Kittyk wrote:
DX was bad and temporally crotch to start with anyway. Will not be missed.
Cameras were neither really small, nor really cheap, same for glass.

DX will never go away, unless they start putting even SMALLER sensors into DSLR bodies. It's hundreds of dollars cheaper to make a DX camera than an FX camera, so unless every company unilaterally agreed to stop making them, whoever stops would just lose the entire market (beginners' DSLR). If it costs you $500 to make your entry level camera and costs Canon $300, who do you think is going to win? Those consumers don't know or care about full frame, but they do see the price tag.

DX provides reach (more pixels per duck) when you are using the long teles already and cannot get closer to the subject. I would be happy with the camera for such specific purposes. If the price is like the D300 series, then it is worth keeping around for those occasions.

However, I find a September introduction a bit hard to believe. Surely if it will be that soon, the announcement should have been at PK 2012.

EBH

hans98ko wrote:
But there are some die hards who wants a 18-24 MP DX body for their DX lenses and doesn't want a 36 MP FX body, so why not take advantage of the situation by putting a 22 MP sensor in a D700 body and start making money.


+1

Nikon Rob wrote:
Kittyk wrote:
DX was bad and temporally crotch to start with anyway. Will not be missed.
Cameras were neither really small, nor really cheap, same for glass.

DX will never go away, unless they start putting even SMALLER sensors into DSLR bodies. It's hundreds of dollars cheaper to make a DX camera than an FX camera, so unless every company unilaterally agreed to stop making them, whoever stops would just lose the entire market (beginners' DSLR). If it costs you $500 to make your entry level camera and costs Canon $300, who do you think is going to win? Those consumers don't know or care about full frame, but they do see the price tag.

it is cheaper for companies (multiply $2 times 2000000), but not that cheaper to make any real difference on the customers ($496 vs $498). Less customers get them self dragged into cheaper system, more motivation they have to bring some nice full frame products. Trust me, if it would be other way around, no way DX would ever catch up without some REAL innovation (much faster frame rates, real smaller lenses and bodies, cheaper equivalent lenses,...).
If i would be consumer shopping for DSLR camera and would be ok with DX, i would get just two to three used ones, thanking all those people offloading their perfectly fine D200 for D300, then D300s, now waiting for 4 more megapixels in D400 while still lugging around same expensive but worse 17-55 instead 24-70 and having 35f1.8 prime as big as 35f2 is, almost as expensive but much worse build. I could go on, but makes no sense of course.

Kerry Pierce wrote:
While you are looking at prints, I'd be willing to wager that I could make 80x60cm prints from both DX and FX that nobody in your workshop could tell which prints came from which format.

Kerry

of course, but always keep in mind, you can do with FX EVERYTHING what DX does image-feel-wise, but not other way around. So i can make FX photo which nobody can tell if it was P&S, DX or FX. But i can with FX make a photo which would be different to what any DX camera or P&S (in extreme) can do.

and again: would you buy D300s, if for same moneys you could have D700? Maybe you answer yes on the forum, but would you really?

APS-C/DX is small enough for DSLRs. Anyway, nobody wants to redesign F-mount lenses for a smaller CoC than DX and shorter focal lengths. At some point the viewfinder will become too small and/or dark.

EBH

Kitty - we're going to have to agree to disagree. You might know photography, but you don't know product marketing or segmentation.

Might there be something that replaces DX and/or the D300s slot? Sure! Is that technology here? No! Is the D600/a used D700/new D800 a substitute? Nope.

I could go on, but it would be a waste of time - you've got your opinion, and I have mine.

Please understand that I have absolutely no clue what I am talking about, but bear with me. So I had trouble sleeping last night and it was because my mind was wandering and processing the events of the day. As some of you who have similar sleep issues may understand, reality sometimes blends in with unreality as one drifts in and out of sleep. One of the things I had read about a couple of days ago is that Canon was introducing a mirrorless APS-C camera. So my half-asleep, half-awake dream state processed this as follows. Nikon, with its first foray into the mirrorless market being less than desired, made the decision to split its cameras into two separate paths. Nikon's APS-C cameras will become mirrorless EVIL cameras and full frame will go to those individuals - both amateur and pro - who prefer the traditional camera formats. This explains the D600 and the apparent confusion with camera numbering.

So the next "400" may actually be an EVIL mirrorless camera. This may be just crazy enough to be true. Hopefully I will get a better night's sleep tonite.

This is ridiculous....DX won't go away.....as long as m4/3 is around, DX will still be around...i don't see olympus or panasonic all of a sudden switching all their cameras to FX just cause it's better....small sensors are getting better....face it....i think people who say otherwise are pissed b/c they bought into the LIE that FX will always be better than DX, and now DX cameras are getting just as good as FX cameras...look at video....it's turning out that small sensors are actually delivering BETTER results than FX video.....look at the BlackMagic Cinema camera!! and the Panasonic GH2/GH3.....they can easily compete, and in some cases surpass FX models....

I shoot all DX....i haven't gone to FX yet b/c of glass, but also b/c i can't stand the AF layout/lack of coverage on FX cameras right now....the sensors don't go close enough to the edges of the frame......i use the outside points way too much to risk losing that ability by going to FX...

I was shooting with my D300 last night, at iso 3200 and 6400.....and the results are great, and the shots will easily get used by the client...come on, even my D70 at 1600 looks amazing with those FAT pixels!!..i don't care about huge dynamic range.....when i shoot at a concert, i like crushed blacks....when i shoot getting ready shots at a wedding, i like blown out windows....for me, dx works, and will continue to work....PERSONALLY, if the D400 turns out to be $1,899, i'll buy one ASAP....$200 more than a used d700, and will prob deliver the same iso performance....with probably better AF performance (think d800/d4), and better AF coverage than the FX counterparts....i'm still stoked about a D400...

fingers crossed hard!

After handling a D600 and shooting it for a few hours over the weekend, and then comparing the images (on graphics monitor,) I'm coming to the conclusion that the main reasons Nikon is pushing FX has nothing to do with making a better camera. It has everything to do with making a camera that everyone will need to buy new lenses for, and also so they don't have to go head to head against Canon and their highly successful 7d.


Kent in SD

Kittyk wrote:
and again: would you buy D300s, if for same moneys you could have D700? Maybe you answer yes on the forum, but would you really?

Here's the thing - it is an irrelevant question. The cost of FX is much higher and the gap isn't closing quickly.

Your argument is the same as saying " I'd you could have an SSD for the same price as a regular hard drive, wouldn't you want that?" from a cost posts perspective, and it still misses what DX shooters are asking for. You can dismiss it all you want, that doesn't mean there isn't valid demand for what we're talking about: a D400...

(And by the way, the answer to your question might well be "yes" based on my lens kit and the much- higher cost of replicating it for FX, not to mention the cost/ complexity of TC's I'd want to have)

Kittyk,

With all due respect to what is obviously your opinion, please note that just because FX is more useful for your purposes than DX should not in any way lead to a conclusion that DX is "bad" and should not be considered a suitable choice for anyone else.

Believe it or not, there are actually people other than yourself who know what they need in a camera and some of those people actually find that DX better suits their needs and budget than FX does. And furthermore, these same people also don't find any significant quality loss in using DX rather than FX (KEY PART -->) that keeps them from being able to make great images that suit their needs and desires as photographers.

Once again, because the point is so basic yet important-just because something is better in certain situations, in this case FX, which does have some advantages over DX no one will deny, does not make something else, in this case DX, bad. There doesn't have to be a good performing format and then a bad one, as there can be a good format choice for some people and simply a better one for others.

Sorry, but to assert that DX is simply bad and a waste of manufacturing resources therefore just because FX is better in certain situations for certain people is simply poor logic, economic and otherwise.

I personally love the DX format for shooting wildlife. I get more focal length bang for my buck. Give me an updated camera with lots of fire power... And I'll be happy.... So far the D7000 does that for me.

Kerry Pierce wrote:
While you are looking at prints, I'd be willing to wager that I could make 80x60cm prints from both DX and FX that nobody in your workshop could tell which prints came from which format.

Kerry

Kittyk wrote:
of course,


I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that people couldn't tell which prints came from which format? If you are, then your argument that DX isn't any good, is a fallacy.

Kittyk wrote:
but always keep in mind, you can do with FX EVERYTHING what DX does image-feel-wise, but not other way around. So i can make FX photo which nobody can tell if it was P&S, DX or FX. But i can with FX make a photo which would be different to what any DX camera or P&S (in extreme) can do.


No, that's not true either. FX can't always do everything that DX does. They are different formats, with different strengths and weaknesses of each format. They do have some overlapping capabilities, but that doesn't mean that one can always do what the other can do. I've shot the d300 and d700 side by side, for several years. I wouldn't have done that, if it weren't a necessity.

Kittyk wrote:
and again: would you buy D300s, if for same moneys you could have D700? Maybe you answer yes on the forum, but would you really?


If I could fly to the moon tomorrow, I would. But, that's not the reality, is it? The reality was that the d300 was over $1000 cheaper than the d700, when they were introduced. DX will always be cheaper to produce, it's as simple as that.

I don't understand why it should matter to you anyway. Nobody is forcing you to buy a DX camera and you have several FX cameras to choose from. So, why do you care?

Kerry

I think we may have already seen the last "semi-pro" DX Nikon. The D300s. I think the wild success of the D7000 may redirect Nikon's marketing approach. The next DX model could be a D7100 with a 24 mp sensor, an improved 51 point focus system, larger buffer and higher fps, and added video frame rates.

I started this post hoping to share something that I found on another site to those who are interested in getting a replacement for their D300/s.
I have no inside knowledge or link to any party that this information are in fact correct or if it will ever be produce.
As someone already indicated that the info is outdated and was posted quite sometime ago.
Being involved in developing products, we also knew that normally there are a few teams developing a couple of products at the same time, sometime some of these products will not see the light of day becasue they were late or outdate before release or at time trend changes. But there are also time when a product is being recall and with little changes put back into the market. I was hoping this was the case so that those who want it will get their wish fulfill.
But honestly if you ask me personally will this product be ever release, I would say very slight chance and even so it might come out as a special and limited edition at a collector's price just like the Rollei 35 Classic Collector's Edition.
If those people who are monitoring what is going on recently, one will notice that manufacturers are moving into full frame for entry level and there are already lots of interest for it.
The next thing is more and more entry level full frame lenses are coming out from both OEMs as well as third parties, which is another indication of where we are heading.
Although there are still demand for DX from former users, I would say the demand is not as great as one would expect. Look at the Canon and NIkon forums and one will notice that the demand is not really that great especially in this forum for the thread Annoyed! with 180 posts and over 8000 viewing there are only about 20 or so demanding for it while a few said they can have it or not. And out of these 20 or so I also noticed a trend and that is these are users who would not pay $1800 - $2000 for the so call pro-body (at this price one would not expect a brand new pro-body), the next thing is they also do not want to invest on new lenses especailly expensive long pro-lenses to cover the range that they wanted (for a manufacturers I am sure they would not be interested in this group of users because they would not get more business from selling accessories and lenses especially pro-lenses). Now, this users said that they will jump ship to another manufacturer, but if all manufacturers are moving in the same direction, which ship can they jump?
I also noticed recently that Nikon is clearing their DX cameras with sweat deals and carrots added to the sales and they did reveived a lot more DX DSLR business compare to Canon, but I am sure Canon will do the same very soon to get back the market share. After they clear out all their DX stocks I am sure they will concentrate on FX extry level bodies with more added features. We will see...

Finally, I am really sad to see this thread coming to this situation where a group of DX users attacking a FX user who do not think DX still have the market or user advantage.
Can't we all have a civil discussion and let each have their own thought and believe?
Anyway no one can be sure how it will end up.

Kittyk wrote:
Nikon Rob wrote:
Kittyk wrote:
DX was bad and temporally crotch to start with anyway. Will not be missed.
Cameras were neither really small, nor really cheap, same for glass.

DX will never go away, unless they start putting even SMALLER sensors into DSLR bodies. It's hundreds of dollars cheaper to make a DX camera than an FX camera, so unless every company unilaterally agreed to stop making them, whoever stops would just lose the entire market (beginners' DSLR). If it costs you $500 to make your entry level camera and costs Canon $300, who do you think is going to win? Those consumers don't know or care about full frame, but they do see the price tag.

it is cheaper for companies (multiply $2 times 2000000), but not that cheaper to make any real difference on the customers ($496 vs $498).

Um...we're not talking 2 dollars. We're talking two HUNDRED dollars at the minimum to make a full frame body vs a DX body. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about if you honestly think it is anywhere close to $2. I honestly can't tell if you're serious or trolling, but I've never heard anyone suggest it's ANYWHERE near that cheap to make a FX sensor over a DX one (and ignoring all the other costs associated with FX).

Dx format was and is still embraced by nature photographers for the perceived extra reach due to crop factor. Yes, you can crop a full frame image after the fact but seeing it in camera is far better.

IQ is bad with DX? BULLS**T. Look at all the GREAT images captured when there was no FF. You seem to be a pixel junkie and believe that more just HAS to be better and that less is inferior. This just isn't true. Joe McNalley produced the first digital images published by Natioanl Geographic (including the cover as well as two page spreads) with a DX body.

As an American I believe you are fully entitled to your opinion and I'll defend your right to be wrong to the death. Do what you like with the equipment you prefer but don't imply that those who choose other equipment are wrong or can't produce quality images.

Kittyk wrote:
of course, but always keep in mind, you can do with FX EVERYTHING what DX does image-feel-wise, but not other way around. So i can make FX photo which nobody can tell if it was P&S, DX or FX. But i can with FX make a photo which would be different to what any DX camera or P&S (in extreme) can do.

and again: would you buy D300s, if for same moneys you could have D700? Maybe you answer yes on the forum, but would you really?

Yes, if they had the same pixel count I'd always prefer DX to FX. I generally shoot four types of images: macro and landscape (for which I want more DOF, not less) and then aviation and wildlife (for which I want as much reach as I can get). All four of those needs are better served by a DX sensor as long as the light levels are not so low as to require extremely high ISO.

I went from a D300 DX to a D3x FX because I really needed more MP. Much though I love my D800 bodies... if Nikon puts a 24MP DX sensor into a D800 body with the same AF, metering, battery, grip, and so on, just like they did with the D300/D700 pair, then I'll probably go back to DX and be thankful for it. I'll keep one D800 for low-light situations, and go to three D400 bodies for most shooting needs, and save a boatload of dough.

And I'll get 50% more reach in the process, which is a huge deal for me.

DGC1 wrote:
Dx format was and is still embraced by nature photographers

+1

I use my DX format D7000 for photographing wolves almost 100% of the time. I would like an updated DX format camera at some point in the future - preferably with more buffer.