Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: End of APS-C/DX camera?

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jalan Poonpipi
    Posts
    758

    Default Re: End of APS-C/DX camera?

    It is a matter of supply and demand.

    There will still be a demand for entry level dSLR, and that would be DX/APS-C type, with the smaller sensor, smaller shutter, smaller mirror and smaller pentamirror. So, in terms of weight, size and price, lower than the FF type.

    I have just got a D3100. That cam has got the right kind of features for my use. This is especially so with the 14Mp sensor. It is simply ridiculous to have 24Mp for a DX camera.

    As I see it, there would be at least one entry level DX, one advanced DX like the D300, one hobbyist FX like the D600 and one top of the line pro camera. I believe this is the minimum line-up, but there could be more than 4 at any one time.
    Do not be afraid [of ghost and bullies] Shoot them......

  2. #22
    Senior Member rain5533's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    S'pore, JB
    Posts
    3,103

    Default

    Not longer in Nikon lineup would be :
    D3200 @ 24mp entry level, good than enough.

    D5100 if no replacement will be discontinued

    D7000 now going selling as cheap, but still unknown would be ending when

    D300s would be replacement to suit with canon 7D.

    D600 FX entry level @ 24mp

    D700 has been discontinued

    D800/E high end semi-pro @ 36mp

    Do you think of point from D5100 & D700 they might to going for upgrade and you would support this in future?

    Or you hopping more on D300s to be upgrade into D400 @ used D800 tech with DX 24mp?

    Cause most of birding shooter still prefer on D700/D300s.
    Last edited by rain5533; 27th September 2012 at 08:13 AM.

  3. #23
    Member Alan Chan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    561

    Default Re: End of APS-C/DX camera?

    There is a size for everyone.

    Some like big cars, some smaller.
    Nikon D700| 70-200mm f/2.8G VR2| 28-70mm f/2.8D| 85mm f/1.8G| 50mm f/1.8G| SB900/SB28| MB-D10

  4. #24
    Member Fudgecakes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Chan
    There is a size for everyone.

    Some like big cars, some smaller.
    Not only cars....
    There are no bad photographers, only photos that could've been done better
    My Flickr

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fudgecakes

    Not only cars....
    Watz on yr mind? Haha
    Sony A7/ Sigma 19-2.8 E/ CV 35-1.7 ASPH/ FE 55-1.8/ MC Rokkor 58-1.2/ Pentax SMC K 135-2.5

  6. #26
    Member Fudgecakes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoth

    Watz on yr mind? Haha
    What do you think? :P
    There are no bad photographers, only photos that could've been done better
    My Flickr

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fudgecakes

    What do you think? :P
    Ain't no mind reader.
    Sony A7/ Sigma 19-2.8 E/ CV 35-1.7 ASPH/ FE 55-1.8/ MC Rokkor 58-1.2/ Pentax SMC K 135-2.5

  8. #28

    Default Re: End of APS-C/DX camera?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    If people really think that the only thing that affects cost is the sensor size (forgetting lenses, etc).... it's far too narrow in thoughts.
    actually FF lens need not necessary have to be more expensive than APSC.

    Example to achieve the a low DOF on APSC camera, I might need F1.4 lens but for the same DOF on a FF, I only need 1.8...
    Nikon is starting to release some "cheaper" f1.8 lens so it shows that nikon is serious about this.

  9. #29

    Default Re: End of APS-C/DX camera?

    Quote Originally Posted by dniwkh View Post
    actually FF lens need not necessary have to be more expensive than APSC.

    Example to achieve the a low DOF on APSC camera, I might need F1.4 lens but for the same DOF on a FF, I only need 1.8...
    Nikon is starting to release some "cheaper" f1.8 lens so it shows that nikon is serious about this.
    there's a reason why FF lenses are more expensive when comparing to APS-C lenses.

    lens - What is the difference between DX format and FX format lenses, and which to choose for what purpose? - Photography

    a drop in price could be due to Economies of Scale... not because they're trying to sell more lenses so they cut the price.

  10. #30

    Default Re: End of APS-C/DX camera?

    Quote Originally Posted by kei1309 View Post
    there's a reason why FF lenses are more expensive when comparing to APS-C lenses.

    lens - What is the difference between DX format and FX format lenses, and which to choose for what purpose? - Photography

    a drop in price could be due to Economies of Scale... not because they're trying to sell more lenses so they cut the price.
    ?? I don't see why APSC lens are necessarily cheaper.

    Lets put it this way.

    A nikon FF 28mm f1.8G cost like less than $1k. If you want a similar lens for APSC sensor in terms of DOF, you have to get a DX 18mm f1.2... Even if they can make a DX 18mm f1.2, I think it will probably cost more than 1k.

    Or a Nikon 50mm f1.8G cost like around $300? To get similar DOF you need a DX 35mm f1.2 which will not cost less than $300.

    I think you see the point. If one is after shallow DOF from WA to normal (24mm-50mm) range, FF is definitely cheaper than DX. Not only cheaper but sometimes it is the only choice.
    Last edited by dniwkh; 29th September 2012 at 06:39 PM.

  11. #31
    Member Fudgecakes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dniwkh

    ?? I don't see why APSC lens are necessarily cheaper.

    Lets put it this way.

    A nikon FF 28mm f1.8G cost like less than $1k. If you want a similar lens for APSC sensor in terms of DOF, you have to get a DX 18mm f1.2... Even if they can make a DX 18mm f1.2, I think it will probably cost more than 1k.

    Or a Nikon 50mm f1.8G cost like around $300? To get similar DOF you need a DX 35mm f1.2 which will not cost less than $300.

    I think you see the point. If one is after shallow DOF from WA to normal (24mm-50mm) range, FF is definitely cheaper than DX. Not only cheaper but sometimes it is the only choice.
    But if you're gonna use it On a DX camera then it won't be 50mm equivalent or 28mm equivalent already. True?

    If it we're possible to design such lenses at those price points then we will see less people moving from DX to FX for bokeh
    There are no bad photographers, only photos that could've been done better
    My Flickr

  12. #32

    Default Re: End of APS-C/DX camera?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fudgecakes View Post
    But if you're gonna use it On a DX camera then it won't be 50mm equivalent or 28mm equivalent already. True?

    If it we're possible to design such lenses at those price points then we will see less people moving from DX to FX for bokeh
    agreed. That is why from a shallow DOF point of view, I think FX lens are cheaper than DX lens. Previously, the main hurdle is the FX body which cost around $3.5k. The D600 launch price is below $3k and probably give it a few months it should be around $2.5k.

    Lets say someone wants the 35mm f2 (FX) FOV and DOF.

    He can either buy a D600+35mmf/2 lens or a D7000+24mm f1.4.... I chose D7000 for comparison because it has similar AF, body as D600.

    If he wants a 35mm f1.4, then there is no alternative but to go FX. Same for all the other WA lens.

    I think nikon strategy is right on target. A cheap FX body is useless if you don't have good and CHEAP lens that exploit the DOF characteristics of the FX sensors.

    Nikon has probably been planning this for some time as they released 3 "cheap" f1.8G primes at 28mm, 50mm and 85mm to complement the D600 even before the D600 was launched. This makes the D600 offering so much more compeling.

  13. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dniwkh

    agreed. That is why from a shallow DOF point of view, I think FX lens are cheaper than DX lens. Previously, the main hurdle is the FX body which cost around $3.5k. The D600 launch price is below $3k and probably give it a few months it should be around $2.5k.

    Lets say someone wants the 35mm f2 (FX) FOV and DOF.

    He can either buy a D600+35mmf/2 lens or a D7000+24mm f1.4.... I chose D7000 for comparison because it has similar AF, body as D600.

    If he wants a 35mm f1.4, then there is no alternative but to go FX. Same for all the other WA lens.

    I think nikon strategy is right on target. A cheap FX body is useless if you don't have good and CHEAP lens that exploit the DOF characteristics of the FX sensors.

    Nikon has probably been planning this for some time as they released 3 "cheap" f1.8G primes at 28mm, 50mm and 85mm to complement the D600 even before the D600 was launched. This makes the D600 offering so much more compeling.
    Saying that dx lenses would be more expensive than fx equivalent based on DOF alone, is really myopic imho.

    Ability to have shallow DOF is a benefit of FF sensor, not a premium for dx lenses, if you get what I'm saying.

    To extrapolate your point, if I want a 50/1.8 equivalent in a Pentax Q, I would need to get a ~ 10/0.36 that would probably cost 5 times the price of 50/1.8. No sense right?
    hi

  14. #34

    Default Re: End of APS-C/DX camera?

    Quote Originally Posted by dniwkh View Post
    ?? I don't see why APSC lens are necessarily cheaper.

    Lets put it this way.

    A nikon FF 28mm f1.8G cost like less than $1k. If you want a similar lens for APSC sensor in terms of DOF, you have to get a DX 18mm f1.2... Even if they can make a DX 18mm f1.2, I think it will probably cost more than 1k.

    Or a Nikon 50mm f1.8G cost like around $300? To get similar DOF you need a DX 35mm f1.2 which will not cost less than $300.

    I think you see the point. If one is after shallow DOF from WA to normal (24mm-50mm) range, FF is definitely cheaper than DX. Not only cheaper but sometimes it is the only choice.
    you can't judge the price a lens based on what you've just mentioned. you're just looking at it at face value

  15. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    126

    Default Re: End of APS-C/DX camera?

    I suggest anyone who thinks APS-C DSLR is dead read this short article.

    Four Reasons Why We’re Thinking About the Death of DSLRs All Wrong

    Full frames are awesome but not everyone needs one. Semi-pro DX cameras like Nikon D7000 are still used today by many professionals and whoever think it's going to be rendered useless soon by mirrorless and affordable full frames must not own one of these babies.

    For half the price, you get pretty decent quality. There's hardly any reason to dump these cropped sensor cameras anytime soon.
    www.flickr.com/juzejames
    Nikon D7000.18-55mm.55-200mm VR.50mm f/1.8 D

  16. #36

    Default Re: End of APS-C/DX camera?

    Quote Originally Posted by silvermoon1407 View Post
    Saying that dx lenses would be more expensive than fx equivalent based on DOF alone, is really myopic imho.

    Ability to have shallow DOF is a benefit of FF sensor, not a premium for dx lenses, if you get what I'm saying.

    To extrapolate your point, if I want a 50/1.8 equivalent in a Pentax Q, I would need to get a ~ 10/0.36 that would probably cost 5 times the price of 50/1.8. No sense right?
    please read my post clearly. I did not say DX is ALWAYS cheaper than FX. I am just pointing out the fact that in CERTAIN CASES, DX might be more expensive than FX. It all depends on what you are looking for in a lens.

    Yup, you example is absolutely correct. If you are looking for thin DOF at 50mm and you buy a pentax Q, then be prepared to pay for it. But no one wil be so stupid as to but Pentax Q for DOF because it is just not cost efficient. Actually you just proved my point. If you are looking at thin DOF, a larger sensor system (body+lens) will probably be more cost effcieint. I think FF is the sweet spot for DOF now because there is enough economies of scale to bring the price within reach consumers.

    Of course if you don't really care about DOF, I think DX is probably cheaper. It all depends on what you are looking for.

  17. #37

    Default Re: End of APS-C/DX camera?

    Quote Originally Posted by dniwkh View Post
    please read my post clearly. I did not say DX is ALWAYS cheaper than FX. I am just pointing out the fact that in CERTAIN CASES, DX might be more expensive than FX. It all depends on what you are looking for in a lens.

    Yup, you example is absolutely correct. If you are looking for thin DOF at 50mm and you buy a pentax Q, then be prepared to pay for it. But no one wil be so stupid as to but Pentax Q for DOF because it is just not cost efficient. Actually you just proved my point. If you are looking at thin DOF, a larger sensor system (body+lens) will probably be more cost effcieint. I think FF is the sweet spot for DOF now because there is enough economies of scale to bring the price within reach consumers.

    Of course if you don't really care about DOF, I think DX is probably cheaper. It all depends on what you are looking for.
    You're missing the point by focusing merely on DOF imho. We get it that to get the same DOF on crop cameras you would need some super duper huge aperture lenses that would be impractical for most focal lengths - that's why most of these lenses never get made & people who die die need super thin DOF move to FF cameras.

    But for most folks f1.4/2/2.8 on crop cameras is plenty fast & the resultant DOF while not FF-like is perfectly acceptable. Also you'll be hard-pressed to not see that a FF system with comparable FL coverage will always cost more than the equivalent on crop - for a variety of reasons, not all simply down to the maximum aperture of the lenses. You're right that Nikon is making the right moves in making FF systems more affordable for the masses but its still way more than I would pay for.

  18. #38

    Default

    Also don't forget that, to cover the ff image circle, ff lenses need to be larger, thus costing more in terms of materials. This is especially true for "zoom" lenses.
    Alpha

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •