Future of Nikon DX lens (question)

[Pinoy_SAP]

To the dark side,

During lunch time (not so often), i get to read a few photography magazines from bookstores in orchard area and there isn't one that will not give a thumbs up to the EOS 1Ds Mark II. I also give a wow esp. to the "Full Frame" sensor (set aside all other great features).

For "F" mounts, there is also Kodak Pro DCS-14n (14mpix-Full frame), and the "big" question always pop to my mind, "What if Nikon suddenly decided to go Full Frame". Given the technology is already there from Canon and Kodak, the price of incorporating the FF to the likes of D70 may also come to reality.

Now, going back to my topic... using a system does not depend on body but on the investment on lens. So what is the future of DX lenses? If you have the budget (say 2k++), would you buy a DX lens or one of the trinity?

Anyone care to share any roadmap from Nikon in regards with full frame, any comments?

[mpenza]

Nikon could have a "crop mode" aka digital zoom to support DX lenses (with less pixels captured vs non-DX lenses) if they decide to go full-frame. A version of this is already in the D2X which boosted the performance to 8fps for the digital zoom mode.

[Pinoy_SAP]

Originally Posted by mpenza Nikon could have a "crop mode" aka digital zoom to support DX lenses (with less pixels captured vs non-DX lenses) if they decide to go full-frame. A version of this is already in the D2X which boosted the performance to 8fps for the digital zoom mode.

i agree, but is this the chicken and egg of it all... if Nikon goes Full frame, why go back to the "crop mode" again? the crop mode may have existed because even D2x is still on APC size sensor right. anyway, my concern is just that the price drop of DX lens might be dictated by obsolete technology. like Pentium 3 yesterday, P4 today, P?? tomorrow. Compared to the non-DX lens including AIS, there are minimal dependancy on the ever changing technology on D-SLR. Hence, risk factor is also minimal and investment (thousands of dollars) wise are secured for a much longer period. Its like comparing stocks with bonds.

hehe, im not an expert here... just sharing some views.

[Watcher]

I had posted a solution exactly like what Mpenza said above here about 20 months ago. No loss at all. In any case, there are millions of DX-sized F-mount DSLRs all over the world; from D1 all the way to D2X. I'm sure you can sell it. Furthermore, DX-sized DSLRs will for a very long time be significantly cheaper than any FF DSLRs

[Watcher]

Originally Posted by Pinoy_SAP i agree, but is this the chicken and egg of it all... if Nikon goes Full frame, why go back to the "crop mode" again? the crop mode may have existed because even D2x is still on APC size sensor right. anyway, my concern is just that the price drop of DX lens might be dictated by obsolete technology. like Pentium 3 yesterday, P4 today, P?? tomorrow. Compared to the non-DX lens including AIS, there are minimal dependancy on the ever changing technology on D-SLR. Hence, risk factor is also minimal and investment (thousands of dollars) wise are secured for a much longer period. Its like comparing stocks with bonds. hehe, im not an expert here... just sharing some views.

The reason is simple: DX cameras are cheaper. P3 and P4, price difference is not that much, in absolute terms. The reason is that processors obey Moore's Law because of shrinking circuit size, not the same as digital sensors where the chip size stays the same.

As for thinking that cameras are investments, think again; they do not appreciate in value. Instead, think of it as a tool that can help you to earn $.

[espn]

The more I think the more I feel more contented with DX format actually. Seeing the D2X in action is awesome, but the aftermath of the RAW images is another headache. Until the day RAW images can be opened in 2secs on Nikon Capture and processed without lagging, I seriously don't think I'm ready for FF cameras.

[icarus]

Personally, i will steer clear of DX lenses for the meantime...
I am getting ready for a Nikon FF DSLR liao

[markccm]

i will try to get FF lenses rather than DX lenses coz i have this urge to go back to film.

[mpenza]

Originally Posted by Watcher I had posted a solution exactly like what Mpenza said above here about 20 months ago.

yup, the idea came from u

[ricohflex]

Matter of time.
Long ago it was a big deal to have an 80286 AT turbo and 64 MB Ram.
Then technology advance came along with mass production to bring prices down. What at one time seemed impossible became common place and so affordable. Now, kids have Pentium 4 and 2GB Ram on their PCs.

This will happen too with digital cameras and full frame.
And sooner than you think possible.
Give it 3 years maximum. That is why I said the 4/3 idea is doomed.

[Colin Loh]

Nikon should look into the perspective of noise vs sensor size, the very same reason larger CCD on camcorder usually gives better video quality under low light conditions. It will be cheaper to increase pixel counts, lower noise with a FF sensor, than to stick to the DX format. Development will be faster too.

r/Colin

[espn]

Larger sensor doesn't mean lower noise, look at 1DS.

How will development be faster on FF, I don't see the link, can elaborate?

[mpenza]

yup, larger pixel area also doesn't mean lower noise.... e.g. check out DPReview's luminance noise charts of the D2H vs EOS 10D (D2H's pixel area is ~70% larger than 10D) or D2H vs EOS 1D Mk II (D2H's pixel area is ~50% larger than 1D Mk II).

However, sensor technology and noise handling techniques are improving and we'll get better and better results from both big and small sensors.

[obviousdude]

the future is one where DSLRs will be more widely used.

1) i see a possibility where the DX cams will be entry level while the FF ones will be the pro level. so both formats can coexist.

2) i think the DX format has a brighter future though. just based on the sheer number of cameras on the format, it makes more ecconomic sense to support it.

pro level will always be a niche.
the entry level mass market still moves just by virtue of sheer volume.

there is a higher likelyhood that the DX (1.5 crop factor) is here to stay. and technological changes could make FF eventually obsolete.

[espn]

Originally Posted by obviousdude the future is one where DSLRs will be more widely used. i see a possibility where the DX cams will be entry level while the FF ones will be the pro level. so both formats can coexist. i think the DX format has a brighter future though. just based on the sheer number of cameras on the format, it makes more ecconomic sense to support it. pro level will always be a niche. the entry level mass market still moves just by virtue of sheer volume.

Yep... I already commented that some moons ago, FF for professionals and serious users, whereas DX is still a cheap option for people like me who only survives on 40GB HDD SPACE!!

[mpenza]

A smaller sensor will soon test the limits of lens design though when the sensor outresolves the lens. This might neccessitate a move to full-frame for higher MP sensors down the road.

[obviousdude]

Originally Posted by espn Yep... I already commented that some moons ago, FF for professionals and serious users, whereas DX is still a cheap option for people like me who only survives on 40GB HDD SPACE!!

agree with you man.. i very poor, not much hdd space sia

[obviousdude]

Originally Posted by mpenza A smaller sensor will soon test the limits of lens design though when the sensor outresolves the lens. This might neccessitate a move to full-frame for higher MP sensors down the road.

true....

will all depend on the progress of technology. R&D may make small sensors more efficient, and that will then make them viable.

anyway, who's to say which is the optimum size of sensors? as it, who's to say that a FF is the optimum sized? it can be made bigger also. the choice of "FF" is just in keeping with the traditional 35mm format

[Xtrahot]

Why stop at FF. Why not FFx1.5 then FFx2? Medium format?

Dudes and dudettes it will never end. The question you must ask is what are your present photographs worth? Does the present available equipment suit your needs? Buying it because it may not be as valuable 2-5 years from now is ironically short sighted. It's not like you are buying vintage wine.

I took longer than most to switch to full digital (only a few months ago cost vs quality) because digital photography did not suit my needs. Not because it's going to be with me for the next 10 years.

This is a nice academic exercise but the bottom line is get equipment (that will not be useless in 1 year) you will use. So long as most prints are below A4 size, isn't it more important to improve the iso performance, writing speed, AF speed, WB, firmware, lens performance, the list goes on rather than the size of CCDs?

Xtrahot
would rather be snapping

[Watcher]

Originally Posted by mpenza yup, larger pixel area also doesn't mean lower noise.... e.g. check out DPReview's luminance noise charts of the D2H vs EOS 10D (D2H's pixel area is ~70% larger than 10D) or D2H vs EOS 1D Mk II (D2H's pixel area is ~50% larger than 1D Mk II). However, sensor technology and noise handling techniques are improving and we'll get better and better results from both big and small sensors.

Yep. Or you (Colin) can search in the previous thread on it. There was a massive debate about it, but the conclusion is the same as mpenza stated above.