So what's next for DX?

[yyD70S]

I have tried some of the "older lenses" on the D3 while on loan. It's true that those same lenses generally perform better on DX. It's sad, but true. Having said that, good lenses don't suddenly become bad. Even the modern AFS 24-70mm vignettes at 24mm f2.8 while the AFS 14-24mm is more prone to flare than it's predecessor (if I could just use this word), the AFS 17-35mm f2.8

There has already been an abundance of literature on FX vs DX. Not going to dabble on the topic again. BUT, Nikon's FX (135mm) coming is ... sort of, like a breath of fresh air -- oxygen at 21%. Those who have tried will know. It's like been reborn again. The bright & huge VF. The increased dynamic range (at the expense of the resolving power, off course). Being not so worried about ISO settings. Did I mention the VF earlier? (I thought I said I'm not gonna debate on FX v DX again :think.

Back on those film days, we don't pixel peep. Vignetting, esp. on wides, has almost always been our sidekick.

We can live with some corner softness (but I'll be damned if it's soft all round). We sacrifice the corner-to-corner sharpness on DX. Then, it's a question of knowing your existing lenses and using them to their advantages. Not an excuse but vignetting for example can be used as an advantage (like those 35mm film days).

Maybe my points above may not be valid for someone moving from a D300 to FX. Coming from the D70S (first generation), the advantages weighs heavily towards the FX direction. Not (only) because it's 135mm FX (again). Not because I'm worried about what's next for DX. More so because of the modern (advancement) sensor design of this current crop of FX.

Of course, the ideal is to have both the new FX DSLR + the newer lenses. To reach this goal, I cannot assure myself that FX is better than DX but I am very certain that...

FX$$ > DX$$.

While I am sure I don't need one, I am equally certain I want one. Nothing to justify. Just waiting for it to drop to a more affordable level and hopefully another push on the sensor design to render more corner-to-corner sharpness on older Nikkor lenses.

So what's next for DX? It will be here to stay. There are equally good enough reasons for its existence.

Good afternoon

Let's hope the haze (season) is not coming again.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

The construction of the wide angle lens for film can be of a biogon design where the rear element is very close to the film plane and the light strikes the film at a very oblique angle which is not quite possible for digital unless the AA filter of the sensor is customized for that lens. So yes, it is quite possible that a digital fixed lens compact ala 35Ti or 28Ti can become a reality.

See the Biogon vs Distagon design under the sub-heading "Natural vignetting" in the following link. http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/vignetting.html

So then the dream of a digital 28Ti with a DX sensor may still be .. a dream???

 

[diediealsomustdive]

Just look at Olympus.. having a 4/3 sensor with 2x crop, they are able to produce a 35-100/2.0 lens equivalent to our 70-200/2.8. The one stop advantage brings the price and quality fairly close to what we would get as well. Do they lose anything? At least 4/3 users don't go harping on full-frame, full-frame, full-frame because their mindset has already changed.

I don't know if I really can agree with you on this, as I feel while the format allows smaller and brighter lens vis a vis Oly 35-100/2.0 ~ DX50-135/2.8 ~ FX70-200/2.8, will indeed be limiting due to precisely the issue in discussion here - sensor size.

I am getting historical here: in the very old days the pioneers needed 8x10 to get decent IQ, and slowly when film quality improved we went smaller and smaller - this is natural, we want the smallest gadget that get us "there". So we have 4x5 (inch), 6x7(cm), 645, 135, APS and 110. 110 was small but so was its IQ so it went away. APS never did take off. What were the biggest sellers? 135. Why? I think it is the compromise reached with size vs convenience vs performance.

My postulation is that for serious photographers the ideal compromise (size vs performance) is at the 135 format, or in today's terms, FX. Sure if our mindset is set at Four Thirds and live within the limits, it's good "enough". But FX is that much better (noise, high iso performance, bokeh, etc) and we can live with the increase in size (but not the cost right now). When the cost comes down, most serious photographers will flock to FX for the performance in the "usual" range of lenses - let's face it, most of us will shoot between 17mm to 300mm FX. The cost of lenses is not going to deter.

To me DX will remain in the future mostly in the D60-type of camera aimed at those somewhat serious folks - for DX is really good enough for most. And maybe some spruced up models like today's D300 for the enthusiasts who want to keep things small and more manageable, and perhaps use the 400mm f5.6 as a 600mm FOV lens, and most other serious folks will go for FX.

I know I will go FX when the cost drops to 2k+, with perhaps 17-35 (or 20-35), 28-105, 100-300 to cover the range. And pack in those beloved primes of yonder... 35, 50, 85, 105

But I hope my (now beloved) D300 will remain viable to use the crop factor for macro, super-tele, etc.

 

[lsisaxon]

So then the dream of a digital 28Ti with a DX sensor may still be .. a dream???

Not necessarily.. Look what Leica has done.

 

[lsisaxon]

I don't know if I really can agree with you on this, as I feel while the format allows smaller and brighter lens vis a vis Oly 35-100/2.0 ~ DX50-135/2.8 ~ FX70-200/2.8, will indeed be limiting due to precisely the issue in discussion here - sensor size.

I am getting historical here: in the very old days the pioneers needed 8x10 to get decent IQ, and slowly when film quality improved we went smaller and smaller - this is natural, we want the smallest gadget that get us "there". So we have 4x5 (inch), 6x7(cm), 645, 135, APS and 110. 110 was small but so was its IQ so it went away. APS never did take off. What were the biggest sellers? 135. Why? I think it is the compromise reached with size vs convenience vs performance.

My postulation is that for serious photographers the ideal compromise (size vs performance) is at the 135 format, or in today's terms, FX. Sure if our mindset is set at Four Thirds and live within the limits, it's good "enough". But FX is that much better (noise, high iso performance, bokeh, etc) and we can live with the increase in size (but not the cost right now). When the cost comes down, most serious photographers will flock to FX for the performance in the "usual" range of lenses - let's face it, most of us will shoot between 17mm to 300mm FX. The cost of lenses is not going to deter.

To me DX will remain in the future mostly in the D60-type of camera aimed at those somewhat serious folks - for DX is really good enough for most. And maybe some spruced up models like today's D300 for the enthusiasts who want to keep things small and more manageable, and perhaps use the 400mm f5.6 as a 600mm FOV lens, and most other serious folks will go for FX.

I know I will go FX when the cost drops to 2k+, with perhaps 17-35 (or 20-35), 28-105, 100-300 to cover the range. And pack in those beloved primes of yonder... 35, 50, 85, 105

But I hope my (now beloved) D300 will remain viable to use the crop factor for macro, super-tele, etc.

I made these comments precisely because I no longer see the FX advantage which I thought would materialize in the D3, but I didn't.. Knowing the lenses mean that I am restricted even more. DX took away the restrictions, why should I live with the restrictions again by going FX? Of course there is the sensitivity advantage but that's about it for the kind of price.. And people are talking about 24MP FX. there goes the speed advantage.. I don't think I need 12MP of sharp centre and 12MP of fuzzy corners.

 

[chanjyj]

What more do you want? They already came up with a 14-24/2.8 which works well on DX as well as FX. You want a cheaper version? There's already the 12-24/4. You want 10-20/2.8? Are you sure it will be good? I've yet to see how useable the Tokina 11-16 is at f/2.8.

The 17-55/2.8 is one hell of a lens. It's so good and even on DX it beats the hell out of many film lenses when used on FX.

10.5DX already covers 180 degrees, equivalent to the 16mm they have for film.

The rest of the lenses won't make any difference whether you make them full frame or not. Nikon has been very careful in choosing the focal length of the new lenses they make now so that the length makes sense both on DX and FX. eg, PC-E 24/3.5, PC-E Micro 45/2.8.

Yes. I want 10-20 f/2.8. Otherwise a 12-24 f/2.8 would be nice. The 14-24 is not wide enough for me lah.

 

[twnll]

Stop thinking like a photographer!

PnS will not be what it is today, future PnS is called Nokia N series, Samsung, Sony-Ericsson, LG etc.

Mobile phones will be 1) a phone, 2) a camera and 3) an MP3 player

The only way for N and C to compete is to make better quality products - ie using DX and APS sensors with improved optics on PnS cameras.

Would you buy a DSLR with 2/3rd inch sensors today? I did - an Oly E-10 five years ago but will anyone buy it today? So why should you buy DX sensor cameras 3 - 5 years from now when even an entry level DSLR is FF selling under $1000. Impossible? Let me try.

5 years ago Plasmas were selling well - 42" sells for around $12k and 50" close to $20k. Today a 42" plasma sells for under $2000 (panasonic). So what is impossible?

DX will not die, but it won't be on DSLRs in 5 years time. Go ahead and buy DX lenses if you don't believe it can happen. Hard to stomach perhaps but you cannot stop the advancement of technology with giants like Sony.

For me, no APS or DX lenses. Ever. Not gonna get myself screwed.

 

[ortega]

by that time must move to MF already, the digital back will cost $3K ~ $5K only

 

[twnll]

by that time must move to MF already, the digital back will cost $3K ~ $5K only

Only if Sony makes them! And no, I don't work for Sony but I know what they can do if someone up the chain signs off the investment!

 

[twnll]

When the A900 comes out, I bet its specs will screw both C and N

 

[ortega]

When the A900 comes out, I bet it will screw both C and N

not a good idea to post that here :nono:

 

[jnet6]

Yes. I want 10-20 f/2.8. Otherwise a 12-24 f/2.8 would be nice. The 14-24 is not wide enough for me lah.

on FX or DX???

 

[chanjyj]

on FX or DX???

DX lah. 10mm will get you close to the 14-24mm's 14mm (on FX).

10mm on FX?! :bigeyes:

 

[ahquan]

I wonder if Nikon will ever come out with a 12-24mm f/2.8 or maybe 10-20mm f/2.8 to supplement/replace their current 12-24 f/4. Damn. Maybe I really have to go get the Tokina 11-16 soon.

Damn fed up. Nikon only produced THREE pro lenses for DX

• 10.5mm f/2.8
• 17-55mm f/2.8
• 12-24mm f/4

The rest of the lenses goes like this...

• 18-55mm
• 18-55mm VR
• 16-85mm VR
• 18-135mm
• 18-200mm VR
• 55-200mm VR

The 18-70mm is in a class of it's own. Neither fitting in the low end nor the high end range.

what's wrong with the 18-70? why are lenses classified as pro or not pro? every lens has it's limitations and its up to you to choose what is worthy to use only. BTW i saw a number of overly under expose shots you did during weddings. hmm.. why do u need 2.8 for wide? if nikon doesn't produce them get some other brands and if you are so picky. go over to the dark side( canon) STOP whining!!!

 

[jacob]

what's wrong with the 18-70? why are lenses classified as pro or not pro? every lens has it's limitations and its up to you to choose what is worthy to use only. BTW i saw a number of overly under expose shots you did during weddings. hmm.. why do u need 2.8 for wide? if nikon doesn't produce them get some other brands and if you are so picky. go over to the dark side( canon) STOP whining!!!

pls dun put other people down as this thread is not for critism but discussion. peace no war ok!

 

[Lumiere]

I like the "longer" reach of FX telephotos on a DX body. Another nice thing is that the lenses are utilising the sweet spot.

It is the wide angle part has something lacking in the DX side.

Also, I have never said that only a f/2.8 is considered a pro lens. It is more of a fact that the lenses I consider pro with a pro build happen to be f/2.8. A lens with an aperture of f/4 can be pro to me.

The only problem is that Nikon doesn't go for f/4 lenses like Canon EXCEPT for the 18-70mm wich sits in a strange area with an aperture of f/3.5-f/4.5.

okok u implied...thats the understanding of most of the pple here i guess wat u implied...i rest my case

 

[ahquan]

pls dun put other people down as this thread is not for critism but discussion. peace no war ok!

sorry.. i guess we are talking abt DX and FX not pro lenses sometimes OT

 

[ortega]

what's wrong with the 18-70? why are lenses classified as pro or not pro? every lens has it's limitations and its up to you to choose what is worthy to use only. BTW i saw a number of overly under expose shots you did during weddings. hmm.. why do u need 2.8 for wide? if nikon doesn't produce them get some other brands and if you are so picky. go over to the dark side( canon) STOP whining!!!

i think the dark side is nikon, (almost all black lens)

 

[chanjyj]

what's wrong with the 18-70? why are lenses classified as pro or not pro? every lens has it's limitations and its up to you to choose what is worthy to use only. BTW i saw a number of overly under expose shots you did during weddings. hmm.. why do u need 2.8 for wide? if nikon doesn't produce them get some other brands and if you are so picky. go over to the dark side( canon) STOP whining!!!

1. "what's wrong with the 18-70mm" I didn't say there was anything wrong with the 18-70mm. What made you come up with this statement? The 18-70mm was my on-camera lens for my D40 together with a SB-400. My light kit, essentially.
2. You are asking me why lenses are classified pro or not pro? I am not in a position to answer you that. Maybe you might want to ask the people who produce and market the lenses instead?
3. Underexposed pictures - what does it have to do with lenses?
4. f/2.8 for wide - I don't like to shoot with a tripod. If I can manage without one, I will be happy. A f/4 for a night scene may require me to shoot at 1/2s, for example. a f/2.8 can bump the shutter speed up to a hand-holdable range?
5. If I am picky go over to Canon? I do not get your point at all. What makes you think canon is any better?

I rest my case. I think I have OT enough already. If you want to talk more on this topic, PM me instead.

 

[vonlichenstein]

1. "what's wrong with the 18-70mm" I didn't say there was anything wrong with the 18-70mm. What made you come up with this statement? The 18-70mm was my on-camera lens for my D40 together with a SB-400. My light kit, essentially.
2. You are asking me why lenses are classified pro or not pro? I am not in a position to answer you that. Maybe you might want to ask the people who produce and market the lenses instead?
3. Underexposed pictures - what does it have to do with lenses?
4. f/2.8 for wide - I don't like to shoot with a tripod. If I can manage without one, I will be happy. A f/4 for a night scene may require me to shoot at 1/2s, for example. a f/2.8 can bump the shutter speed up to a hand-holdable range?
5. If I am picky go over to Canon? I do not get your point at all. What makes you think canon is any better?

I rest my case. I think I have OT enough already. If you want to talk more on this topic, PM me instead.

fwah.. this thread becoming very tense. jangan tension la! (did i spell that right?)