Opticallimits

Full Version: Your thoughts on the DX vs the FX thing?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I thought I'd stir the pot. It's been pretty quiet.

 

What are your thoughts on where DX is going? I'll give mine and then dive the bullets. Sad

 

I don't think there will be a D400. There is a money gap in there between the D7100 and the D600 but I don't think it will be filled. Based on where Canon is moving (and stated) the high end crop factor DSLR cameras will be phased out. I feel Nikon will do the same. Obviously not this time but probably the next cycle refresh. The D3xxx and D5xxx will be around for some time. When Nikon/Canon can make an FX camera in the $650-$800 range they too will be gone.

 

So making a long story short, maybe a D400 this time but the next refresh, no DX replacement for the D7100 or possible D400. Just my guess.

 

I think the real question is how soon we will see a mirrorless FX camera?

 

 

I think there was a mis-quoted Canon interview where they said they would have to consider where high end APS-C went, but that ended up being reported as the end of such. As it stands, the current rumour is for a 7D mk2 later this year.

 

On Nikon's side, I feel there's still room for high end APS-C since they don't seem to be uprating the D7xxx into that space. For me and a lot of people, full frame sensor isn't a big decision factor. Body functions and features are more important, and will remain so as long as they cripple low end full frame to justify high end full frame pricing. Perhaps more so in Canon's case than Nikon's.

 

As for full frame mirrorless, I've not looked closely but recall seeing what were claimed to be patents for full frame mirrorless lenses from Sony. If they're looking beyond the RX1 in that direction is anyone's guess, but I'd have to say they would seem most likely of the major players to go in that direction. If they do, it still wont be an APS-C killer, and I'm sure they'll firmly place it in a premium position.

As stated by Popo, Canon will come with a follow up for their highly popular 7D. The MK II is said to go to 10fps, making it a sports camera and possibly an alternative for those who miss the 1.3x crop for the extra reach. It will also offer more features and innovations than merely being a better specced revamp.

 

A Canon representative has hinted at that Canon thinks enthusiast semi pro models will move to FF (6D), but that is about the 60D line, not the 7D which is aimed at more professional use. There still will be a 70D.

 

APS-C has a big plus over FF (more reach with same lens), which still makes them attractive to wildlife/bird photographers (and some sports photographers). FF's only real advantage is a possible more shallow DOF, with a weight and size penalty. That is not going to change, so there will always be a market for higher specced APS-C cameras. It is not just a price thing.

Hi, On forums, affordable FF is the talk of the town and photo enthusiasts who have been gazing longingly at expensive FFs for years suddenly find themselves in a position to buy and those who really have a "need" for the next step up in image quality, will be prepared to pay out for decent FF lenses (with all increase in weight) and won't hesitate,but the enthusiast market of which a fair proportion are being swayed by M3/4 or lesser sized sensors, may hold back.

 

Lets' see how the Nikon D7100 shapes up with it's 24Mp sensor sans AA filter from Toshiba,if it's noise performance is up to par the IQ should be very impressive, maybe good enough to stem some of the tide of those teetering on the brink of biting the FF bullet.I

 

Still think though, in the long run, people don't want to be lugging heavy camera bags around,which leaves the technological research open for great IQ from smaller systems,that I think will always be the goal!

 

 So, after a wave of FFs which have caused a considerable stir,we now await the resurgence from the APSc cameras,the D7100s test results and the other manufacturers offerings, such as Pentax and the M4/3s to see how much we really need 40X30" prints.I know how much more agreeable it is to sling my K01 over my shoulder with a extra lens in the pocket than grab my K5 and my lens bag and that's not even heavy-weight FF!

 

P.S. Pros of course will use FF. Dave's clichés

Guest

The rx1 is a mirror-less FF so we've already seen mirrorless FX Smile I expect sony to follow up with an interchangeable FF. For me personally I wouldn't mind mirrorless 6x7 (ala digital  mamiya 7). No clue what will happen to dx. No clue what will happen to any system format (phone, compact, dx, fx, medium format, ...). There are many factors mostly cross between convenience, image quality, size and of course cost. Btw my preference for 6x7 is all about shallow dof with normal/short tele; though one can obtain similar behavior with sufficiently fast in FF; it just doesn't seem the same.

Studor13

Quote:FF's only real advantage is a possible more shallow DOF


Well, maybe also better in low light.


For me it's a lot to do with wide angles. Sure, there are some decent ones but to my knowledge nothing matches the 14-24mm f2.8 on a FF. Heck, even Canon shooters use this lens.


As for the OP, I think there will always be at least one pro/prosumer DX/Crop camera. Otherwise Canon or Nikon would have that sector all to themselves and I don't think neither party would let that happen.
When I look at this stuff, I start wondering where this sensor pixel density race will end? An APS-C sensor is only so big. At some point, we are going to reach a physical limit to the die process and/or there will be more loss then gain to adding more photo sensors.

 

Lets face it, when you have the same pixel density on a FF sensor as you do on a APS-C sensor, any advantage to the 1.5x crop factor is mostly gone. Provide an in camera crop or post crop.

 

I know we are going to get into the frame rate and buffer size thing. That can all be over come, by just reading out the photo sensors that make up the APS-C area of the FF sensor. The tech is there now to do this.

 

It is very obvious the production costs of the FF sensor has dropped sufficiently over the last two years, since the last refresh round. In two more years, the world should look different again.




 

Quote:Well, maybe also better in low light.
 

Only if you don't care about depth of field. And the existence of the metabones speedbooster also takes away some of the arguement for mainstream full frame. I'm not optimistic enough that full frame will ever be cheap enough to be mainstream. It will always be higher end proposition for those who need and really know what to do with it.

 

As for the old MP debate, we're still nowhere near the limits of technology or laws of physics yet. When I last did the calculation a few years ago, if you scaled up a P&S camera sensor to APS-C you're already in the 100MP+ ball park. I hate to think what the number would be today. As long as we have the bayer filter, I think it is desirable to go about 2x linear (4x area) sampling over what monochome physics say is optimal so as to preserve colour spatial accuracy. And if the lens is guaranteed to be the limiting factor, you can safely ditch the AA filter from the start.

Ok, say they could produce a 100MP sensor in the FF/APS-C size without throwing out too many duds. Would we not be giving up much, of what we currently expect from our FF and APS-C cameras?

 

MPs are fine but they are only part of what we expect from our cameras. P&S people go out on a fine day, use ISO 100 and get some great pictures. We go out on a moon lit night, use no flash and still expect a great picture of a gray cat.

One thing that kinda annoys me is many people seem to married to the idea that every pixel needs to be sharp all the time. They lose sight of the bigger picture. Having said that, it is fair to a point, as you may need every pixel to be sharp if you don't have enough of them in the first place.

 

Of course I do agree that MP quantity is not the only consideration, in the same way that bigger sensors aren't a magic win. There are many factors that contribute to the best solution for a given need.