FF format optical quality is better cos of the sensor, so pros will use FF,
but price is still not within reach of most hobbyists; and DX also has other advantages, besides cheaper, lighter and can zoom further.
Maybe it's a question of time, in 1 yr, 10 yrs, 100 yrs... or maybe FF also obsolete and another new technology "XX" extreme something something may just take over...
not sure how long it takes for film SLR to fade away when digital format emerges... but saw someone in SITEX asked those camera booths if they have any "new 1st hand" analog SLR.. even dies off, still got market, though small... of course the answer he got is 'no such camera on sale'...
but my take is that DX to die off will not in near future that will be of concern to photographers at present..
Just a question... FF camera can use DX lenses, but with some constraints like vignetting..
but can FF camera shoot in FF format and also in DX format (the other way can't) by making some settings?
say use 300mm lenses in FF only 300mm, but tweak the settings to shoot in DX, can zoom to 450mm (also can see via viewfinder or LCD with live-view). Any FF camera can do it? Hope the experts here can shed some light. (assume x1.5)
If not, after shooting in FF format, crop the image (of course cannot see in viewfinder) later to 450mm. Will the image quality be on par, if not better, than shooting 300mm, but at 450mm using DX format? Using same lens but different format camera (but same megapixels, etc.)
guys, calm down.
How will it be dead?
people said film would be 'dead' years ago. trust me, its not.
Your dx camera will be the same as it was, it won't suddenly 'die'
and there will be even more cheap second hand lenses etc on the market from the people going to ff.
But this is why I waited to go digi until now. I waited for full frame (D700 essentially) , and my waiting paid off. My only reason to go FF is for all my manual / 35mm lenses that would have a crappy crop factor (yeah I hate crop factor because i do landscape etc so i value wide angle)
Dont get latest equipment for the sake of it. think about what you shoot and wether you really need ff.
I dont think you'll see any new ff (from nikon anyway) for a while. It doesnt make sence, it would pull away from the D90 they just released. Its gonna be a while. Expect new versions of a D700 before a totally new consumer ff. In the current economic mess, people are holding onto their money, already a problem for the D3x.
Just shoot more, worry less. If you are satisfied with the pics you are taking with dx, then just chill! If not, maybe practice more :]
Electronic improves very fast, the first affortable D70 came out in 2004 with price around $2k, today one can buy the D60 for below $1k, D700 is now selling at below $4k today, I expect within few years, I should be ablet to buy FF DSLR for below 2k and DX DSLR for few hundreds, then eventually FF DSLR starting at the range of $1k then DX body will disappear.
Nikon is adopting a very smart approach; their FF DSLR is able to use DX lense with in-camera croping to make it behave like DX camera, actually this is only a matter of software processing and I believe future FF DSLR from Nikon will always have such a feature. Our investment of DX lense is protected.
My guess is in next 5 years, DX body will disappear from the market. DX vs FF is totally difference from Digital vs Film(some film users believe that film produces better quality than digital), However DX is the subset of FF (unless someone believe that DX can produce better picture quality than FF??), if FF body is so affortable who is going to ask for DX?
Just shoot more first la. Either that or skip DX and go move to PnS ?
What I'd personally like to have is a set of lens (Some FX and some DX) and shoot with a main FX body and a secondary DX body. At least for Nikon, I suddenly have a built in 1.5x teleconverter which is lossless ? Haha.... :-P
Anyways, even if FX body becomes soooo affordable, there's still the backward compatibility with DX lenses, so far......
Weight and size is a major concern. You wouldn't want to be lugging tonnes of equipment, especially for telephoto lenses.
Unless bodies and lenses can be made smaller?
I think FX and DX will co-exist for a very long time. The reason why FX is so expensive is because of the price of the silicon- a bigger sensor means more silicon, which means more expensive.
Because of this price factor, DX will still live on; even if the price of silicon drop so much that FX cameras can be bought at sub-$2k, that means DX cameras can be bought at like... uh, $400?
Personally I'd rather get the $400 camera. :P
seriously , i am so curious. is d700 / d3 that HEAVY?? i remember lot of people complained about slr before i bought mine. and they were like, oh yeah, it would be cumbersome, bla bla bla.
after i got my d40, i have to say, the size DONT BOTHER me at all. and i am sure the same thing applies to d3. i dont think the size is that bad. how heavy it can be??
its not like 5 kilos. it cant be that bad, come on .
I'm using an Olympus E-3 and I personally find it quite heavy already (800g body only), considering I'm not well built.
The D3 is 1.2kg while the D700 is about 1kg. If you are a pro, you'll probably carry a few bodies with lenses. Imagine how it will weigh you down.
and even if it was 5kilos... carry it for a month.. and its no sweat again...
If you put on a 50mm f/1.4 with a D3, it feels just right. If you put on a 24-70 f/2.8, it's on the heavy side. Add on another SB800 or SB900. You better have some training in your biceps. One cons is definitely heavy setup makes it easier to shake. So peformance comes with a price in weight
Dx will not die out, they need to be around to bridge between the prosumer cameras and the higher costing FF DSLRs.
Interms of body weight, there is very litter difference between DX and FF body (eg: D2X vs D3, D300 vs D700).
DX system gains in the tele end, but the FF system gain in the wide end, and if FF system can switch to DX mode(in the case of Nikon), it has the best of both word. For example, if you are using a D700 + 24-124mmVR lense. When in FF mode, you have 24mm wide, and when you need to shoot 186mm, switch to DX mode and you get 186mm end result, the camera is smart enough to ustilize the DX portion of the sensor.
Your guess is as good as my guess, we only know the result in 3-5 years time
The consumer market is the biggest market that camera manufacturers are most concerned about (according to what I've read, lah). Someone started a thread saying nowsaday so many people/youngsters are carrying DSLRs as the new fashion accessory, so I guess there's some truth to that?
FF prices may be falling, but it's still not cheap.
And no matter how low FF DSLRs go, APS-C bodies will still always be cheaper, as will Di-only lenses, at least for for forseeable future (2-3 years?). Cheap is good. The masses like cheap. More kids will think it's cool to own one of these cool toys, so they buy more cameras, camera makers become happy. I think even your dad who's never owned an SLR in his life may be tempted to check one out, now that body+lens kits are going below the $1k mark.
What pleases the typical consumer:
MAX megapixels! (Size of sensor? Huh? What's that?)
These are the features that the APS-C DSLRs have an advantage over FF. IQ (bokeh), pixel density, and gaining back wide angle aren't really relevant points to consider for this group of people.
Of course, these are merely opinions only. We could all be wrong. For all you know, maybe a major outbreak of e-Virus destroys all DSLRs and we all go back to film.