Should I buy anymore DX lenses?

dEARlEADER

TPF Noob!
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
1,312
Reaction score
1
Location
Canada
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
With Nikon bringing out full frame on the D700 how long do you think it will take before full frame will dribble down to D300 series and eventually whatever the D80 will be called?

Do you think DX lenses will be obsolete within 10 years?

What do you think a D700 will be worth 2 years from now?

I am asking these questions for future lens planning purposes. If a D700 will be worth $1500 in a couple of years maybe I'll stop buying DX lenses.
 
I don't think you need to worry too much.
DX will still be around a long time and full frame may never make it to the consumer level cameras. Plus the D700 can use DX Glass.
 
oh... i'm not worried... i just think that DX might be dead... it's cool that you can use DX lenses on FX sensors but it kinda defeats the purpose as they don't utilize the surface of the full frame sensor...

bodies depreciate pretty quickly.... a used D700 in a year or two should be priced in an area where intermediate photographers will consider making the switch....

I can see full frame making it's way down the DSLR chain..... maybe they'll put the crop sensors into point and shoots which will allow more flexibility in the consumer camera market....
 
Canon shooters have been asking this question for years...and it seems that crop sensors and EF-S lenses are here to stay...for the foreseeable future anyway.

Most consumers don't need full frame sensors...and smaller sensors are a lot cheaper to manufacture.
The camera companies will be hesitant to bring down the prices of their full frame models because that might canabilize sales of their crop sensor DSLR models. If you consider their line up down into P&S cameras...they will probably want to keep some structure there. If full frame gets cheaper then crop bodies get cheaper and then SLR-like cameras get cheaper and P&S digicams are almost free.

The one thing that will affect the prices most, is competition. Canon was king of full frame DSLR for a long time and Nikon finally jumped into the pool...and now they are taking another step with the D700. Canon will have to answer with a new version of the current 5D. Other companies might soon join the frey. This is all good news for pros and enthusiasts and even people after consumer level cameras...I don't think that crop bodies will drop out of the line up any time soon.
 
DX isn't going anywhere. Even if economies of scale kick in and manufacturing process could be drastically improved to lower the costs of producing big chips, they'll still forever be marketed as a "premium" product and not within the reach of the normal person who just wants great photos.

Ken has a nice writeup on this here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/fx-dx-future.htm

If you're a serious photo hobbyist, amateur, or could do things professionally one day, I'd certainly think twice about buying anymore DX glass. I'm done with DX I think, but not because of FX digital. I love shooting good ol FILM on my F100! :lol: Got a trip coming up this weekend and I think I'm going to shoot nothing but film. :)
 
The one thing that will affect the prices most, is competition. Canon was king of full frame DSLR for a long time and Nikon finally jumped into the pool...and now they are taking another step with the D700. Canon will have to answer with a new version of the current 5D. Other companies might soon join the frey. This is all good news for pros and enthusiasts and even people after consumer level cameras...I don't think that crop bodies will drop out of the line up any time soon.


'Bout time for canon to introduce a new 5D, they have probably just been sitting on it, because Nikon was dragging it FF feet for so long! Think about it, its been less than a year since Nikon entered the Full frame market, Crop body will be around for a long time.
 
Indeed DX will be around for ever simply because as it gets cheaper to produce FX sensors it becomes MUCH cheaper to produce DX. Simple rules of what comes off a silicon wafer. If FX sensors have lower yield and more fit on the board, that means DX sensors will always be cheaper, even if the yield rate can be perfect (which it can't with current technology).

The only way DX will die is if consumers kill it by not buying them.

On the question on lenses. Why not? DX does have other advantages. Have you seen the size of Nikon's 10.5mm fisheye? Compare it to FX lenses which produce the same field of view, and it starts to become a question of do you really want to carry a lens with you?

That said the only DX lenses I'd buy would be ones where no proper FX equivalent exists that I can use right now. For instance the Sigma 10-20mm. At these angles the field of view changes drastically with each mm, and having a 15-30mm lens will simply not cut it while I save up for a D700. Similar thing with the portrait zooms like the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX. The options are get the same sized 17-35mm f/2.8 taking the zoom hit, and then having to upgrade to the 24-70mm f/2.8 N when you get a D700, and arrrrr this is all just too hard and expensive, why couldn't I take up painting.
 
DX will die after a bit. The full frame will take over but Nikon will not orphan the lens. Look at the F mount. THey will work on a FX sensor too. Now lets look at the mega pixel wars. You will have a 27/12MP sooner or later. Hassie just rolled out a 50mp and I remember when 19 then 31 were huge....
A 27 in dx mode will be 12 MP and you can use your DX lenses and have better noise reduction and a bigger (read as deeper) pixel too. It will be the best of both on one body. It will always be expensive but remember when we had 3mp now we have P&S at 10-12mp. Why do we think the the Chip manufacturing and R&D will slow. It will continue and we will all benefit from it but will have to stop the arms race when we hit our limits but if they continually make better faster and cleaner processors we will buy them... THe DX will be in PS camera. THink a D300 in an S210 PS now that can be your backup.
 
well, for telephoto purposes, DX has a clear advantage since lenses can be much smaller.

Do not get me wrong, I love FF and will probably keep shooting FF, but I would consider getting a 1.3 or 1.6 crop body for my telephoto lenses ;)
 
Indeed DX will be around for ever simply because as it gets cheaper to produce FX sensors it becomes MUCH cheaper to produce DX. Simple rules of what comes off a silicon wafer. If FX sensors have lower yield and more fit on the board, that means DX sensors will always be cheaper, even if the yield rate can be perfect (which it can't with current technology).

The only way DX will die is if consumers kill it by not buying them.

On the question on lenses. Why not? DX does have other advantages. Have you seen the size of Nikon's 10.5mm fisheye? Compare it to FX lenses which produce the same field of view, and it starts to become a question of do you really want to carry a lens with you?

That said the only DX lenses I'd buy would be ones where no proper FX equivalent exists that I can use right now. For instance the Sigma 10-20mm. At these angles the field of view changes drastically with each mm, and having a 15-30mm lens will simply not cut it while I save up for a D700. Similar thing with the portrait zooms like the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX. The options are get the same sized 17-35mm f/2.8 taking the zoom hit, and then having to upgrade to the 24-70mm f/2.8 N when you get a D700, and arrrrr this is all just too hard and expensive, why couldn't I take up painting.

don't you think they will move the DX chips down to the point and shoot line?? the really can't cram any more megepixels on the small p&s sensors so it seems logical to move the DX down to that market (where the real money is) so they have room to expand....

once pentax and sony go frame it won't be long until they all battle their way to full frame entry level DSLR maybe 5 years???
 
You still need to have a much bigger lens for a DX chip than a little P&S camera, so that's one of the bigger obstacles. Getting rid of the through-the-lens viewfinder and metering would also save a ton of space. Make a newer digital rangefinder type camera with a DX-sized chip. With the newer APS-C sensors having live view, it's doable. Then the biggest obstacle would probably be power consumption and battery life. You still need a beefy battery to power all this. The dinky little ones in P&S cameras now are probably fine, but you'd need a much bigger one for an APS-C chip, especially if it's depending on live view for metering and viewfinding. I'm sure it'll happen, but don't expect even that to be cheap either. A P&S sized camera with an APS-C sized sensor would still be marketed as a "premium" type camera. They'd probably price it higher than an equivalent D40 setup.
 
You still need to have a much bigger lens for a DX chip than a little P&S camera, so that's one of the bigger obstacles. Getting rid of the through-the-lens viewfinder and metering would also save a ton of space. Make a newer digital rangefinder type camera with a DX-sized chip. With the newer APS-C sensors having live view, it's doable. Then the biggest obstacle would probably be power consumption and battery life. You still need a beefy battery to power all this. The dinky little ones in P&S cameras now are probably fine, but you'd need a much bigger one for an APS-C chip, especially if it's depending on live view for metering and viewfinding. I'm sure it'll happen, but don't expect even that to be cheap either. A P&S sized camera with an APS-C sized sensor would still be marketed as a "premium" type camera. They'd probably price it higher than an equivalent D40 setup.

i agree..... the first p&s with aps-c sensor will be sold at a premium and will likely be crap due to the very limitations you mention.... it will be bigger.... the battery life will stink.... and zitty teens at bestbuy will be falling over themselves to sell them to the populus....
 
That all depends on the money and the market. As I said before if it becomes cheaper (more profitable) to produce an FX sensor because of new technology then it becomes MUCH more profitable to produce smaller ones. The only change in this relationship is the yield rate. I'm pulling numbers from my back side here, but if there are 5 errors on the wafer of FX sensors that means 5 defects in say 25 units, that is an expense, a bit one. But those same 5 errors on a wafer with 400 P&S sensors is nothing. If this figure improves then yes FX sensors becomes cheaper to make and P&S sensor and APS sensors gain less, but ultimately there's still a factor of size. How many FX sensors fit on a wafer compared to a DX / P&S one. The same is applied to the microchip industry. Lots can be gained from miniaturising an older design simply because of basic economies of scale.

I think the market will ultimately decide this. The increase in people switching to entry level SLRs is still nothing compared to the sales of P&S. I'm on my first DSLR, my sister and my parents have had 5 P&S cameras between them over the past 2 years. That combined with the influx of the even smaller mobile phone sensors, I doubt we'll see a change even in the next 5 years, but I guess time will tell. Me I intend to move to FX next year :)
 
On the question on lenses. Why not? DX does have other advantages. Have you seen the size of Nikon's 10.5mm fisheye? Compare it to FX lenses which produce the same field of view, and it starts to become a question of do you really want to carry a lens with you?

I shoot a LOT of telephoto, and I personally think the DX sized sensor is a Godsend... it is like having a 1.5 teleconverter on every tele lens that doesn't affect picture quality or reduce my apertures... which saves both my back and my wallet.
 
I shoot a LOT of telephoto, and I personally think the DX sized sensor is a Godsend... it is like having a 1.5 teleconverter on every tele lens that doesn't affect picture quality or reduce my apertures... which saves both my back and my wallet.


good point...
 

Most reactions

Back
Top