I don't know what to put for topic

[nikonriana]

Hello people...
Just casually asking.. don't you guys find it redundant for them to introduce FX and DX lens when ultimately the DX and FX "phenomenon" is the sensors itself...Like EF-S and EF lens... FF body can only mount EF lens and ASP-C body can mount both.. why not just stick to all FX lenses? Does it really create a greater market or they are just trying to create a bigger hole in out pocket? haha... share your thoughts bro, It's like when they say.. More variety by introducign NC16, M18 and R21 Movies.. it's not more variety.. it's just more restriction...

 

[edutilos-]

Er, the reason is simple, in general, full frame lenses cost more to produce. You can think of it this way - in general, lenses are sharper in the centre than at the corner. The full frame lens has to be sharp throughout (well, relatively anyways), while a DX lens only has to be sharp towards the centre because the crop frame literally takes a crop from the image projected.

Also, as you rightly point out, FF lens can use on both, DX lens can only use on CF cameras.. Designing a UWA for DX for example, is very different from designing for FX.

 

[edutilos-]

That said, you are right that the camera/lens makers are segregating the market deliberately. Why not? If a hobbyist is willing to spend on a FF camera, he would naturally be more willing to spend more on lenses as well. That's just economics at play, but it's not JUST economics.

 

[ziploc]

Not only dedicated DX lenses are cheaper but they are also smaller and lighter.

 

[slmka]

I beleive concern is very market base.

For Lens, EF and EF-S on design they are phyiscally different, EF-S are smaller in size and closer to censor (am I correct?), which equals in lesser material to produce. At the same time, it gives the EF Lens = more professional feel (we all know our cameras here, but normal consumer may not). Much like EF Lens or L Lens feel.

Just think of it, you buy a Sharp LCD TV, or you would perfer to refer it as Sharp Aquos LCD TV, just that simple name could give a consumer much different feels

I think the market reaction to iPhone4S and iPhone5 is a great example that how a company name their product could change how consumers react.

 

[Rashkae]

DX lenses are smaller, use less glass, are cheaper to produce, and thus can be sold cheaper, etc.

It's basic business sense.

 

[gundamseed84]

People who are new to DSLR might start off with crop and thus DX(EF-S) lenses then when they upgrade to FF they have to buy FX(EF) lenses, so that might create more business for the companies.

 

[TWmilkteaTW]

i think its good this way.. not everybody want the same thing and not everybody can or willing to spend so much.
by separating them into 2 class..this way it can also cater and appeal more to the different market.

 

[SAMUELS]

Hello people...
Just casually asking.. don't you guys find it redundant for them to introduce FX and DX lens when ultimately the DX and FX "phenomenon" is the sensors itself...Like EF-S and EF lens... FF body can only mount EF lens and ASP-C body can mount both.. why not just stick to all FX lenses? Does it really create a greater market or they are just trying to create a bigger hole in out pocket? haha... share your thoughts bro, It's like when they say.. More variety by introducign NC16, M18 and R21 Movies.. it's not more variety.. it's just more restriction...

Very simple. Product differentiation. that's why.

 

[bruggink]

Are you implying that the industry people are a bunch of fools, wasting time coming up with all the FX and DX lenses? In fact, the FX and DX lenses are there for many purposes.

 

[Irvine]

it's just to cater to hobbyists who cannot afford full-frame lenses as they r generally more expensive to make as compared to DX/EF-S lenses. since DX/EF-S lenses are cheaper to produce, they can be sold at lower prices than full-frame lenses.

 

[daredevil123]

Singapore aside, most DSLR owners in the world will stay with DX and not move into FX.

 

[David Kwok]

I can understand the DX sensors have better yield compared to FX sensors on the argument that DX sensors are smaller and you can use more surface area of a circular silicon wafer.

But IMO, the differentiation of DX and FX lens are more business decision versus cost. How much can a few centimeter more of glass increase in the price ? few hundreds dollar more, don't think so. Would more glass means more difficult to achieve better design in lights transmission and refraction ? Not that I am trained in this area, but logically doesn't seems to be the case. Having a smaller sensor with the same pixel count means more accurate light management to achieve the same quality as FX lens. Would a few cm of less coating makes significant differences in pricing ? I highly doubt so.

In fact, when camera makers decides to venture into another form factor, the production line will need to invest more for such assembly line, so shouldn't DX lens cost more ? Of course, this cost can always be transferred to another area such as raising the price of the FX lens to justify. If the FX lens resolution is sufficient to serve the DX sensor, why should there be a need to create DX lens ?

Perhaps weight is a justified reason for DX lens since why let extra glasses project lights into a black surface. After all, it is better to project the lights into the sensor and nowhere else. It's not like a black surface is truly black. Lights bounce of it too, just how much only. So having a smaller lens is advantages to the consumer, but to camera companies, there is no advantage. Have any one seen Canon and Nikon showing off that DX lens are lighter and better in their marketing plan ? If they feel it's important, why are they not selling this point ?

So in the end, I just feel it's nothing more than a business plan. To keep up with competitors offering, to have a higher yield in the DX sensor, to create more products for consumer to choose.

 

[Rashkae]

How much can a few centimeter more of glass increase in the price ? few hundreds dollar more, don't think so. Would more glass means more difficult to achieve better design in lights transmission and refraction ? Not that I am trained in this area, but logically doesn't seems to be the case. Having a smaller sensor with the same pixel count means more accurate light management to achieve the same quality as FX lens. Would a few cm of less coating makes significant differences in pricing ? I highly doubt so.

High-quality optical glass is EXPENSIVE. And those "few cm" you talk about add up to a LOT of volume when you factor in the number of lenses. From one slab of high-quality optical glass, you could make 20 FF lenses, or 100 APS-C lenses.

In fact, when camera makers decides to venture into another form factor, the production line will need to invest more for such assembly line, so shouldn't DX lens cost more ? Of course, this cost can always be transferred to another area such as raising the price of the FX lens to justify. If the FX lens resolution is sufficient to serve the DX sensor, why should there be a need to create DX lens ?

"Why create DX lens" is already answered - manufacturing costs and volumes are different. Why would the 99% of people who want "cheap and lightweight" be willing to lug around a 1-2KG lens for kit? Because that's how much a full frame 18-55 would weigh (at least).

So having a smaller lens is advantages to the consumer, but to camera companies, there is no advantage. Have any one seen Canon and Nikon showing off that DX lens are lighter and better in their marketing plan ? If they feel it's important, why are they not selling this point ?

So in the end, I just feel it's nothing more than a business plan. To keep up with competitors offering, to have a higher yield in the DX sensor, to create more products for consumer to choose.

Why would they show off that it's "better"? They never would. Lighter? Every manufacturer gives the weight of the lens. There is a huge FINANCIAL advantage to the companies, yes. As for not advertising light weight...

http://www.sony.com.sg/product/sal75300
"A compact and light weight..."

http://www.sony.com.sg/product/sal1680z
"Compact size..."

http://www.sony.com.sg/product/sal18250
"it provides an all-in-one APS-C imaging with a bare minimum of weight and bulk."

http://www.nikon.com.sg/en_SG/produ...h9s5&currentTab=gp54h9se&currentLink=gp54h9si
"Compact size"

http://www.nikon.com.sg/en_SG/produ...h9s5&currentTab=gp54h9se&currentLink=gp54h9si
""More compact and lightweight size"

I'm sorry, but your arguments are too focused on wafer yields, and the rest is quite poorly thought out and poorly researched.

 

[Octarine]

Perhaps weight is a justified reason for DX lens since why let extra glasses project lights into a black surface. After all, it is better to project the lights into the sensor and nowhere else. It's not like a black surface is truly black. Lights bounce of it too, just how much only.

Since this 'issue' has never been observed in any comparison test and review I think there is none or the impact can be safely neglected. And I do think that this topic has been evaluated thoroughly by the camera designers. If there were any issue with light reflections it would result in huge damages to the company, maybe less financially (haven't seen call back activities for consumer electronics) but rather for the image and reputation. But somehow, all big camera makers encourage DX camera users to mount the FX lenses as well.

 

[David Kwok]

High-quality optical glass is EXPENSIVE. And those "few cm" you talk about add up to a LOT of volume when you factor in the number of lenses. From one slab of high-quality optical glass, you could make 20 FF lenses, or 100 APS-C lenses.

Okay expensive. yes. So enlighten me, how much more ? 20% ? 50% ? I don't see the need to talk about bulk. Here the cost are transferred to the customer with markup that are way over the head. So when you say FX lens are a lot more expensive because of the excessive glass when used on a DX sensor. How much more are we talking about ? Any good figures to support this claim and hence it makes sense for such a factor ?

"Why create DX lens" is already answered - manufacturing costs and volumes are different. Why would the 99% of people who want "cheap and lightweight" be willing to lug around a 1-2KG lens for kit? Because that's how much a full frame 18-55 would weigh (at least).



Why would they show off that it's "better"? They never would. Lighter? Every manufacturer gives the weight of the lens. There is a huge FINANCIAL advantage to the companies, yes. As for not advertising light weight...

http://www.sony.com.sg/product/sal75300
"A compact and light weight..."

http://www.sony.com.sg/product/sal1680z
"Compact size..."

http://www.sony.com.sg/product/sal18250
"it provides an all-in-one APS-C imaging with a bare minimum of weight and bulk."

http://www.nikon.com.sg/en_SG/produ...h9s5&currentTab=gp54h9se&currentLink=gp54h9si
"Compact size"

http://www.nikon.com.sg/en_SG/produ...h9s5&currentTab=gp54h9se&currentLink=gp54h9si
""More compact and lightweight size"

I'm sorry, but your arguments are too focused on wafer yields, and the rest is quite poorly thought out and poorly researched.

First of all, I don't think my arguments are focused on wafer yields when I merely mention in paragraph one and concluded in the last paragraph. That's just one point in all the rest of the paragraphs. Okay I admit that I misjudged on the advertising of weight. That's a flaw to count.

So since you feel that my analysis is poorly researched. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me on your claim that the optical grade glass is so expensive that it makes significant differences on the amount of glass required on FX lens versus FX lens. At the same time, perhaps you might also like to verify on the the requirement for another production line and research and development department on DX lens will actually make more sense versus just stay with the existing production line and research and development for FX lens ?

 

[David Kwok]

Since this 'issue' has never been observed in any comparison test and review I think there is none or the impact can be safely neglected. And I do think that this topic has been evaluated thoroughly by the camera designers. If there were any issue with light reflections it would result in huge damages to the company, maybe less financially (haven't seen call back activities for consumer electronics) but rather for the image and reputation. But somehow, all big camera makers encourage DX camera users to mount the FX lenses as well.

I understand that the surface being black with the texture do bring down a lot of the light bounce. Of course, I'm not questioning their professionalism and skills to have design that will prevent light bounce. For the paragraph above, my statement is inclined towards the use of DX for the case of not wasting effort to project lights that will never end up on the sensor.

I am not too sure about camera makers advocating the usage of FX lens on DX body. If so, perhaps it's more of a business choice rather than technical. But I do agree the higher probability for camera makers to promote their FX lens. I don't see the reason not to when it brings them more revenue isn't it ? After all, isn't a couple of their best lens exist in FX form to cater to the FF bodies ?

 

[Rashkae]

Okay expensive. yes. So enlighten me, how much more ? 20% ? 50% ? I don't see the need to talk about bulk. Here the cost are transferred to the customer with markup that are way over the head. So when you say FX lens are a lot more expensive because of the excessive glass when used on a DX sensor. How much more are we talking about ? Any good figures to support this claim and hence it makes sense for such a factor ?

I'll need to see if they are published, but I'm basing my info from a talk I had with a Canon lens designer. Good optical glass is significantly more expensive as it has to have a stable structure and there have been many shortages - the best glass comes from the best sand. Manufacturing an FX lens compared to a DX lens can cost 2-5x the amount of glass, as you need to factor the total volume of the glass used, not just the diameter of the lens.

Of course the companies add a markup. But that's why it makes fiscal and business sense to reduce your manufacturing costs.

So since you feel that my analysis is poorly researched. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me on your claim that the optical grade glass is so expensive that it makes significant differences on the amount of glass required on FX lens versus FX lens. At the same time, perhaps you might also like to verify on the the requirement for another production line and research and development department on DX lens will actually make more sense versus just stay with the existing production line and research and development for FX lens ?

Production line is actually 95% DX lenses, therefore you are actually helping to fully utilize the factory space. Also, the R&D is a one-off per lens, and designing DX lenses allows for the creating of such lenses as a 18-270, which would be nearly impossible in FX. Definitely worth the R&D as the cost of manufacturing that lens is low due to smaller glass elements, but the desirability is high amongst customers.

Only creating FX lenses, with their added weight, added cost and LOWER FLEXIBILITY due to the constraints of size and weight, makes the development of DX lenses perfectly sound business sense. If you still can't see that, there's no way to teach it to you.

 

[Octarine]

I understand that the surface being black with the texture do bring down a lot of the light bounce. Of course, I'm not questioning their professionalism and skills to have design that will prevent light bounce. For the paragraph above, my statement is inclined towards the use of DX for the case of not wasting effort to project lights that will never end up on the sensor.

I don't think it's any effort for the lens .. haven't seen any lens sweating in the efforts of projecting an image circle that was actually not necessary in that size

I am not too sure about camera makers advocating the usage of FX lens on DX body. If so, perhaps it's more of a business choice rather than technical. But I do agree the higher probability for camera makers to promote their FX lens. I don't see the reason not to when it brings them more revenue isn't it ? After all, isn't a couple of their best lens exist in FX form to cater to the FF bodies ?

Have a look at the topic 'sweet spot of FX lenses', it's highlighted in many reviews. Due to the fact that the DX sensors cuts off the far corners of the image circle it also cuts off the most problematic areas for corner sharpness and vignetting. Something that becomes visible (again) when using DX lenses.
The promotion happens everywhere when Canon & Co showcase lenses to consumers who mostly use DX cameras. All the promotion material and Lens Books never state 'Lens designed for Full Frame Body' or 'Only to be used with FX body' but rather address certain shooting requirements and other things which make it obvious to the 'ambitious amateur' and 'photographic enthusiast' that the lens with the red / golden / green / whatever ring is the best choice. In contrast, the DX lenses are used as kit lenses (ok, not all) which serve to complete the starter package of DX cameras at a lower price level.

 

[David Kwok]

I'll need to see if they are published, but I'm basing my info from a talk I had with a Canon lens designer. Good optical glass is significantly more expensive as it has to have a stable structure and there have been many shortages - the best glass comes from the best sand. Manufacturing an FX lens compared to a DX lens can cost 2-5x the amount of glass, as you need to factor the total volume of the glass used, not just the diameter of the lens.

Of course the companies add a markup. But that's why it makes fiscal and business sense to reduce your manufacturing costs.

Production line is actually 95% DX lenses, therefore you are actually helping to fully utilize the factory space. Also, the R&D is a one-off per lens, and designing DX lenses allows for the creating of such lenses as a 18-270, which would be nearly impossible in FX. Definitely worth the R&D as the cost of manufacturing that lens is low due to smaller glass elements, but the desirability is high amongst customers.

Only creating FX lenses, with their added weight, added cost and LOWER FLEXIBILITY due to the constraints of size and weight, makes the development of DX lenses perfectly sound business sense. If you still can't see that, there's no way to teach it to you.

Okay what you say do make sense. thanks for the information. Well it is ok if I don't fully grasp this industry, just good to know more. After all, my forte is not in this industry, so I will stick with what I truly knows