DX Future

When we shot with film we used Nikonos or Nikon bodies that lasted for a decade at least so we need to concentrate on building our lens quiver sure that the Nikon F-Mount and the film 135 format would never change. But in 5 years since I moved digital I changed bodies 3 times (and only because I do not jump at every chance!!! I forcibly missed the D100 and D70 generation!). This adds a new medium-long term planning for us and this is the picture we have in front of us as I can paint it:

When we became digital one thing happened:

- We were given the DX format because it was economically viable at the time. At the time I got a little upset (I like WA), but after the Nikkor 10.5mm, Sigma 10-20 and now the Nikkor 14-24mm I don't see much difference. In I fact prefer it for UW work with the 10.5 being better than the 16mm fisheye-wise and the good 1.5 crop on the 60mm and 105mm gave us basically a 90mm and a 160mm for the same price!!!

But one thing kept it's place in the back of my mind:

- The lack of good lenses for the DX factor. Aside from the 17-55/2.8 and the 10.5mm/2.8 no good professional primes were created, even though Nikon stated it's compromise with the DX format many times.

If you take a look at this chart you can clearly see how the DX format descended the line from PRO to ENTRY level cameras. And it's not hard to foresee the same pattern for the FX format.

On DPreview.Com Canon's 50D review it was said and I quote:

"It appears that Canon has reached the limit of what is sensible, in terms of megapixels on an APS-C sensor. At a pixel density of 4.5 MP/cm² (40D: 3.1 MP/cm², 1Ds MkIII: 2.4 MP/cm²) the lens becomes the limiting factor. Even the sharpest primes at optimal apertures cannot (at least away from the center of the frame) satisfy the 15.1 megapixel sensors hunger for resolution. Considering the disadvantages that come with higher pixel densities such as diffraction issues, increased sensitivity towards camera shake, reduced dynamic range, reduced high ISO performance and the need to store, move and process larger amounts of data, one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that at this point the megapixel race should probably stop."

It clearly hints that we are currently limited by the number of pixels we can place in one area. And it lurks around to 12Mp on a DX sensor and 24Mp on an FX sensor.

This could be a strong reason for a step-down movement of the FX sensor down the line increasing the overall pic quality. This normally happens at a pace of 2 years per step between the lines (Dx > Dxxx > Dxx).

This is where my concern for the future of the DX ( along with an unwillingness to spend bucks on DX lenses) comes from. I love it for UW work and I might keep my D300 or the next D400 (if still DX) forever or until they come up with a good D800 or D900 with a decent (10Mp+ DX crop on it).

What do you think?

There are quite a few people that believe that but I don't. I believe that there will continue to be some increase in both FX and DX resolution. There is the law of diminishing returns but that doesn't say there isn't any value. Sure, losing noise performance is a problem but sensors continue to improve and I suspect that DX will find its way to the 20MP point. Whether anyone thinks it's worth upgrading is another matter. The future is full frame in any case.

Craig,

Do you think full frame is the future for all DSLR's or just higher end prosumer and pro cameras? It seems DX (or any cropped format), will always have advantages over FF, predominantly size and weight that will remain a priority in the consumer market.

The scarier thing is that P&S are coming up with 15mp on little itty bitty sensors. If they keep that up, the SLR market has to keep going.

I think the DX and EFS market will lynch Nikon and Canon if they discontinue cameras for them. This is especially true for DX lenses, which are not cheap. It'll be interesting to see how long they can keep going though.

I think "cropped sensor" cameras will exist for a long time, whether in SLR form or not, and I think DX DSLRs still have a long life ahead. Drew is right, there'd be an outcry if either manufacturer tried to discontinue them prematurely. I believe FX will steadily and irreversibly gain in the market. DX will always have a size/weight advantage for certain types of shooting.

I understand the perspective that 12MP is a practical resolution limit for DX but I believe there can still be another doubling as long as we continue to use Bayer sensors. Taking a 24MP image and downconverting it to 12MP with a Bayer sensor yields better quality so I believe there's another "stop" left. Furthermore, tradeoffs change over time and there's still room for improvement in sensor performance. I believe we can have a 24MP DX sensor with today's noise and dynamic range. Time will tell.

It's possible that the overall market for true DSLRs will diminish because the low end is taken over by EVIL designs. It could be that DX DSLRs eventually disappear and are replaced with 4/3- and DX-sensored EVIL cameras. I'm not qualified to judge that though. I'm certain the current D300 and 50D will be replaced with something even better.

Modern cameras are so good - FX (I am told) or DX.

Last week for giggles (slow week) I had a play with the available noise reduction software on the market.

My problem was finding some noise to play with!

My D300 is absolutely amazing compared to the archived D70 shots I have.

Paul C

IMHO we have already reached a 'quality' level which is beyond most people's absolute requirements - very few images are ever actually USED to the point at which MPixels, resolution, lens problems, etc., become a REAL issue.

On one hand I see no problem with manufacturers continuing with the DX format, on the other, they have to convince future buyers that technical improvements are genuine - something which is more of a PR exercise and marketing issue than anything else. The real technical challenge is as commented, lens design and manufacture! But this has been known for a long time. Building 'pro' specification lenses (ultra-fast primes and wides) for the DX format is a challenge for designers, but more problematically, it is almost certainly very difficult in economic terms. I have a friend who designs lenses and he suspected several years ago that 15MPixel was the point beyond which lenses would become prohibitively expensive to manufacture due to the extremely high tolerances which would be needed. Of course technical innovation may just overcome this, but given that 'pro' spec. FX format lenses already exist (and have for some considerable time even at 'high quality') I wonder whether such lenses are worth building at potentially very high prices for a limited market.

But to answer the question, I'd suspect that DX format will be around for a long time, it will probably 'progress' in MPixel terms, and other 'improvements' which we can only conjecture about as yet. I also suspect that the FX format will become the more innovative format with access to lenses which currently appear esoteric (ultra-fast ultra-wides for example - these are already being built for the Leica M series, 21mm and 24mm f/1.4 lenses as well as a 50mm f/0.95, and it should only be a matter of time before dSLR equivalents appear). For underwater shooters, there also need to be optical innovations or we will simply not be able to utilise the potential of increased MPixels nor innovative optics.

I'm personally more interested in increased dynamic and tonal range than mega-pixels.

I think the D700 has hit the sweet spot for me ... but I shoot far more topside than underwater and use a tripod a lot of the time. I create 30, 50, 70 MP (and bigger) images with stitching software. As someone that shot a lot of B&W nature and landscape stuff on film - both 35mm and medium-format - it took me a while to "accept" digital image quality. (I also didn't understand digital post-production very well either, but that's another rant.)

I'd rather have a Nikon D700-like camera with 15 stops of DR than 24MP.

(I'd also love to see them shoot 4 minute clips at 60 fps )

We only have to look at history to see that 6x6cm film cameras needed much more expensive lenses than 35mm film cameras and that good FX lenses will always cost more than good DX lenses. So I believe that we will see DX continue. Wetpixel gives a window into an extremely esoteric world of photography that is probably less than typical of the world as a whole. After all, who would be daft enough to seal an extremely expensive camera in an equally expensive housing in order to expose the whole thing to a very hostile environment. Are you barmy? (I am!)

What's wrong with the attached picture? (I have a couple of cameras that I am happy to do this with!)

What's wrong with the attached picture?

Bubbles going in different directions from each other and from the "surface".

But it is a good pic!!! And you dig a good thing in lighting the "diver" specially his hands.

One thing that counts for DX is the competition w/ micro 4/3 format...

But if the FX sensor comes "down-the-line" I can see that in a decade or less we might reduce drastically the numbers of DX users, so that we won't see a big runt about it.

More than DX, maybe it would be interesting to see a nikon in this even smaller format.

Are you barmy? (I am!)

 

What's wrong with the attached picture? (I have a couple of cameras that I am happy to do this with!)

Your gloves are too thick to adjust the knobs properly. . . .

Bruce...

Answer: The camera is NOT in a housing.

I think DX will go away, but not for valid technical reasons. It's just that most people who buy DSLRs don't really understand technicalities.

They want to have a better camara than they need just in case. And FX sensor twice as big as DX sounds twice as good. Especially that FX is used in top of the line models. So people will want it even if they don't need it.

It's just like megapixels in compacts.

The camera is NOT in a housing.

Never!

I can't work out if it's a fake, or the ultimate fate of the DX sensor...

... but what I thought was wrong was the terrible eczema of your model's face (since you wouldn't get the colour balance so wrong)!

Tim