Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 120836" data-attributes="member: 9240">A lot of great points made that I will not bother restating.  So I'll just give you my take on the future of DX-FX coexistence. Both sensors are capable of capturing incredible images.  Amateurs, from the casual family photographer to the super-serious, will  have to make decisions based on what their needs and budgets are, and both formats will provide them with plenty of options.  Due to its ability to use larger photo cells in each pixel FX will always have the advantage of providing better image quality with lower noise, but at a higher cost.  Where I see the real dividing line between the formats is not in sensors but in glass.  The advantage of the DX format is that it allows lenses to be constructed in a way that takes advantage of sweet spots.  Let me put it this way.  SLR camera lenses were originally designed so that it projected as close to perfect an image as possible on a piece of 35mm film.  The image needed to be crisp across the entire slice of film.  The most difficult part of that design is the elimination of distortion and chromatic aberation at the edges and corners.  The DX sensor effectively eliminates that problem in that it only needs the center 43% of what a traditional lens produces.  So a lens can be remarkably effective even if the extremes are essentially crap, as long as the center is perfect.  Fewer elements are needed/can be used, and optics size can be reduced.  This produces high quality at a lower cost.  This is why 3rd party companies like Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and others have done so well in this arena, because they can provide great performance at a lower cost.  They rarely produce full frame lenses that are highly touted, and when they do it's directed at particular niche market (Sigma with their affordable 50 & 150-500mm zooms) for birders and sports photographers.  What I'm getting at is that the decision to go (stay) DX or move to FX will likely have a lot to do with a person's willingness to pay for additional quality.  The cost of a higher IQ sensor will continue to come down, but the glass that makes a quality image possible might not.  And as FX sensors get better they will begin to expose the weaknesses in lesser lenses that were masked by previous sensors.  I'm already reading in blogs where certain lenses "aren't good enough" for the D800's 36MP's as it exposes minor weakness that were masked by other sensors, including the D600.  So moving to a body like that requires a willingness to alter your entire kit, even if you've got full frame glass already.  The great news is that Nikon and other companies are making it possible to take superb photos at every budget.  The consumer-photographer just needs to be aware of the interplay between all aspects of the format that they choose, because everything comes at a cost.</blockquote>

Verification