also that Nikon and Canon will not try to push FF into ever cheaper cameras. In the film world, the 35mm cameras were so much better than the smaller format cameras (110, disk, etc) that even folks who just wanted to shoot snapshots were willing to pay extra to get an entry level 35mm SLR or rangefinder. In the digital world, the compacts are really quite good and far more convenient than dSLRs. I don't think the market for FF dSLRs is ever going to be what the market for film SLRs was regardless of cost. I think the cost of good glass for FF cameras will provide a floor on the overall cost of ownership for FF cameras and steer most folks to compacts as well.

If dx (aps-c) sensors were in low demand, maybe it'd be people choosing compacts vs ff dslrs, but since there is an obvious demand for low cost dslrs, why should manufacturers stop making them? The sensors are prevalent and are now pretty cheap to manufacture, so it doesn't hurt manufacturers to keep producing the cameras they're used in.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

So, new question. You can get FF (new) cameras for about $2500 now. So how much cheaper do you all think a FF will be in two years?

 

[soydios]

Everything about a DX camera is smaller, lighter, and cheaper. Imaging sensors, autofocus sensors, viewfinder prisms/pentamirrors, shutters, main mirrors, and lenses. DX will be relegated to the sub-$1000 market only, but will not go away. Hopefully next generation, but definitely within two, we'll see full frame hit the $1500 price point, new.

Thought: Canon might keep the 1D-series sports cameras at 1.3x crop for a while. A full-frame sensor at the same resolution would result in photosites almost double the size, but everything else would have to be bigger and heavier, slowing it down. It's hard to make big heavy things move fast. I find it amazing that the D3 can flip a full-frame mirror out of the way and back again at 11fps, but it's telling that it can only do so while retaining enough time out of blackout for autofocus and metering at 9fps. The F5 was doing 8fps with film in 1996; we've only increased full-frame speed by 12.5% in over a decade.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
So, new question. You can get FF (new) cameras for about $2500 now. So how much cheaper do you all think a FF will be in two years?

I'd be surprised if we don't see FF bodies for $1000 by then.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: soydios

Thought: Canon might keep the 1D-series sports cameras at 1.3x crop for a while. A full-frame sensor at the same resolution would result in photosites almost double the size, but everything else would have to be bigger and heavier, slowing it down. It's hard to make big heavy things move fast. I find it amazing that the D3 can flip a full-frame mirror out of the way and back again at 11fps, but it's telling that it can only do so while retaining enough time out of blackout for autofocus and metering at 9fps. The F5 was doing 8fps with film in 1996; we've only increased full-frame speed by 12.5% in over a decade.

eos 1v does 10 fps with its battery grip. it was released back in 2000.

i also think the 1D sports cameras will remain 1.3x crop for a while. i think it'll stay that way as long as photogs like their glass having a tighter FoV than it would on a 135 sized frame. yeah, you could crop to do the same but you'd be left with a ~7 mp image from a D3 if you were to do so.

 

[ChairShot]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: soydios

.... yeah, you could crop to do the same but you'd be left with a ~7 mp image from a D3 if you were to do so.

I actually use that method quite often when I shoot sporting events. Slap the 300mm 2.8 on my D3, and switch of to DX mode to reach 450mm still at 2.8. the 6mp doesnt hurt that bad since i dont need poster size pictures. It's a great alternative to a doubler (1.7x) as I can keep my F2.8 instaed of dropping to 4.8.

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i think it'll stay that way as long as photogs like their glass having a tighter FoV than it would on a 135 sized frame. yeah, you could crop to do the same but you'd be left with a ~7 mp image from a D3 if you were to do so.

~11Mp on an A900.
There are people (wildlife etc.) for whom the crop factor is a positive benefit compared to FF as we (unfortunately) can't all afford 600mm F4.0s.