NikonD3/D300 Long Term lens issues

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by bill_keane|2, Aug 24, 2007.

  1. As anextremely hapy D200 owner, the new technology is fascinating and fun to
    kick around in discuss, let alone purchase and use! One thing I see ahead as
    a question is, viewing lenses as more long-term investments than camera
    bodies, whether or not it will make sense in the near future to buy an
    expensive DX format lens...

    I would hazard a guess that within 3 years all Nikon high-end pro/consumer
    DSLRs will be full frame. Nikon is touting the new D300 as "the ultimate in
    DX", which could also mean, "the last high end DX camera we're going to
    make..." If that wild guess holds up, then, even presently owning a DX format
    camera, if i were going for some really pricey glass, I'd be biased toward a
    FF lens purchase. Just an opinion...
     
  2. If that's the way you feel, I would base your buying decisions on that.
     
  3. I doubt they will ditch the APS-C sensor anytime soon. The advantage it gives you on the long end is helpful to sports/wildlife guys. As long as they continue to improve the tech in these sensors, they will be around.
     
  4. I share that opinion. I have a good selection of Nikkor 2.8 AF/S&D glass that I am glad to be able you use again soon. Question; Will new full frame "FX" glass be superior to current film lenses?
     
  5. The D3 automatically switches to the DX format when a DX lens is attached.
     
  6. Ellis, isn't that DX cropped though? Giving you only like a 6 mp (I am too lazy to figure the math to get the right number) image? Wouldn't having a 12mp DX sensor make sense for when you are using either DX lenses or film lenses.

    (oh yeah, and aside from the fish and wides, why buy a DX specific lens?)
     
  7. 5.5 mp
     
  8. I'm not sure why this topic keeps coming up.

    There are only really one or two expensive DX lenses, the 12-24 and the 17-55 and Nikon made them fully usable in the new FF bodies. You get more MP and FPS than a D2H and like Shun keeps pointing out, many FF lenses that were good in the film or early DX digital days may not be good enough for use in a future 16mp so you might have to buy new lenses anyways.

    There is still lot to complain about in the Nikon lineup, the lack of fast af-s primes is one of them.
     
  9. ROTFLOL. As impressed as I am with the new bodies I cannot help laughing about giving the almost 100 yr old film format the FX designation.
     
  10. Zach,

    Some people already own DX lenese and may not be immediately ready to buy new lenses.

    Also as the D3 is targeted towards sports/ photojournalists, if you're at a newspaper or a
    magzine or shooting for a web based publication, 5.5mp is more than fine for 98% (I'm
    making that number up but I'll bet it's pretty accurate sizes and dpi your images will be
    reproduced at.
     
  11. DX is around to stay. Simply because of the economics of sensor production as smaller sensors are massively cheaper to produce (Sensor cost goes up by sensor area, so it's a geometric increase, not a linear one).

    Also a lot of sports shooters and wildlife shooters prefer cropped bodies for pixel-density reasons, as it allows them to get more pixels on a subject than cropping down from a larger sensor will allow. This is why Canon has kept the otherwise silly 1.3x crop around on the 1D (Canon could easily make a FF 1D, but that would annoy most of the market who want higher pixel density).

    So expect to see DX format live on in the consumer market (where it allows for cheaper bodies) and in sports/wildlife oriented cameras like the D300 (where it has higher pixel density)
     
  12. "There is still lot to complain about in the Nikon lineup, the lack of fast af-s primes is one of
    them."

    Reading between the lines of comments and smiles various Nikon execs gave me when I
    asked them this question, I think we are gonna see several new primes in the near future.
     
  13. "I think we are gonna see several new primes in the near future."

    Please help me understanding this statement. Does this mean the AF-D prime lens that I've been using so far on my film cameras will not perform as well on DSLR?
     
  14. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    To Bill Keane, the following article by Dave Etchells has already been quoted a couple of times. Etchells was there in Tokyo along with Ellis and Bjorn:
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1187901361.html

    Towards the bottom of that page, there is a section on "DX lenses aren't going away." Dave Etchells writes: "Nikon feels that both DX and FX products make sense for different groups of users, and so will continue to very aggressivel develop products in both realms .... DX and FX cameras and lenses will continue to complement each other 'for a very long time.'"
     
  15. Manh, that would depend on the specific lens. From what I understand any prime of FL 50mm or over is going to perform really well on FF DSLR. Shorter lenses may or may not. However, there is the issue of AF-S. I guess Nikon will fix eventually the entire line to be AF-S.
    There are also Zeiss manual focus lenses to choose from. Remember: on a FF camera you can manual focus!
     
  16. I see the D300 and D3 as complimentary of one another, a perfect pair as it were. I can put the new 14-24/2.8 on a D3 and go super wide and I can put my older 70-200/2.8 on the D300 and getting more widely spaced AF sensors and get 12 MP out of the cropped image. Therefore, since I hope to have both cameras, having a DX lens that works on both is just as important as having 35FF lenses, plus it seems clear that many users will simply prefer DX format and will need some wide angle lenses for their cameras.

    Ironically, with the introduction of the new lenses from Nikon yesterday; not one DX lenses was made obsolete or devalued, but the value of several 35FF lenses will be adversely effected. Specifically the 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, and the telephoto exotics will all lose value in the next few years, and the zooms on that list were previously considered the "wiser" investment over the 17-55/2.8 DX. There is no lens in your bag that isn't likely to be eclipsed by some future new camera that reveals a hidden weakness or by some future lens that is simply better; that's why it doesn't make sense to think of lenses as investments, they are tools.
     
  17. "oh yeah, and aside from the fish and wides, why buy a DX specific lens?"

    DX lenses are smaller and lightweight. Something like the Nikon 18-200 vr would be much, much much bigger and more expensive. 28-300 from Canon is more the 2k.
     
  18. Ilkka: You can manual focus on a DX sized sensor also. Do it all the time on a D200.

    Ellis, if you are still there, do you know if you are capable of zooming in the live preview? Like I said in a different thread, I miss the ground glass of a 4 x 5, and hope that I can use this in much the same way.
     
  19. Sam, good point.
     
  20. Thanks Ilkka for the explanation. Can you elaborate a bit more about AF-S versus AF-D lens? Or, point me to the direction on this subject?
     
  21. "ROTFLOL. As impressed as I am with the new bodies I cannot help laughing about giving the almost 100 yr old film format the FX designation."

    Movie camera 35mm film is actually smaller than print film format.
    The Academy format is 22 mm by 16 mm.

    Since Nikon lenses are used in film industry along with 2/3 sensors used in the video industry. It makes sense that Nikon will give their larger format film cameras a different name. FX means 24x36 format.
     
  22. "Can you elaborate a bit more about AF-S versus AF-D lens?"

    AF-S doesn't make the lens any more better optically as adding the D designation to AF lenses. But with newer designs in mechanical parts it is hoped that optics would improve.

    Cameras like the Nikon D40 series do not autofocus with non AF-S lenses and supposedly AF-S is quicker to focus and much quieter than their in body counterparts.
     
  23. Thanks Sam for the explanation. This makes me less worry about lens upgrade, because I don't use the AF feature.
     
  24. Nature and sports photographers can use use long tele lenses on DSLRs with full frame sensors or smaller sensors. They seem to prefer the smaller sensors because of the 1.3 or 1.5 resulting mag factor magnification factor without any noticable negative impact on image quality. They are not going to want only a full frame DSLR. With my D 200 I can produce really good large prints. There will be a segment of the digital market that will not need full frame semsors for their work and my guess is that this segment will be larger than the full frame segment. Joe Smith
     
  25. Does anyone think that the middle market can afford a FF sensor camera within the next 10 years?
    We're talkin selling sub-$1500 camera with FF.

    If that's not possible, there'll be DX lenses and DX bodies around for years to come.
     
  26. 10 years? I would think the D3 would drop to $2000 at the same time than a D3X @ $5000 and a D 400 full frame @ $1000 would be released, approx this time 2009.
     
  27. >D3 would drop to $2000

    You mean the resale 2nd-hand market?
    You do not see the new D2Xs drop to $2000 now that the D3 is released, do you?
     
  28. Arthur the D3 is not yet on the market but Nikon is shooting for a November delivery to
    dealers. I know the do have saome in shooters hands at the OSaka games this weekend. Also
    Capture NX needs to be updated for some functions of the D3 and D300.
     
  29. DX lenses and bodies are great for people who don't want to lug around the greater weight and size of the film (OOPS! I mean FX) bodies and lenses. Given the great quality of recent vacation photos shot with a D200 and a DX lens, I can't see a great need to carry the extra weight when jet setting across the Pacific.
     
  30. My long term DX/FF plan:

    I own 2 DX only lenses out of 12 total (17-55, 12-24), both of these get very heavy usage and I would expect to replace either or both within the next 2 years (or less). I will probably 'pension off' my first d200 at the end of next summer (after 2 years) and my second the following spring (again, after 2 years). The first will be replaced with a d300, while the second will most likely be replaced with a D3 (or whatever FF version is avaialable then). At this point I would replace both my DX zooms with the 14-24 and the 24-70... job done.

    Well.. that's the plan. :)
     
  31. "the 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, ...will all lose value" - quite contrary.

    These lenses were waiting for full size 35mm frame digital camera to arrive.

    If D3 sells well, demands for these 2 non-DX lenses will be higher, and do not count on the price to go down. Both are excellent optical specimens, and do not expect much improvement in the new lenses that would justify higher price, just hope that they will be as good as these 2 are.
     
  32. For owners of the D200 there is a simple solution. Buy a D3 and keep the D200 as second camera^^. My 17-55 could stay on the D200 only to be swapped for the 12-24mm lens if 17 is not wide enough. The slower AF will be fine for wide angles. The D3 will see the medium and tele lenses. This makes more sense than just a D3.
     
  33. "I think we are gonna see several new primes in the near future".... man! I really hope you are right.
    "For owners of the D200 there is a simple solution"... for me, it's buy a D300 and a 14mm for the price of a D3, or less... t
     
  34. " "the 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, ...will all lose value" - quite contrary.

    These lenses were waiting for full size 35mm frame digital camera to arrive."

    I believe the idea behind the release of the new lenses is that their optical designs are optimised for the demands of digital sensors. Thus if you kept the 17-35/2.8 or 28-70/2.8 in your bag waiting for 35mm size digital sensors now (or at least soon) the time has indeed come. But I suspect the original poster was right- their value as top performing exotic glass won't transfer to the digital realm. I can't see those who have forked out top dollar for the D3 stirring up much demand for lenses that put in a second class performance next to the new 14-24 and 24-70 (assuming these live up to expectations).
     
  35. If I had started getting into Nikon in the DSLR era I would have been tempted to buy the DX lenses. Since I started earlier in the film Nikon era and had 20-35mm 24-84mm on the wide end I have always thought that one day the money saved by not going for DX lenses could be applied to making affording Nikons FF DSLR body possible. I knew a FF Nikon would be expensive. I am glad to see its not $8k. Next year maybe it will be closer to $4k after Canon makes 5DII which will be out by then with the same basic feature set. If you have a DX kit get the D300.
     
  36. "There is still lot to complain about in the Nikon lineup, the lack of fast af-s primes is one of them."

    Good 3rd party lenses exist.
     
  37. Well the primes got shoved to the side and did not get afs because in my opinion they became less useful than zooms because the crop factor changed their field of view drastically. So if you have a wide prime say a 24mm and now it takes pictures like a 35mm instead you now want a 17mm-35mm so at the wide end you get with the crop factor what your old lens gave you on film. Nikon gave these zooms the AFS that never made it to the once must have primes. Canon on the other hand updated many primes which was one reason some switched brands.

    If you had an F5 even screw lenses focused fast, but I hear what you are saying Nikon didn't keep the lenses up to date. I guess another factor was the all mighty bottom line was not going to be helped spending money on lenses that were not as useful at their new effective focal lengths as before cropped sensors. I used this opportunatey to buy some of them used in the hope that eventually Nikon would have a FF Dslr. It seems this was a smart move. I got a 28 F2.0 ais and a 50mm f1.2 ais while nobody was liking them.
     
  38. Allow me to chime in again and say that in the last 6 months two professional frineds and Nikon users told me that Nikon would NEVER market a FF sensor camera because they had no reason to. But they did have one big reason -- Canon. Whether or not it made any photographic sense, did Nikon really have a choice not to go and make a FF? And when FF sensors become real cheap, as they will, I doubt if Nikon will continue to market a DX DSLR... Why should they? THAT would actually be more expensive than just going totally FF for DSLR production.

    BTW, this is NOT a criticism at all of Nikon or of the DX format. I love my D200. But in 5 or so years, if i were to get a new body, given the choice within similar $ price points, I can't imagine choosing DX over FF.
     
  39. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Bill, as I have pointed out, Nikon themselves have made it very clear that they'll continue to make DX cameras and lenses for a long long time to come. 5 years ago when Canon introduced the 1Ds at $8000, people also said FF sensor would become real cheap too. Now 5 years later, the 1Ds Mark III is still introduced at $8000 just a few days ago and the Nikon D5 is $5000. FF sensors will get somewhat cheaper, but they are still far more expensive than DX ones.

    Why should Nikon continue to make DX DSLRs? They are far cheaper is the main reason. Additionally, there are already millions of DX lenses out there and Nikon continues to sell more and more of them. If Nikon stops making DSLRs for the existing DX lenses, those angry customers will simply jump ship to Canon, Pentax, etc.
     
  40. Nikon is selling to families, not just the folks that fret over $3000 bodies and $2000 lenses. DX is plenty for most of us and while wide is a little problem, I'm a whole lot happier that the smaller frames helped on the long end instead of the wide end. Nikon isn't going to abandon that market segment. (Well they could but pigs could fly too.)
     
  41. "And when FF sensors become real cheap, as they will, I doubt if Nikon will continue to market a DX DSLR... Why should they?"

    Because there is a market for sub $500 DSLRs. I'm sure that Nikon could sell a lot at the $300 price point.
     
  42. "Whether or not it made any photographic sense, did Nikon really have a choice not to go and make a FF?"

    Of course it made sense, but Nikon introduced some FUD by stating it wasn't necessary, mainly because they didn't have a ff chip to use. Now they've got one and miraculously ff is valuable according to Nikon.
     
  43. What happened was the Canon 5D started selling for $2300 and had a magnesium body, good high iso images and you didn't have to buy another lens to cover the wide end.

    A FF camera should have a larger VF that people like and the cost of the Canon 5D was in the same range as a D200+ ultrawide lens.

    No longer did anyone believe that a FF camera had to be $5000, this knocked the legs out under Nikons claims.
     
  44. Nikon realized that the Canon strategy of 12MP on a FF sized sensor made for larger photosites and less noise at all ISO settings and usable images at much higher settings. When Nikon produced a 12 megapixel sensor on the APS-C sensor it surprised people as the pixel density was twice that of the 5D. Although the D2x provided higher theoretical resolution it was not able to produce better image quality and in fact delivered inferior image quality compared to a camera costing a third less.

    Nikon, considering the capabilities of current technology, chose to produce a camera with 5D image quality in a Mark II body. As a result the 3D is unique at the present time. The Mark III may be a better camera, no one outside of Nikon really knows, but the APS-H has not really been supported by Canon with its lenses. The 24-70mm f2.8 becomes a 31-91mm f2.8 while the Canon 30D users have the use of the 17-55mm f2.8 that does provide the same picture angle range as a 24-70mm lens on a FF camera.

    The 14-24mm f2.8 and the 24-70mm f2.8 are both usable focal ranges even on a APS-C camera. I would gladly give up the 12-24mm with its f4 max aperture for the slightly narrower perspective of the 14-24mm lens if I gain a full f-stop.

    In terms of primes what is missing most are fast 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm lenses. I would also expect Nikon to replace the 85mm f1.4 with an AF-S version. With only the Sigma 20mm f1.4 and 30mm 1.4 DX lenses available the wide angle situation was already bleak though the 14-24mm f2.8 is a big step in the right direction when mounted on the D3. The wide angle situation is likely to get better for D3 users long before it does for Canon Mark III users.
     
  45. When I bought my D200 I had it in my mind that I would buy as little DX lens as possible (for the reason pointed). So I only bought the 12-24mm (which was the only one I need, actually).

    I also bet that in some time all the DSLR will be FF, making the DX lenses less-usable and with lower value.

    The DX deal reminds me of buying and selling stocks :) I wouldn't bet on the DX for the next 5-6 years. LOL.

    Maybe in the future the idea of keeping the 20mm will be a good thing...
     
  46. There is every reason to believe the sensibility of having a specific "FX" format instead of that generic "full-format" label. Firstly, FX actually is a double format incorporating 5:4 in-camera cropping. While this might sound of dubious value, it is a response to the wish of many pro photographers according to Nikon studies. Secondly, by enforcing the 5:4 Nikon also commits itself to producing optics with high performance into the corners of the 24x36 general format. This is because what counts is the diagonal and for 5:4 sharpness needs to extend even in the corners and any lens with FX designation is designed to deliver exactly this. I also surmise that FX-lenses do employ radically different optical designs from what has traditionally been used for the older 24x36/135 "film" format. I think we will see new designs developed for FX in the wide-angle and zoom area. Telephoto lenses likely will not need the same degree of sophisticated redesigns so possibly the better ones from film and DX can continue to work well on FX-sized sensors as well. However, I do feel that people's conviction that they need "FF" so they can use their old lenses from the 24x36/135 era will falter as the new cameras get into their stride and potential issues are disclosed. When Nikon launches an FX-designated lens, you do know it is optimised for FX cameras and it should work perfectly for DX and likely 24x36 as well. But the opposite is not necessarily true.

    Some of the above is speculation, some is not.
     
  47. For Bruce:

    "Although the D2x provided higher theoretical resolution it was not able to produce better image quality and in fact delivered inferior image quality compared to a camera costing a third less."

    You are comparing apples and oranges. Many people prefer the D2x IQ at base ISO to the 5D's IQ -- well YMMV, it is a matter of opinion and shooting style. You are stating your opinion and what may suit your shooting style as the final word about IQ; I'm sure from a careful reading of a previous post of yours (in another thread) that was not your intention.

    BTW, the resolution of the D2x and the 5D are nearly identical, both are 12 MP and have the same LPPH.

    For Marcio:

    "The DX deal reminds me of buying and selling stocks :) I wouldn't bet on the DX for the next 5-6 years. LOL."

    As I have already said in this thread, lenses are not investments, they are tools. Your lens purchases almost always lose value, and even more so if you actually use them.

    Besides that, it is plain as day that DX is not going away. Nikon is implementing DX crop mode to replace the HSC in the D2x. What's more, your 35FF lenses are just as likely to become "less-usable" as are your DX lenses.
     
  48. Zach, I find it very difficult and unreliable on a DX camera.
     
  49. "Of course it made sense, but Nikon introduced some FUD by stating it wasn't necessary, mainly because they didn't have a ff chip to use. Now they've got one and miraculously ff is valuable according to Nikon."

    It really wasn't necessary. The Canon 1d is 1.3x crop camera and if you really wanted a full frame camera in an F mount you can go for Kodak SLR/n. Besides for each SLR/n sold Nikon gets a royalty check.

    What had happened is that medium format use began to die. So people that used medium format for commercial and wedding work moved unto the Canon full frame cameras. Canon made themselves a player in a market that didn't exist before. Smaller format, autofocus DSLR use in fashion and commercial work.
     
  50. Shun Cheung , Aug 25, 2007; 01:59 a.m.

    Bill, as I have pointed out, Nikon themselves have made it very clear that they'll continue to make DX cameras and lenses for a long long time to come. 5 years ago when Canon introduced the 1Ds at $8000, people also said FF sensor would become real cheap too. Now 5 years later, the 1Ds Mark III is still introduced at $8000 just a few days ago and the Nikon D5 is $5000. FF sensors will get somewhat cheaper, but they are still far more expensive than DX ones.



    I talked to a Fovion engineer that makes the x3 sensors and he said the process to make a FF sensor requires 50-60 steps/process changes. It's a lot more expensive to make FF sensors and the yield is less than 30%. Each wafer has only a few sensors that pass QA. Price wise it's way to much to make FF. I am sure the camera companies did their research and see if it's cost effective to go FF and how many FF cameras they can sell. It's all about business, technically is possible.
     
  51. "Towards the bottom of that page, there is a section on "DX lenses aren't going away." Dave Etchells writes: "Nikon feels that both DX and FX products make sense for different groups of users, and so will continue to very aggressivel develop products in both realms .... DX and FX cameras and lenses will continue to complement each other 'for a very long time.'"
    Nikon said, very recently, that they will not make a FF (FX) sensor either. Don't know if DX will stay or go, It is just here now and for some more time. But!
     
  52. Nikon said they would not make a full-format sensor using the DX sensor technology, since that technology did not scale well upwards. So they took their time to develop an entirely new sensor used for the FX format camera(s). Canon just upsized their sensor and for a while most people believed FF also implied poor corner performance. Nikon proved them wrong. Nikon is the only "FF" maker using microlenses plus an internal lens for each photo site to overcome the inherent issues with light capture on a bigger sensor.
     
  53. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Nikon said, very recently, that they will not make a FF (FX) sensor either. Don't know if DX will stay or go, It is just here now and for some more time. But!
    Dennis, could you provide a quote to that effect from any official Nikon statement? IMO, that is merely a myth.
    During Photokina 2004 (Ocotober 2004), there was an interview with Nikon VP Mr. Goto about full frame. His reply was that it wouldn't make economic sense for Nikon to introduce a FF DSLR that cost 1M yen, which was roughtly the same price as the Canon 1Ds Mark II introduced at that time. So DX would be the main format for at least the next 3 years. However, Nikon would continue to research FF technology. Mr. Goto essentially repeated that comment during PMA 2005.
    Fast forward 3 years, actually Mr. Goto's comment in 2004 was quite accurate. His comments were posted to various forums 3 years ago. If you want verification, you need to Google it yourself.
     
  54. I'll confirm Shun's last post.
     
  55. Well... how about April 2007, would that be recent? Your right, I should have said nikon will not make a FF anytime soon. There is this photo.net thread (which links to the nikon statmement), where notablies from this thread would seem to agree that FF (or FX) was not anytime soon. It's only been three months.

    http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Kco9

    Look, my point is, Nikon can say that DX lenes/format is here to stay and I hope that is ture, I really do, I have just purchased a D200 in July.

    But, you can never say never. If the FX gets better with edge to edge real soon, and you would be smokin if you think Nikon is not working on it, then the real need to have two differant format SLR's with two differant lens lines will question the fesability & finaciability of doing that.

    Then one has to think, If it were ture, then where is the DX lens annoncment? D300=DX, D3 got it's own lenses, two! Hmm... why not a lens for D300? Even a little one. I know, the FX lens can be used on the DX format. Silly me.
     
  56. So, an article in Amateur Photographer is your witness of truth?
     
  57. Bjorn, your explination is good, about DX not scalable. And that is what Nikon ment. But I think that it is somewhat possible that FX will get better, may even not need the microlenses. And the FX will come down in price. If that is ture, will making two differant sensors make real sense? I know what it implies, and no one really wants that. But in Five years, my D200 will long past be discontinued. I am thinking that I will be replacing my D200 for a D#00 FX.
     
  58. Bjorn, Jeremy Gilbert works for the magazine and not the Nikon group marking manager?
     
  59. I have been discussing the topic of "FF" with Nikon reps for years. They have all the time said what troubled Nikon was quality (and until recently, also the price), not the sensor size itself. They even do research using digital pinhole cameras to better understand diffraction and how counter-measures should be taken, some of which already are included in the D3 (maybe also D300, but I did not get around to asking that question). This information came from top-rank Nikon execs.

    Nikon is a conservative company so they don't rush products if they can avoid this. But they also employ very talented people and know how to put together efforts to solve a challenge. Researching FX has taken its time, but from the results I've already seen it has been well worth the wait.
     
  60. Bjorn, Yes, I beleive you. I understand the research. So with all you know and can say, and all you know and can not say. You are saying that Nikon will never drop the DX SLR? Maybe they will put it in their cool pix line or whatever it is called... but keeping old tech in an SLR (DX), even if the FX sensor gets cheaper?
     
  61. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Dennis, my point is that Nikon has been consistent in their official statement. Back in 2004 their VP said in a public statement that was too expensive to introduce FF DSLR but they would continue R&D in that direction. Meanwhile, there has been all sorts of nonsense posted to this forum and others that, e.g., Nikon's F mount was too small for FF, etc. etc.

    That was why I asked for official statements from Nikon, not posts to photo.net forums. Unfortunately, plenty of false information has been posted to these forums.
     
  62. You ask about the future? A fortune-teller is the appropriate person for this.
     
  63. Shun... that photo.net post has a link in it to a statement made to the public. Sorry Bjorn & Shun, I think that things will change.
     
  64. "Things" are changing all the time. The future tools some of us will drool over are already undergoing testing. Some of these will alter our perception of the gear we currently have available. So you envision it is a prudent move for a R&D oriented company to disclose all these plans well in advance??
     
  65. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Are you referring to this comment, made on April 4, 2007? "Nikon has never ruled out the development of a full-frame digital SLR, but has no immediate launch plans."

    That was over 4 months ago and it looks perfectly fine to me. If Nikon introduced an FX DSLR the next day or the next week, you would have had ground to complain.

    Regardless of what Nikon says publically, it is simple economics that small-sensor DSLRs will continue to be mainstream for many years to come.

    Here is a translation from that 2004 Photokina interview I mentioned:
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=10512130
    Apparently it was translated from Japanese to Chinese and then to English.
     
  66. I don't understand why some here seem to find it incredible that DX and FX format could exist in parallel for a long while to come. Clearly the FX name was given at least in part to move us away from talking in terms of "Full Frame" as if there was something magical about 24x36mm film frames -- but that was just a format, and for much of its functional life considered a rather small one.

    Among relatively portable cameras, 120 and 35mm film formats existed for decades in parallel, each favored by a different set of users with different needs. Why shouldn't FX and DX be the same? Some of us have cognitive dissonance with DX only because we moved to it from 35mm film, and because the same manufacturers use the same lens mounts on this new format. But over time that dissonance is likely to fade as a new generation of DX-format users emerges, and the rest of us just get used to it. As far as equipment, some lenses (because of their focal lengths or focal length ranges for zooms) are likely to work well on both formats and be shared between the two markets, and some will become more specialized to one format or the other.

    No one can see the future, but it seems entirely plausible to me that FX and DX can both (or neither?) be major, popular, formats for the medium or even long-term future. Even if FX comes down in price enough that it ultimately predominates, DX is likely to continue in at least a dual role as the consumer format of the future and as a format for wildlife/nature.
     

Share This Page