As those of you know me know my belief on the future of the DX format and as such am not surprised by this latest article by Nasim Mansurov.
Why DX has no Future
Why DX has no Future
Why DX has no future - Nasim Mansureov
- Thread starter Dave_W
- Start date
I don't know Sony is selling the crap out of crop sensors right now (so are a bunch of other folks). And they are putting them in Nikons too! I'll read the article here in a minute sir. 
Wouldn't bother me any though if everything went to FX or even bigger as long as it is affordable.
Wouldn't bother me any though if everything went to FX or even bigger as long as it is affordable.
When APC sensored compact mirrorless units with interchangeable lenses start costing 600 bucks I think DSLR's are in trouble unless they are full frame. What I think is even more interesting is the sensor in cameras like the Leica S2 which is a DSLR but it has a sensor that is bigger than the age old standard 35mm.
The DSLR I think still has a long life ahead of it and it will be good in FX format...it will be even better in medium format contained within a DSLR sized body!
The DSLR I think still has a long life ahead of it and it will be good in FX format...it will be even better in medium format contained within a DSLR sized body!
If the new D600 sells for less than $2k, I will probably get one. Why? I'm not sure. I'm not even close to getting all I can out of my D5100. But that's never stopped me from making an impulse or ill-advised purchase in the past. Everything I shoot is somewhat cropped so I'm not sure how a full frame will be of benefit, except for the additional pixels.
As I'm writing this, I'm thinking the D600 will be more cost than benefit. My D5100 does a fine job.
Nevermind.
As I'm writing this, I'm thinking the D600 will be more cost than benefit. My D5100 does a fine job.
Nevermind.
Wouldn't that be awesome?? Ever since I was a kid and set loose with my Kodak 110 I've dreamed about shooting medium format. I figured my D800 would be the closest I'd get but who knows, maybe another 10 yrs from now I'll have my wish?
I really don't believe the death of the DX camera is imminent. Nikon and its customers have a boatload of DX lenses that are still in use, and Nikon continues to make them. There is a larger profit margin in DX cameras because of the simple fact that more of those are sold because of the lower price point. Simple economics. I'll bet dollars to donuts that Nikon will come out with a really hot DX model that will blow the current DX's out of the water. Might not be this year or even next......but it's coming.
I too had one of those but prior to that I had one of the Kodak
brownie cameras. We've come a long way since then. And we've by no means arrived. Technology keeps on growin...
Last edited:
I think the only way they are going to be able to beat the D800 is to change the format to something bigger than 35mm (24X36) I would not be surprised to see this within the next 5-10 years. Those cameras are going to be high dollar initially. They have these larger formats now eg. Leica S2 but they are 20+ grand to play and the bodies are bigger...
I too had one of those but prior to that I had one of the Kodak
Wasn't the 110 a cool camera? Funny thing is I still have all my 110 print outs. Man, I would lay down in the dirt or climb up in trees just to get a strange angle in my photos. I remember arguing with my folks about why I never took photos with people in them. LOL!!! I guess my photo snobbery started at a very early age.
Yeah...$20 grand plus.....and the industry pundits keep saying that sensor technology has really reduced the cost of producing these sensors! Right! Why are they so insanely expensive then? It's like with anything "new"! What does todays "new" model camera do that last years model doesn't do? Nothing! They both take pictures. It's because of all the bells and whistles that the "newer" models come with that they jack up the prices. Take for example the latest, the D600. Why did they have to put HDMI video in there? It's not really needed, is it? It's a still photography camera, not a video camera! There are other full frame models that have video.....why not leave it at that? How many people who bought D800's are really gong to make full use of video? I contend that they don't particularly care it comes with video in the first place! It's part of the package, so oh well...it's there, but I don't have to use it! A total waste, in my opinion! But it certainly cost more to produce and therefor you are charged more for it.
I can go on and on about this, but I'm sure you get my point.
I can go on and on about this, but I'm sure you get my point.
Phillydog1958
Senior Member
While I can appreciate your technological-evolutionary approach, the DX market is huge and easy to market to. Ashton Kutcher has made the DSLR appeal to a younger market. Most of these people just want to have fun with a nice camera and take some decent and easy photos. The DX format allows for that. I agree with Jack on this one.
Last edited:
Here's my thoughts on this subject. The price of sensors, like anything high tech, are coming down fairly quickly. Moreover, the demand for FX sensors continues to grow relative to APS-C sensors as few new professional photographers would opt for a DX over an FX. Looking at the existing market space, we currently have a pro-level FX (D4, D800), mid-level FX (D600) and very soon I predict Nikon will announce an entry-level FX camera (maybe a D8000?). And if that wasn't enough of a squeeze on the DX market, the mirror-less models being touted by Canon, Nikon and Sony will span the gap between early entry level consumer to pro-sumer level cameras leaving no marketable space for an APS-C based bridge to pro level camera....IMO
Last edited:
One thing I noticed on vacation and I see this other places where people congregate with cameras like car shows for example. Most people have a P&S or a phone rig, then there are a pretty good handfull of folks who have DSLR's. Out of all those folks I would bet more than half don't really care or know what they have they just know they have a cool @ss digital camera that takes great pictures on auto. Most of those cameras are DX. I would guess FX is going to have to come down to say D5100 or D3200 price levels before we see a real sea change in what people are using. It will be the more advanced types who splurge for the "affordable" FX and there probably won't be a whole heckuva lot of these people maybe comparable to D7000 user numbers.
Sony just released there Nex 6 which is an APS sensor based camera. They want a $1000 bucks for the damn thing. At that price point DX is going to be around for quite some time. Fuji X Pro 1 same deal but even more expensive. So even the micro cameras need to come down a whole lot before the DSLR users jump ship to anywhere away from DSLR DX.
The closest thing to what a future without DX DSLR's looks like that has come to pass in the camera world to date is the Epson RD1. Epson R-D1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That camera was made in 2004 and you'd be lucky to buy one today for less than 1500 bucks. It is a cult camera. When someone makes a mirrorless 1.5 crop camera like the Epson RD1 the DSLR is probably doomed to FX! And then when they make a FX mirrorless camera like the Epson then we are talking M9 territory - price that one at 1000 bucks and even the FX DSLR is probably obsolete except for maybe pro's.
Interesting discussion.
Sony just released there Nex 6 which is an APS sensor based camera. They want a $1000 bucks for the damn thing. At that price point DX is going to be around for quite some time. Fuji X Pro 1 same deal but even more expensive. So even the micro cameras need to come down a whole lot before the DSLR users jump ship to anywhere away from DSLR DX.
The closest thing to what a future without DX DSLR's looks like that has come to pass in the camera world to date is the Epson RD1. Epson R-D1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That camera was made in 2004 and you'd be lucky to buy one today for less than 1500 bucks. It is a cult camera. When someone makes a mirrorless 1.5 crop camera like the Epson RD1 the DSLR is probably doomed to FX! And then when they make a FX mirrorless camera like the Epson then we are talking M9 territory - price that one at 1000 bucks and even the FX DSLR is probably obsolete except for maybe pro's.
Interesting discussion.
Last edited:
One thing I noticed on vacation and I see this other places where people congregate with cameras like car shows for example. Most people have a P&S or a phone rig, then there are a pretty good handfull of folks who have DSLR's. Out of all those folks I would bet more than half don't really care or know what they have they just know they have a cool @ss digital camera that takes great pictures on auto. Most of those cameras are DX. I would guess FX is going to have to come down to say D5100 or D3200 price levels before we see a real sea change in what people are using. It will be the more advanced types who splurge for the "affordable" FX and there probably won't be a whole heckuva lot of these people maybe comparable to D7000 user numbers.
Sony just released there Nex 6 which is an APS sensor based camera. They want a $1000 bucks for the damn thing. At that price point DX is going to be around for quite some time. Fuji X Pro 1 same deal but even more expensive. So even the micro cameras need to come down a whole lot before the DSLR users jump ship to anywhere away from DSLR DX.
The closest thing to what a future without DX DSLR's looks like that has come to pass in the camera world to date is the Epson RD1. Epson R-D1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That camera was made in 2004 and you'd be lucky to buy one today for less than 1500 bucks. It is a cult camera. When someone makes a mirrorless 1.5 crop camera like the Epson RD1 the DSLR is probably doomed to FX! And then when they make a FX mirrorless camera like the Epson then we are talking M9 territory - price that one at 1000 bucks and even the FX DSLR is probably obsolete except for maybe pro's.
Interesting discussion.
Very interesting, I didn't know such a beast existed until your post. So what is the difference between a "mechanical" shutter vs. what I assume is a "non-mechanical" shutter?
Last edited: