hlavo wrote:
It is simply superior sensor technology. And pros want/need the best and can afford it.
With only a little more work, its performance in cropped mode will outperform and equal in resolution the current DX sensors. When that happens you will see the DX sensor abandoned in droves by pros and those amateurs who can afford the higher priced bodies that contain the full frame sensors.
Does that mean DX has no place? Of course not.....but ultimately not in a pro's bag. Due to the physical/electrical limitations of sensor design, it's performance will never rival the full frame. It is and always will be much, much cheaper to make, and for anything but the most critical use, the trade-off of cost vs. low-light and noise-free performance will be well worth it for those who don't have make substantial income from their photography (or have the means to divert a substantial portion oftheir other income to photography). ...Show more →
The above portion of your statement clearly indicates to me that you have NO CLUE about the physics behind the sensors. The FX and DX sensors are using the same sensor technology, only the pixels in FX are larger because the sensor is larger OR the pixels are the same size, but the sensor gives greater resolution because it has more of them. FX in crop mode and equal pixel density can only ever match DX for performance. Only if utilizing the full FX sensor is there any advantage to FX (either in resolution or high ISO peformance, or a compromise of both).
hlavo wrote:
Obviously, we have a large group of people who are offended by the word "amateur". But as Nikon develops their line, be prepared....
Not offended, just in total disagreement because that clearly is not the case. As for the future, did you not get the part that many pros need DX format? I suspect a pro-level body in the DX format will be around for many years to come as a result. Given how wrong you have been so far, I'm not too concerned about your predictions.
hlavo wrote:
Keep in mind I never said the D300 was a mistake when it was introduced, I said it now represents a "mistake" in that it doesn't really lend itself to the future
Then it's not a mistake at all! The future may require a paradigm shift, but no mistake was made and the D300 is not and never will be a mistake. I would think as a ex-marketer you would have a better grasp of how important your choice of words is.
The market has spoken, the 300 series is a huge success. If you shoot Macro, Birds, or big game a high quality DX format makes real sense. Nikon works in segmented markets - a high quality DX is always going to be both an upgrade path and a useful tool for professionals.
I'm sure the choice between the next DX king and the 700 replacement is going to be a hard choice....I'm leaning DX but a FF with a 12 meg. DX crop would be very interesting.
jefflee wrote:
I'm sure the choice between the next DX king and the 700 replacement is going to be a hard choice....I'm leaning DX but a FF with a 12 meg. DX crop would be very interesting.
Personally I will just have both.
By the way, 27MP FX will yield 12 MP in DX crop mode. The current 24mp FX sensor is already close to that. Will we see 24MP in the D700 replace?
Jul 28, 2010 at 10:37 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
sl1200mk4 wrote:
Personally I will just have both.
By the way, 27MP FX will yield 12 MP in DX crop mode. The current 24mp FX sensor is already close to that. Will we see 24MP in the D700 replace?
By doing so, we would loose the high-ISO performance. The way around the problem is to have both a high resolution and a medium resolution body in FX ... AKA the D3x and the D3s.
I can think of a few applications where I will chose the D300 over the D700.
1.) Macro work.
2.) shooting small widlife (birders).
3.) Outdoor sports.
4.) Other applications where micro detail is important.
DX will always have its place as apro. camera.
Personally, I have a 2 camera set-up. 1 FX and 1 dx. I prefer it that way.
PurplePix wrote:
I can think of a few applications where I will chose the D300 over the D700.
1.) Macro work.
2.) shooting small widlife (birders).
3.) Outdoor sports.
4.) Other applications where micro detail is important.
DX will always have its place as apro. camera.
Personally, I have a 2 camera set-up. 1 FX and 1 dx. I prefer it that way.
Nbr. 2 is already enough for me to upgrade for the next prosumer DX. If possible in a D3 body.
Hooray, SL1200mk4 got it!! And with a little more improvement in low-level sensitivity at this density, the advantages of DX other than cost will disappear and pros will not need two technologies.
Andre Labonte wrote:
The above portion of your statement clearly indicates to me that you have NO CLUE about the physics behind the sensors. The FX and DX sensors are using the same sensor technology, only the pixels in FX are larger because the sensor is larger OR the pixels are the same size, but the sensor gives greater resolution because it has more of them. FX in crop mode and equal pixel density can only ever match DX for performance. Only if utilizing the full FX sensor is there any advantage to FX (either in resolution or high ISO peformance, or a compromise of both)....Show more →
I most certainly do understand sensor technology. What do you not understand about "With a little more work....". Low-noise sensitivity improvment is not at a dead end as both Canon and Nikon have shown, and there is no reason to believe a 24mp sensor won't soon rival at least the original D3 sensor. Yes, there is a limit but we are not there yet. And when that D3 level happens, the rationale for maintaining two different technologies in a pro camera bag simply dissappears.....you want longer reach, flip the switch.
Jul 28, 2010 at 03:18 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
hlavo wrote:
I most certainly do understand sensor technology. What do you not understand about "With a little more work....". Low-noise sensitivity improvment is not at a dead end as both Canon and Nikon have shown, and there is no reason to believe a 24mp sensor won't soon rival at least the original D3 sensor. Yes, there is a limit but we are not there yet. And when that D3 level happens, the rationale for maintaining two different technologies in a pro camera bag simply dissappears.....you want longer reach, flip the switch.
But the DX sensor technology will improve right along with FX sensor technology so it is a wash. And price for FX manufacturing will not come down relative to DX because total sensor size is fixed ... there is no scaling advantage as there is with microprocessors. So again, FX in crop mode can only match DX performance and DX will for the forseeable future have a significant cost advantage for FX. Your argument is still flawed. It's and issue of COST not of sensor technology.
Marketing guys should understand COST.
From a technology point of view we can do what you say now. Flip a witch on the D3X and you have essentially a D300 resolution DX sensor with essentially the same performance. So why not obsolete the D300? COST. $8.0K vs. $1.8. And that COST delta won't be changing anytime soon
(Hint: Think about the COST)
Jul 28, 2010 at 04:03 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #10 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
hlavo wrote:
Hooray, SL1200mk4 got it!! And with a little more improvement in low-level sensitivity at this density, the advantages of DX other than cost will disappear and pros will not need two technologies.
WRONG, because Nikon can continue to push ISO on the 12MP body far beyond the 24MP body and there will always be a desire for better High ISO just like there is always a desire for more MP.
p.5 #11 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
Not just cost. Viewfinder real estate is different too. And I suspect, in the future, placement of AF points will be different also. AF point placement as it is now, is not optimized for FF use. That will change in the future. Size is another matter to consider. Dx camera and lenses can be made smaller than FX ones.
p.5 #12 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
While I personally don’t agree with everything Harry has said, I think he has some good points with regard to the D300’s place in the line-up, and the future of FX vs. DX. “Mistake” is the wrong word to use here, though, and I think maybe everyone is overthinking Nikon’s motivations with the big picture. I’m sure their overarching plan is specific and solid, but individual camera releases are like very fine grains on the map, and can go one way or the other depending on fairly tightly-defined temporal aspects of the market. In other words, the technology is still marching forward fast enough that they can release something like a D300 without having to be confident that its place in the overall model hierarchy will be implacable for the foreseeable future. The D300 was the perfect release for the climate in which it was released, and has been a huge success. Not a mistake at all. But if competition, the pro or consumer market, and/or technology dictate, they can move it “up” or “down,” so to speak, in the line-up, or even “merge” it with another model, and I think it’s possible to do it without leaving a market-share-threatening gap. I can’t wait to see what they do over the next couple of years myself, though I don’t feel qualified to make any firm predictions.
p.5 #13 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
As already stated, but I'm in complete alignment with the point that we already have the "flip a switch" to DX with the D3x, yielding similar pixel density and resolution as the D300 series. And perhaps the same could be said about the D3/D700 "flip a switch" to get the equivalent of a D50 in pixel density and resolution... but the $8k price to get the D300 equivalent is a bit stiff for me... but if the logic holds true that the ability to "flip a switch" negates the need for DX cameras entirely, then I suppose that's why the D50 is no longer with us... or the D70 and D40. Heck, you can simply get one by buying a D3... Sort of... if you got the money... but if not... well maybe Nikon knew what they were doing by upgrading their DX bodies all along. All categories of them.
Sorry, that theory about no longer needing DX because the expensive cameras can also do "DX" doesn't fly very well in my slightly addled brain. Somehow I have a feeling that the demise of the D50/D70/D40 6mp bodies had more to do with advancements in sensor/processor technology in general, which by extension includes DX sensors as a rule. The D50/D70/D80 progression has led to the D90. The D100/D200/D300 progression led to the D300s. DX has had it's very own evolution, why should it stop now? Amateur/enthusiast/consumer bodies with backwards capability for older AF lenses as one category (D50/70/80/90,) and serious/hobbyists/semi-pro/professional bodies as another category (D100/200/300/300s.) And, the entry level category (D40/60/3000/5000) which will certainly continue to evolve as DX cameras, benefitting from the same advancements in sensor technology the higher category cameras benefit from--which won't negate the need for serious cameras in DX format any more than a hypothetical future D3000 DX which might achieve better resolution and performance than today's D3 would negate the need for professional grade cameras, whether DX or FX. There's more to it than simply sensor size or having last year's camera being upstaged by the latest technology, or we'll all be shooting with 30mp HD cellphones in the future because on paper their performance would "equal" a pro camera which is a couple years old... We know that ain't gonna happen.
p.5 #14 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
pdxflint wrote:
As already stated, but I'm in complete alignment with the point that we already have the "flip a switch" to DX with the D3x, yielding similar pixel density and resolution as the D300 series. And perhaps the same could be said about the D3/D700 "flip a switch" to get the equivalent of a D50 in pixel density and resolution... but the $8k price to get the D300 equivalent is a bit stiff for me...
<snip>
But as full-frame sensor density increases with continued high-iso capability, the "flip a switch" carries with it no penalty at all. And the $4-8k price points of these cameras is not all that daunting to a true professional, as it is a capital investment that pays dividends. That was/is my point. That's what seperates the pro's from even highly-skilled amateurs. And that is why it makes absolute sense for Nikon to consolidate this as THE "Pro Line".
pdxflint wrote:
Sorry, that theory about no longer needing DX because the expensive cameras can also do "DX" doesn't fly very well in my slightly addled brain. Somehow I have a feeling that the demise of the D50/D70/D40 6mp bodies had more to do with advancements in sensor/processor technology in general, which by extension includes DX sensors as a rule. The D50/D70/D80 progression has led to the D90. The D100/D200/D300 progression led to the D300s. DX has had it's very own evolution, why should it stop now? Amateur/enthusiast/consumer bodies with backwards capability for older AF lenses as one category (D50/70/80/90,) and serious/hobbyists/semi-pro/professional bodies as another category (D100/200/300/300s.) And, the entry level category (D40/60/3000/5000) which will certainly continue to evolve as DX cameras, benefitting from the same advancements in sensor technology the higher category cameras benefit from--which won't negate the need for serious cameras in DX format any more than a hypothetical future D3000 DX which might achieve better resolution and performance than today's D3 would negate the need for professional grade cameras, whether DX or FX. There's more to it than simply sensor size or having last year's camera being upstaged by the latest technology, or we'll all be shooting with 30mp HD cellphones in the future because on paper their performance would "equal" a pro camera which is a couple years old... We know that ain't gonna happen. ...Show more →
I can agree with most everything you say here...and in fact have: the natural extension of the D100/D200/D300 line is a stripped down, semi-pro D400, preferably with an advanced in-between crop or a super-hyped up DX (may not be possible). This then becomes the Semi-Pro Line and is optimized for the advanced amateur "purist" shooter.
The other lines continue (along with their mirrorless-to-come brethren) as the popularly distributed line for the amateurs who are a cut above or newly-evolved from point-and-shoot.
By differentiating the bodies and features into three separate lines, Nikon can then optimize its marketing and sales for each. This is what they didn't do with the D300, and as time passes it fits neither pro line (IQ) or amateur line (cost, complexity) well. That is why I called it currently a marketing "mistake".
p.5 #15 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
Andre Labonte wrote:
WRONG, because Nikon can continue to push ISO on the 12MP body far beyond the 24MP body and there will always be a desire for better High ISO just like there is always a desire for more MP.
Also, there is a huge issue of COST.
DX will always have the advantage of cost, higher pixel density and in many cases better corner performance (sharpness, fall off). I think DX pro body will always have a place and I will always buy one.
As far as ISO vs resolution is concerned. It is obvious that you can improve both, but there is a trade off between the two in the mean time.
Few years back when we were stuck at 6MP, I wanted higher resolution. I didn't dream about usable ISO6400 because I never thought we would get there.
At 12MP and even good ISO3200 performance? I am not so sure what I wanted more. 12MP is enough for two page magazine spread, but more resolution at even 24MP can't hurt. On the other hand cleaner high ISO means that I can take shots that aren't possible before.
Eventually the resolution will be limited by the resolution of the optics?
p.5 #16 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
hlavo wrote:
But as full-frame sensor density increases with continued high-iso capability, the "flip a switch" carries with it no penalty at all. And the $4-8k price points of these cameras is not all that daunting to a true professional, as it is a capital investment that pays dividends. That was/is my point. That's what seperates the pro's from even highly-skilled amateurs. And that is why it makes absolute sense for Nikon to consolidate this as THE "Pro Line".
Oh my friend, trust me it is no where close to flip a switch. The FX sensor is about 225% the size of the DX sensor. If you know anything about chip fabrication you will know that the defective percentage goes way up as the chip size increases, all other things being equal of course.
So, even based on the same density and design. The FX sensor will ALWAYS cost more. So, what you will likely going to see is the DX sensor will have higher pixel density.
p.5 #17 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
Do they think Nikon is stupid? What do they think would happen to D300s and D700 sales?
Just a rumor alone would keep some people hold on to their wallet waiting for the D90 instead of buying the D300s/D700, and if/when the real news announced, it can only get worse. Poor marketing plan if it's true.
Jul 28, 2010 at 08:45 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #18 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
hlavo wrote:
But as full-frame sensor density increases with continued high-iso capability, the "flip a switch" carries with it no penalty at all. And the $4-8k price points of these cameras is not all that daunting to a true professional, as it is a capital investment that pays dividends. That was/is my point. That's what seperates the pro's from even highly-skilled amateurs. And that is why it makes absolute sense for Nikon to consolidate this as THE "Pro Line".
In the competative world, COST is king. Why would a pro pay $4-8K if they can get what they need for $2-3K? Only if the premium gives them something they need or will earn them more money will they pay the premium. If a pro needs DX and not FX that pro wants a pro camera with a DX price. They are not willing to pay the $4-8K price point. And what exactly is a "True" professional? Big time pros who earn 6-figures a year can pay the $4-8K price point but the vast majority of professional photograhers I know, who all make 100% of their living doing photography, use either a D300 or a D700 as the D3s and D3x are too expensive. Thier choice of D300 or D700 is based primarily on what they shoot and which format gives them the greatest advantage.
We have the flip switch today, but it is too expensive even for most pros. you entire hypothesis is based on an eroneous understanding of the market.
Also, I know some skilled ametures who take better pictures than many of the pro photogs I know as well. They too want pro quality without the huge price premium.
Chip manufacturing costs go up as the square of the area. So an FX sensor which is 2.25 times the area of a DX sensor costs five times as much to fabricate. It all has to do with defect densities.
Jul 28, 2010 at 10:41 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #19 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
sl1200mk4 wrote:
DX will always have the advantage of cost, higher pixel density and in many cases better corner performance (sharpness, fall off). I think DX pro body will always have a place and I will always buy one.
As far as ISO vs resolution is concerned. It is obvious that you can improve both, but there is a trade off between the two in the mean time.
Few years back when we were stuck at 6MP, I wanted higher resolution. I didn't dream about usable ISO6400 because I never thought we would get there.
At 12MP and even good ISO3200 performance? I am not so sure what I wanted more. 12MP is enough for two page magazine spread, but more resolution at even 24MP can't hurt. On the other hand cleaner high ISO means that I can take shots that aren't possible before.
Eventually the resolution will be limited by the resolution of the optics? ...Show more →
You make very good points. It is the trade-off between resolution and high ISO performance that will either drive two branches of camera for FX like we have today (D3s, D3x) or a combined compromise camera. In my mind, more choice is good and if I were Nikon I would stick with the dual approach.
As technology improves, they will push the envelope of both specs for both branches of the FX line-up.
As you correctly pointed out, FX will always cost a lot more than DX, so there will always be a DX pro body as a "entry" level camera for pros. Such a camera will pull in a lot of sales amoung consumers looking to move up as well. There are significant costs in making a camera that can click away at 6-8 frames per second with top-notch AF. That will be the dividing line between the prosumer (D90 like) body and the pro-level DX (D300 like ) body.
As for you last question, yes, eventually optics will be the limiting factor to resolution, Right now, at smaller apertures, that already is the case.
p.5 #20 · what'll this mean for future FX cameras?
hlavo wrote:
By differentiating the bodies and features into three separate lines, Nikon can then optimize its marketing and sales for each. This is what they didn't do with the D300, and as time passes it fits neither pro line (IQ) or amateur line (cost, complexity) well. That is why I called it currently a marketing "mistake".
D300s is not a d700/d3 and they are not competitors. Nikon is not even marketting it like that. Step back, see the forest from the trees and you might see nikon has these marketted as complementary bodies. Same feature sets, same menus dman near, yet different abilities.
In all honesty, if you stepped back and focused more on what the d300s has more than what it doesn't you might just see nikon wants you to have it....and the d700 lol (cause nikon knows full well d3's are not going to be selling like hotcakes, d300s and d700 combo though....well under a kitted d3 if you have glass in place already). D300s shoots sports well so an IQ hit is to be expected...its not a studio camera by intent. D700 does quite well in the studio...but does not have the fps of the d300s and as we know with sports shooting that one extra frame could be the one that gets you some noitce or some money or both. Have both and the pro shooter does all facets from studio to the field well.
Sort of... if you got the money... but if not... well maybe Nikon knew what they were doing by upgrading their DX bodies all along. All categories of them.