# Should I buy anymore DX lenses?



## dEARlEADER (Jul 8, 2008)

With Nikon bringing out full frame on the D700 how long do you think it will take before full frame will dribble down to D300 series and eventually whatever the D80 will be called?

Do you think DX lenses will be obsolete within 10 years?

What do you think a D700 will be worth 2 years from now?

I am asking these questions for future lens planning purposes.  If a D700 will be worth $1500 in a couple of years maybe I'll stop buying DX lenses.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Jul 8, 2008)

I don't think you need to worry too much.
DX will still be around a long time and full frame may never make it to the consumer level cameras.  Plus the D700 can use DX Glass.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jul 8, 2008)

oh... i'm not worried... i just think that DX might be dead... it's cool that you can use DX lenses on FX sensors but it kinda defeats the purpose as they don't utilize the surface of the full frame sensor...

bodies depreciate pretty quickly.... a used D700 in a year or two should be priced in an area where intermediate photographers will consider making the switch....

I can see full frame making it's way down the DSLR chain..... maybe they'll put the crop sensors into point and shoots which will allow more flexibility in the consumer camera market....


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 8, 2008)

Canon shooters have been asking this question for years...and it seems that crop sensors and EF-S lenses are here to stay...for the foreseeable future anyway.  

Most consumers don't need full frame sensors...and smaller sensors are a lot cheaper to manufacture.  
The camera companies will be hesitant to bring down the prices of their full frame models because that might canabilize sales of their crop sensor DSLR models.  If you consider their line up down into P&S cameras...they will probably want to keep some structure there.  If full frame gets cheaper then crop bodies get cheaper and then SLR-like cameras get cheaper and P&S digicams are almost free.

The one thing that will affect the prices most, is competition.  Canon was king of full frame DSLR for a long time and Nikon finally jumped into the pool...and now they are taking another step with the D700.  Canon will have to answer with a new version of the current 5D.  Other companies might soon join the frey.  This is all good news for pros and enthusiasts and even people after consumer level cameras...I don't think that crop bodies will drop out of the line up any time soon.


----------



## Mav (Jul 8, 2008)

DX isn't going anywhere.  Even if economies of scale kick in and manufacturing process could be drastically improved to lower the costs of producing big chips, they'll still forever be marketed as a "premium" product and not within the reach of the normal person who just wants great photos.

Ken has a nice writeup on this here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/fx-dx-future.htm

If you're a serious photo hobbyist, amateur, or could do things professionally one day, I'd certainly think twice about buying anymore DX glass.  I'm done with DX I think, but not because of FX digital. I love shooting good ol FILM on my F100!   Got a trip coming up this weekend and I think I'm going to shoot nothing but film.


----------



## RyanLilly (Jul 8, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> The one thing that will affect the prices most, is competition.  Canon was king of full frame DSLR for a long time and Nikon finally jumped into the pool...and now they are taking another step with the D700.  Canon will have to answer with a new version of the current 5D.  Other companies might soon join the frey.  This is all good news for pros and enthusiasts and even people after consumer level cameras...I don't think that crop bodies will drop out of the line up any time soon.




'Bout time for canon to introduce a new 5D, they have probably just been sitting on it, because Nikon was dragging it FF feet for so long! Think about it, its been less than a year since Nikon entered the Full frame market, Crop body will be around for a long time.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 9, 2008)

Indeed DX will be around for ever simply because as it gets cheaper to produce FX sensors it becomes MUCH cheaper to produce DX. Simple rules of what comes off a silicon wafer. If FX sensors have lower yield and more fit on the board, that means DX sensors will always be cheaper, even if the yield rate can be perfect (which it can't with current technology).

The only way DX will die is if consumers kill it by not buying them.

On the question on lenses. Why not? DX does have other advantages. Have you seen the size of Nikon's 10.5mm fisheye? Compare it to FX lenses which produce the same field of view, and it starts to become a question of do you really want to carry a lens with you?

That said the only DX lenses I'd buy would be ones where no proper FX equivalent exists that I can use right now. For instance the Sigma 10-20mm. At these angles the field of view changes drastically with each mm, and having a 15-30mm lens will simply not cut it while I save up for a D700. Similar thing with the portrait zooms like the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX. The options are get the same sized 17-35mm f/2.8 taking the zoom hit, and then having to upgrade to the 24-70mm f/2.8 N when you get a D700, and arrrrr this is all just too hard and expensive, why couldn't I take up painting.


----------



## Tinstafl (Jul 9, 2008)

DX will die after a bit. The full frame will take over but Nikon will not orphan the lens. Look at the F mount. THey will work on a FX sensor too.  Now lets look at the mega pixel wars. You will have a 27/12MP sooner or later.  Hassie just rolled out a 50mp and I remember when 19 then 31 were huge....
A 27 in dx mode will be  12 MP and you can use your DX lenses and have better noise reduction and a bigger (read as deeper)  pixel too. It will be the best of both on one body. It will always be expensive but remember when we had 3mp now we have P&S at 10-12mp. Why do we think the the Chip manufacturing and R&D will slow. It will continue and we will all benefit from it but will have to stop the arms race when we hit our limits but if they continually make better faster and cleaner processors we will buy them...  THe DX will be in PS camera.  THink a D300 in an S210 PS now that can be your backup.


----------



## Alex_B (Jul 9, 2008)

well, for telephoto purposes, DX has a clear advantage since lenses can be much smaller.

Do not get me wrong, I love FF and will probably keep shooting FF, but I would consider getting a 1.3 or 1.6 crop body for my telephoto lenses


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jul 9, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Indeed DX will be around for ever simply because as it gets cheaper to produce FX sensors it becomes MUCH cheaper to produce DX. Simple rules of what comes off a silicon wafer. If FX sensors have lower yield and more fit on the board, that means DX sensors will always be cheaper, even if the yield rate can be perfect (which it can't with current technology).
> 
> The only way DX will die is if consumers kill it by not buying them.
> 
> ...



don't you think they will move the DX chips down to the point and shoot line??  the really can't cram any more megepixels on the small p&s sensors so it seems logical to move the DX down to that market (where the real money is) so they have room to expand....

once pentax and sony go frame it won't be long until they all battle their way to full frame entry level DSLR maybe 5 years???


----------



## Mav (Jul 9, 2008)

You still need to have a much bigger lens for a DX chip than a little P&S camera, so that's one of the bigger obstacles.  Getting rid of the through-the-lens viewfinder and metering would also save a ton of space.  Make a newer digital rangefinder type camera with a DX-sized chip.  With the newer APS-C sensors having live view, it's doable.  Then the biggest obstacle would probably be power consumption and battery life.  You still need a beefy battery to power all this.  The dinky little ones in P&S cameras now are probably fine, but you'd need a much bigger one for an APS-C chip, especially if it's depending on live view for metering and viewfinding.  I'm sure it'll happen, but don't expect even that to be cheap either.  A P&S sized camera with an APS-C sized sensor would still be marketed as a "premium" type camera.  They'd probably price it higher than an equivalent D40 setup.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jul 9, 2008)

Mav said:


> You still need to have a much bigger lens for a DX chip than a little P&S camera, so that's one of the bigger obstacles.  Getting rid of the through-the-lens viewfinder and metering would also save a ton of space.  Make a newer digital rangefinder type camera with a DX-sized chip.  With the newer APS-C sensors having live view, it's doable.  Then the biggest obstacle would probably be power consumption and battery life.  You still need a beefy battery to power all this.  The dinky little ones in P&S cameras now are probably fine, but you'd need a much bigger one for an APS-C chip, especially if it's depending on live view for metering and viewfinding.  I'm sure it'll happen, but don't expect even that to be cheap either.  A P&S sized camera with an APS-C sized sensor would still be marketed as a "premium" type camera.  They'd probably price it higher than an equivalent D40 setup.



i agree..... the first p&s with aps-c sensor will be sold at a premium and will likely be crap due to the very limitations you mention.... it will be bigger.... the battery life will stink.... and zitty teens at bestbuy will be falling over themselves to sell them to the populus....


----------



## Garbz (Jul 10, 2008)

That all depends on the money and the market. As I said before if it becomes cheaper (more profitable) to produce an FX sensor because of new technology then it becomes MUCH more profitable to produce smaller ones. The only change in this relationship is the yield rate. I'm pulling numbers from my back side here, but if there are 5 errors on the wafer of FX sensors that means 5 defects in say 25 units, that is an expense, a bit one. But those same 5 errors on a wafer with 400 P&S sensors is nothing. If this figure improves then yes FX sensors becomes cheaper to make and P&S sensor and APS sensors gain less, but ultimately there's still a factor of size. How many FX sensors fit on a wafer compared to a DX / P&S one. The same is applied to the microchip industry. Lots can be gained from miniaturising an older design simply because of basic economies of scale.

I think the market will ultimately decide this. The increase in people switching to entry level SLRs is still nothing compared to the sales of P&S. I'm on my first DSLR, my sister and my parents have had 5 P&S cameras between them over the past 2 years. That combined with the influx of the even smaller mobile phone sensors, I doubt we'll see a change even in the next 5 years, but I guess time will tell. Me I intend to move to FX next year


----------



## sabbath999 (Jul 10, 2008)

Garbz said:


> On the question on lenses. Why not? DX does have other advantages. Have you seen the size of Nikon's 10.5mm fisheye? Compare it to FX lenses which produce the same field of view, and it starts to become a question of do you really want to carry a lens with you?



I shoot a LOT of telephoto, and I personally think the DX sized sensor is a Godsend... it is like having a 1.5 teleconverter on every tele lens that doesn't affect picture quality or reduce my apertures... which saves both my back and my wallet.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jul 10, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> I shoot a LOT of telephoto, and I personally think the DX sized sensor is a Godsend... it is like having a 1.5 teleconverter on every tele lens that doesn't affect picture quality or reduce my apertures... which saves both my back and my wallet.




good point...


----------



## RyanLilly (Jul 10, 2008)

Mav said:


> You still need to have a much bigger lens for a DX chip than a little P&S camera, so that's one of the bigger obstacles.  Getting rid of the through-the-lens viewfinder and metering would also save a ton of space.  Make a newer digital rangefinder type camera with a DX-sized chip.  With the newer APS-C sensors having live view, it's doable.  Then the biggest obstacle would probably be power consumption and battery life.  You still need a beefy battery to power all this.  The dinky little ones in P&S cameras now are probably fine, but you'd need a much bigger one for an APS-C chip, especially if it's depending on live view for metering and viewfinding.  I'm sure it'll happen, but don't expect even that to be cheap either.  A P&S sized camera with an APS-C sized sensor would still be marketed as a "premium" type camera.  They'd probably price it higher than an equivalent D40 setup.



Their is a Aps-c Size P&S from sigma, not a true rangefinder, though you can add a viewfinder. The Sigma DP1


----------



## dipstick (Jul 10, 2008)

I don't see why Nikon would stop using DX at least for entry level, but also for prosumer cameras. By keeping DX and DX lenses around there is a greater potential for selling more stuff. People start out buying DX, and then when they want to move up the ladder they switch to FX and buy all new lenses as well. My guess is that DX will be kept at the low end and FX at the high end with the divider somewhere in the segment between where D300 and D80 is now. 

So from Nikons point of view it would make sense to keep it around, and from us photographers point of view it makes sense too. With the D700, prices on D300 will drop and the market will probably overflow with used D300s and DX lenses. That means more choices for us. DX is also nice for wildlife when you want a longer telephoto lens and getting less DOF is not an issue anyway.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 10, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> Canon shooters have been asking this question for years...and it seems that crop sensors and EF-S lenses are here to stay...for the foreseeable future anyway.
> 
> Most consumers don't need full frame sensors...and smaller sensors are a lot cheaper to manufacture.
> The camera companies will be hesitant to bring down the prices of their full frame models because that might canabilize sales of their crop sensor DSLR models. If you consider their line up down into P&S cameras...they will probably want to keep some structure there. If full frame gets cheaper then crop bodies get cheaper and then SLR-like cameras get cheaper and P&S digicams are almost free.
> ...


 
Except like 6 out of 65 lenses in the Canon line up are EF-S and the rest are EF.


----------



## passerby (Jul 10, 2008)

I read in one of the mag that last year the number of digital cameras sold in australia were 3 millions. Of these 3m 100 000 were DSLRs. If this DX and FX stuff is circling around barely 3 percent of the market than it so obvious that the DX is staying. Considering that my sister just came out from the stone age era of photography called film only few months ago. It will take few dacades before people like her even bother with DX or FX, or maybe never will. These kind of people are the one that keep the company rollings. Look at the way the Leica priced their cameras. It is because lack of lowly customers that pours the money to cover the cost - therefore they hammered the unlucky few with the mamma mia price.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 10, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> oh... i'm not worried... i just think that DX might be dead...



This site disagrees. At least for the next product cycle or two.  Here's the quote:

The only thing you're getting for $1,200 more than a D300 is much better finder, much better high-ISO performance and a green light to buy even more expensive ultra-ultra wide lenses. For most people, I wouldn't bother, or I'd step up all the way to the much faster and fully professional D3.

If you're shooting sports and action, the D3 is still your camera. If you're shooting landscapes, the D3X (not yet public) or Canon 5D is better.

Honest: if I need landscape image quality, the Canon 5D beats the D3 and costs and weighs much less. If I want speed for sports, action and news, the D3 has far faster AF and frame rates than any of these. The D700 or D3 aren't the cameras for landscapes; that's the 5D or D3X.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jul 10, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> This site disagrees. At least for the next product cycle or two.  Here's the quote:
> 
> The only thing you're getting for $1,200 more than a D300 is much better finder, much better high-ISO performance and a green light to buy even more expensive ultra-ultra wide lenses. For most people, I wouldn't bother, or I'd step up all the way to the much faster and fully professional D3.
> 
> ...




pfff..... well I guess we'll see when the D700 starts flowing....

apparently nobody on this site is gonna buy it.... sure... (salavating at the prospect of cheap D300's)

the d300's are already for sale at the nikon forum....

besides..... I said five years for death of DX... that is 3 product cycle's.....


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 10, 2008)

I'm starting to think the D700 is a little bit of a misfit. According to discussions and sponsorless reviews I'm reading like that one at any rate.


----------



## Mav (Jul 10, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> the d300's are already for sale at the nikon forum....


I have my eyes on some of those.   I'd rather get an 80-200 f/2.8 though.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jul 10, 2008)

Mav said:


> I have my eyes on some of those.   I'd rather get an 80-200 f/2.8 though.




common Mav.... the time is now.... there may never be a tomorrow.... you can get that D300 and the F2.8 80-200....


----------



## Garbz (Jul 11, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> common Mav.... the time is now.... there may never be a tomorrow.... you can get that D300 and the F2.8 80-200....



That's the second such morbid post from you today. You don't have any illness we should know about? :hug::


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jul 11, 2008)

Garbz said:


> That's the second such morbid post from you today. You don't have any illness we should know about? :hug::



just trying to bring someone else down with me to calm my state of discomfort pertaining to what I might buy today....

having other forum members spend money they don't have on bodies that will be obsolete in 5 years makes me feel better about my own purchases with money i don't have of bodies that will be obsolete in 5 years....


----------



## patrickt (Jul 11, 2008)

*I suspect the full-frame will be to APS-C as medium-format was to 35mm. I suspect they will both exist longer than I will.*


----------



## Joves (Jul 11, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> just trying to bring someone else down with me to calm my state of discomfort pertaining to what I might buy today....
> 
> having other forum members spend money they don't have on bodies that will be obsolete in 5 years makes me feel better about my own purchases with money i don't have of bodies that will be obsolete in 5 years....


 Nice . I fortunately only spend money I have on thisgs I want. I dont see DX dying off for many, many moons. Im keeping my D300 when I buy my D700, I want the best of both worlds. That ans I want insanely high ISOs. I dont even see DX as being down graded to the P&S level. 
 And Bifurcator that is uncle Ken you are quoting. I dont take him the leat bit seriously. To me the D700 is the perfect camera for some of us. Just because some say it is a misfit doesnt make it so.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 11, 2008)

Really? you don't like Ken?  I have no priors on him.  Actually no experience at all - I think that was my first or second visit to his site.  What makes you distrust his opinions?


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jul 11, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Really? you don't like Ken?  I have no priors on him.  Actually no experience at all - I think that was my first or second visit to his site.  What makes you distrust his opinions?



Bifurcator.... i must say... you are the best....

If you like Ken there is no reason to distrust him..... he is not fraudulent or anything....

i like his 100% crop corner to corner comparisons on lenses he reviews...


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 11, 2008)

I got two impressions from reading the several pages I read.

1) He knows what he's doing but isn't being paid to be politically correct and therefor could be both refreshingly honest and blunt all at the same time. And,

2) He's never heard of a spell checker.


----------



## Joves (Jul 11, 2008)

He is always to be taken with a block of salt. Just read his views on RAW formats for a good laugh. He likens all RAW formats to fruti that becomes rotten and, unusable.  Calling the D700 a misfit would be another reason I have no use for him, if that is indeed where you got that idea.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 11, 2008)

Read his so called reviews on the 80-200 AF-S or some of the other products where he gives his oh so important opinion on an item he has never used. A lot of his stuff is good, but some of it is down right wrong, or gives the wrong impression. The only problem I have with him is a lot of newbies end up at his site first, and they aren't able to sort the excellent information he has from the crap he sometimes comes up with.

Plus I don't like his photos which means his opinions don't qualify for me


----------



## Mav (Jul 11, 2008)

Joves said:


> He is always to be taken with a block of salt. Just read his views on RAW formats for a good laugh.


I take people that say to take Ken like a grain of salt like a grain of salt themselves.  Hasn't steered me wrong yet!


----------



## Mav (Jul 11, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Read his so called reviews on the 80-200 AF-S or some of the other products where he gives his oh so important opinion on an item he has never used.


Another reason I take Ken bashers like a grain of salt is because they keep repeating the same WRONG information, such as he doesn't actually review lenses.  Most people who bash Ken don't even read his site, and prove that from their own ignorance about what he even writes.

So the 80-200 AF-S, right?



			
				Ken said:
			
		

> *I'm going to poke a lot of fun at [size=+3]my[/size] 80-200 AF-S here*, but remember that this is probably the sharpest zoom Nikon has ever made and it works like a dream. Don't let my whining distract you. It is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used, zoom or not, period. *It consistently delivers fantastic results that continue to impress me even after using this lens for [size=+3]five years[/size]*


Right so I suppose that proves that he "doesn't own" the lens! 

Out of sheer curiosity and boredom one day, I went through every single Nikon lens review on his site and fully 90% of them were ACTUAL HANDS ON PHYSICAL REVIEWS which just goes to show that the people that say he doesn't even touch the stuff he reviews are idiots.  How the heck can you make distortion measurements or sharpness evaluations without actually shooting with the thing?   For the 10% he didn't actually do a hands-on review for, the vast majority are super-teles that he has little to no interest in, are extremely rare to find and even more rare to borrow, and he openly acknowledges that he hasn't done a hands-on review and is just commenting because readers ask.  



Garbz said:


> A lot of his stuff is good, but some of it is down right wrong, or gives the wrong impression.


Who are you to say?  Isn't it all personal and subjective depending on what your priorities are?



Garbz said:


> The only problem I have with him is a lot of newbies end up at his site first, and they aren't able to sort the excellent information he has from the crap he sometimes comes up with.


I could say the same exact thing about forums like these.  In fact I've seen FAR WORSE advice being given out on forums than I ever have on Ken's site, but that's a personal and subjective matter as well.



Garbz said:


> Plus I don't like his photos which means his opinions don't qualify for me


Well I do, so if he's "wrong" for you he's still right for me.


By the way I pointed some of this out for you the last time where your claims were just plain flat wrong, but you're still repeating the same crap.  Any particular reason for that, or have you just bought into the lie as being the truth and refuse to be corrected?


----------



## Senor Hound (Jul 12, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> With Nikon bringing out full frame on the D700 how long do you think it will take before full frame will dribble down to D300 series and eventually whatever the D80 will be called?
> 
> Do you think DX lenses will be obsolete within 10 years?
> 
> ...



Wow.  Whatever you do, remember speculation is just that.  A famous investor (Warren Buffet?) once said trading on speculation is insanity, and you bet on what is here and now.  I know this isn't stock, but this advice, IMO, holds true for all things with value.  Its just too difficult to predict future trends.

As far as the smaller sensor sizes being phased out, I would kind of hope not.  I like the 1.5 multiplier as a lover of wildlife.  IMO since some like the crop factor, it will be something that they still offer on some models (though I could be wrong) a few years from now.  But if YOU personally plan on buying a D3 or D700, then the obvious answer is, "no," you shouldn't keep buying DX lenses.

I don't know if this helps or not.  I know I'm not as sure of myself as others are, but I really wouldn't make any rash decisions based on the release of this one camera.  I could be left flat-footed three years from now, but I have a strong feeling I won't be.  

One of my reasons for feeling so, is that there _probably_ wouldn't have been a similar camera (D300) released so close to this one, if the D300 was a predecessor and considered part of the same line.  Also, no matter how advanced the photo sensor technology gets, it will always (I would think) be cheaper to make one with a 1.5 crop factor.  They'd probably stay with this if for no reason other than to maximize profit.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 12, 2008)

My mistake it's the AF-D version he doesn't own. Lovely review on that one. I love the quote "I am not sure if it suffers the ghosting problem of the AF-S version" why isn't he sure? Maybe because he hasn't used it?

Most of it is subjective, you are right. But that's not the problem. The problem is that many of his reviews and some of his articles are treated as gospel. Who am I to say otherwise? Someone who's tried his way when reading it and found it to be utterly wrong at times.

Yes but we can expect a certain amount of missinformation on a forum. Whereas a site like Ken's which seems to be geared to educate the visitors this is unacceptable in my eyes.

By the way I pointed out last time my claims were right so please quit trolling my posts. Like him if you want. I don't for reasons mentioned and your opinion of him won't change that.


----------

