D600 and the Full Frame

Hi everyone,
I've got a question that isn't specifically about the D600 but more to do with the future of the category. 2012 saw the release of two competitive (on price) Full Frame DSLRs in the D800 and the D600 from Nikon. Do you think this was just a flash in the pan or do you think we will see prices fall in the category resulting in the 35mm format going back to becoming mainstream? I would love to hear your views(I've designed a small survey and I would appreciate it greatly if you could take 2mins of your time and answer it)
FF uptake Survey

Best Regards,
MT

I have been overwhelmed by the performance of my D800. After the manufacturers get us all full frame they will start the medium format trend. It just doesn't end.

It's difficult to forecast this thing because there are so many factors that come into play. It's one thing to be able to produce these FX sensors, but it's something else to be able to sell them. At first, sensors were really small and the technology to make them bigger was said to be too expensive. Well guess what, now both Canon, and Nikon and Leica and others are all making and selling them.

What is really complicating things is that consumers (who make for maybe about 90% of buyers of new cameras) seem to be quite happy with the actual APS size sensors. The quality is amazing (24mega pixels) nice lenses, good weather sealing so the companies have come to a stand still I think. Remember the first HD TVs, they were costing somewhere around 10,000 to 15,000 $. Now they're down to 500-1,500 $. They try to make us want 3D but it seems people think they are OK with the HD of today and 3D are not selling that much anymore.

So I think I might be digressing. Today's market is all about numbers of units that they can sell. The product might have 100 times the definition from it's predecessor, if people are just looking at pictures on their HD tvs or computers and facebook, FX cameras will be for the elite photographers that will keep printing large. But, there is still that mystical wishful thinking that if I buy a better camera my pictures will become so so much better… So, only future will tell. If companies can't sell enough Full frames camera to survive while making a profit, then there is not a lot of hope to see lower prices.

So, all in all, I think that DX is here to stay because of the number of units already sold that will still take wonderful pictures for years to come and FX will be for pros or advanced amateurs like myself.

The way I see it, the biggest main FX advantage for me is HIGH ISO performance. For normal people, that is not that important.

Let's give it a few years and then I can come back here to read myself and see if I made any sense.

Enjoy your Nikons!

I agree with Marcel that for the manufacturers it's all about the numbers but the FX prices are coming down and the more they make the more they sell and that will drive down the prices even more. I do think that the D800 stretches the envelope with the 36 mp file size. Yes it is great to be able to do a major crop and still have enough to do a large print but it does tax the storage/backup situation. I don't know if my images are any better that before but I do know I can shoot in places and conditions (low light, high iso) and get good pictures that I was unable to do before.

Full frame is definitely becoming more within our grasp as time goes by. And with both Nikon and Canon now producing full frame cameras at much lower prices, there is probably a trend shift happening in the market place. At the end of the day, camera manufacturers are going to produce cameras that sell, and preferably in great numbers. So, by lowering the price of FX cameras somewhat, I think that it is a "let's see what response we will get" scenario, along with market research on their part. Both pros and now more consumers do obviously want FX cameras if they can have them, so it will be interesting to see how the market continues to respond.

However, as much as it would be nice to have an FX camera, I really think that for most of us today's APS-C sensors are big enough to give us amazing quality pictures. But, more importantly, with each new model of DSLR the ability to shoot in higher and higher ISO with less and less noise seems to be the big thing. Each new model seems to allow for 1 or 2 stops or more of ISO available for normal shooting, and this, I think, is more useful in the real world than higher pixel count, or even sensor size. Most of us probably don't regularly print more than A4, or maybe A3.

I have been considering for some time about whether to go full frame, but, for the above reasons I don't think I would be that much better off. I suppose it depends on what you shoot, and how often you really need that low-light performance. The other thing is, that because I have only DX lenses, I would have to replace those as well, which will be rather expensive. So here I am, still quite happy with my APS-C D90, which is "only" 12.3 megapixels. With this I can put it on auto-ISO with the maximum ISO set to 3200, and I can shoot night scenes quite comfortably, for example, down on the local marina, or in town. The results are quite stunning, much better than I would have thought possible.

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.

Thanks for that, BackdoorHippie. The point you have raised regarding lenses on FX is valid and one not everyone thinks about.

There is another point, and that is depth of field (DOF). I remember when I was using 35mm film, that I could get extremely small DOF, even when using a 50mm lens. Such small DOF is not quite possible when using APS-C cameras. A "normal" lens on 35mm is of course, 50mm, whereas on APS-C it is around 35mm. Even though the actual images from both of these (FX with 50mm, and DX with 35mm) will have the same field of view, and produce a picture that may look exactly the same, the DOF will be different. That is because the DX camera with a 35mm lens will have a DOF of a 35mm lens, not of a 50mm lens. And the wider the angle of the lens, the greater the DOF. This is simply an optical fact.

This difference is much more noticeable on small sensor cameras like digital compacts, where everything is almost always in focus in every picture (which is why those cameras typically don't offer any f-stops smaller that F8). It was very hard to isolate your subject from its background using "selective focus". I had until recently, a Fujifilm S200EXR, which was a lovely camera, with all the features and handling of a DSLR, except that it had a 1/1.6 sensor, which measured approx. 8.8mm x 6.6mm. The DOF problem, and the overall image quality is what made me change to a D90. I'm really glad I did, as there is simply no comparison between the two cameras in picture quality, even though both cameras have 12 megapixels. There is such a difference in the size of the pixels, that I worked out, if my D90 had the same pixel density as the Fuji, it would have more than 85 megapixels! So each pixel on my D90 is around 7 times larger than on my Fuji. No wonder then that the picture quality is so much greater.

So, if getting a small DOF is important to you, then FX is still a better option than DX.

Absolutely - for much the same reason that you can't get decent bokeh on a point and shoot because of the sensor size.

Depends on the P&S Jake...

I think in a few more years and I believe it really is only just a few more years away there will be full frame mirrorless cameras that are under $1500...we already have the APS-C ones and they are sitting at a grand...I might get an APS-C one here soon and if they do make a FX one I will be leaving my SLRs to the anthropologists...

4/3 and micro 4/3 has gained a bunch of traction the past couple years. Just wait until they bring out FX mirrorless...

No it doesn't. It depends on your definition of P&S.

If I were you, I wouln't write off the DSLR just yet. The whole camera industry and the photographic community has too much invested in that whole arena to just let it drop.

True quality also depends on matching the sensor and the lenses. Some of the better lenses used to outperform the earlier sensors, and the sensor was the limiting factor. Now, with more recent sensor development, the sensor can sometimes outperform the lens. So things are not always as simple as they seem.

Although some new point and shoots are capable of producing great prints, if you put them side by side with something produced by a DX sensor (let alone an FX) camera, the differences are immediately obvious.

I have been following some of the camera reviews of new point and shoots, and although claims are made about high ISO and low noise, when you actually look at the pictures they produce in their original size, things are not so rosy. Noise is apparent, and even if its not, then noise reduction artifacts are, in loss of fine detail. It all depends on what you are happy with, I guess. Myself, I like to see fine detail, low noise, and sharpness in my photos. I like to be able to print at A4 at least. So, for me, small sensor cameras are a thing of the past.

You can't get away from the fact that the larger the sensor, the better the final picture quality is going to be, simply because a larger pixel is capable of handling light better, thus producing a better end result than a small pixel. It's just the law of physics and electronics. Just look at pictures taken with a medium format sensor camera. Who wouldn't like to get their hands on one of those? $$$$$!

There is plenty to be said for the DSLR like a lot of people like the "big heavy" feel of one in their hands. I'm sure they will be around for a long time to come. However when Nikon comes out with a FX camera with the size feel and look of say the old F2 I bet you money this "latest greatest hot new thing" will be the talk of the town...

Yes, I have been shooting film from around 1964, when I got my first SLR, which was a Miranda, with an F2.8 lens and a top shutter speed of 1/500th second, and only full manual controls. Those were the days! Not really. But I do like the feel of the DSLR and its weight. I have big hands, and I would find the smaller mirrorless cameras just too small to use comfortably.

Many people prefer lighter cameras, but I find that a heavier camera is easier for me to hold still. My current camera +lens combination is well over 1Kg in weight, and it's only a D90. So if I ever migrate to full frame, it will be even heavier. No problem. With a heavier camera, you just feel you have got something substantial in your hands. I also prefer the clear, bright viewfinder of the DSLR, over most of the EVF's that I have seen and used, (although the new EVF's are now upto 1.2MP, so those may be pretty good). An optical pentaprism (not pentamirror) just makes framing and composition nicer for me. But that's just my opinion.

But are we getting a bit off the original subject here?

No not really...is standard 35mm format making a resurgence? Yes. Will it come out on top? Maybe unless they come up with a better format.

We'll see what happens when they make a FX mirrorless camera...and they will I bet.

They don't have to reinvent the wheel but if they want to keep selling units they are going to have to come up with something and I think we are coming to a standstill with the DSLR. How are they going to improve the D800 or the D600 for that matter? Those of you who just bought them...what is it going to take to get you to buy a new camera in a few years? Medium format sensor in a DSLR body a la Leica S2? I think it will be FX sensor in a small body a la Fuji X Pro 1 or Sony Nex etc.

I don't know if I agree. You said: I think we are coming to a standstill with the DSLR. How are they going to improve the D800 or the D600 for that matter? That is probably exactly what people said each time a new model came out. Remember the D200, and then the D300? That was the ultimate semi-pro camera for some years. Nikon has a way of surprising us every now and then. Who knows what they will come out with next? But that is part of the fun, isn't it? Incidently, hasn't Sony already got full frame mirrorless? The Sony A99 is full frame with 24MP and used the exact same sensor as the D600, and it has an electronic viewfinder, rather than a mirror/pentaprism setup.

The camera manufacturers release new innovations all the time. Who would have thought that Nikon would come out with a 36MP sensor? But there it is.

Mirrorless cameras are smaller than DSLR's, and many people just do not like them, because of that, especially men. The controls on a DSLR are well spaced and usually well placed for western people with larger hands. I certainly do not like to use a camera with fiddly controls.

Anyway, we will just have to wait and see. It is very often the market that drives these trends.

That is fair.

What is next after the D800? What is it going to take to get you to replace your D800? Where does FX go in the future?

I don't want a Sony or a Fuji for that matter I want a Nikon.