Is full size DX "Done"?

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Great link, Bob.

[johnspierce 25]

Thom has done a great job summing this up. It's difficult to defend Nikon for their lack of direction in DX; Thom lays out a good summary of what Nikon needs to do to fix it before DX truly dies (and takes a huge revenue stream with it).

 

One of the things Thom mentioned about Photokina is there was a complete absence of new third-party lens offerings in DX lenses. This doesn't bode well for the DX user.

 

But the big thing, and to me this is a BIG thing -- Nikon has totally ignored the D300 user. I loved my D300; one of the best cameras I've ever owned. The D7000 certainly has a superior sensor and will turn out wonderful images, but I liked pretty much everything else better on the D300 -- button location, lack of a stupid dial with "landscape" and "portrait" options, full weatherproofing, easier to change ISO and white balance, big buffer, compact flash. Nikon totally deserted me on that front and I would have bought a D400 a year ago in a heartbeat.

 

This is what Thom says at the bottom of his "state Of Nikon DX" page - http://bythom.com/stateofdx2012.htm and I totally agree.

 

"Overall, here in late 2012 the state of the DX market is this: Nikon is serving the low-end customer decently, the high-end customer much more poorly. This is not something they should want to continue, especially since those high-end customers (D7000, D300s users) are leaking downwards (to m4/3, NEX, X-Pro1)."

Edited October 1, 2012 by johnspierce

[John Bantin 101]

None of this is new. Nikon virtually abandoned the professional market in the late 'eighties in its pursuit of the point-n-shoot market. It was then really only interested in the consumer market. It was probably only the cost of large sensors that drove it towards DX at the beginning of the digital age. I guess now its marketing men see their customers divided between the consumer (compact) and professional (FX) with DX left in nomansland.

[Aussiebyron 57]

Everyone must know by now that Nikon isnt keen at telling the public what and when they are releasing their next model. Thats why everyone looks at sites like Nikon Rumours and make an educated guess. With the recent introduction of the D800/e and D600 and the serious consumer D7000 18 months ago I can't see Nikon releasing something like a D400 until at least 6-12months from now. My guess it would be a 24mp DX in a semi-pro body like the D300s with more than 6FPS rate and a large buffer with dual SD/compact flash card slots. Price the D400 at $1799 like the D300s and you on a winner.

 

Its due to the fact that wide angle DX lenses like the Tokina 10-17mm FE perform so well underwater that everyone with a DX camera hasn't jumped ship with FX cameras. This fact isnt the norm for any other topside photography market.

 

So at the end of the day underwater photographers in the serious amature to professional would be one of the smallest markets that Nikon would sell to. Especially when it comes to ultra wide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) angle and Fisheye lenses where its basically only us using these lenses on a regular basis.

 

When it comes to "I want it now" society you basically have 3 choices with Nikon. 1 Buy a D7000 currently the best DX camera available 2. Buy a Nikon FX camera like the D800/D600 3. Wait for something which might come out in the next 12 months. This has always been the case with Digital cameras as there a more regular release of different models. For me I am very happy with my D7000 setup. If I had the whole setup stolen for example I would use the insurance money towards the D800 as I know I might not use the whole 36MP now but I might be in a year or two with the hope of Tokina bring out a FX version of its DX 10-17mm FE.

 

Regards Mark

[johnspierce 25]

Good points Mark - for the U/W photographer, DX has some distinct advantages in Fisheye/Wide Angle and it can be argued that wildlife photographers with long lenses are DX fans too. I really, really hope Nikon keeps DX viable, but I fear if it's almost another year before they release a D300 replacement, that may be too late for the high-end DX user.

 

I am also on board with what Alex said about mirrorless keeping the sensor small so that lenses are small too. My Nikon V1 lenses are positively tiny and I like it that way! I recently took it to Switzerland as my only camera and I could carry my entire kit, camera, two lenses and flash in my photographer's vest. Nice. It performed very well, with the only lack being no wide angle option. Nikon says their J1/V1 line is one of their biggest sellers in Europe, but they seem to be ignoring it as badly as DX for some reason.

Edited October 2, 2012 by johnspierce

[Deep6 7]

FYI: Thom Hogan is wading in on DX this month. http://www.bythom.com/

 

Bob

 

Worth revisiting today.

 

Regards,

Bob

[pKai 1]

As Alex eluded to in his review of the EM-5 -- m4/3 will give 1.6 crop a run for its money underwater.

 

I'll go one step further in saying that mirrorless offerings including m4/3 and Canon's new 1.6 mirrorless "M" will make 1.6 SLRs disappear underwater. It won't happen tomorrow, but it will happen. IQ is very comparable and the "package" is half the size and less than half the cost. You can do a whole EM-5 system with housing, ports, and a couple of lenses for roughly the price of any SLR housing alone except maybe Ikelite.

 

I recently switched from m4/3 to FF on a Canon 5D2. I have also owned a 7D since they came out for topside use and have used it underwater with borrowed housings before. I saw absolutely no practical advantage to the 7D underwater over the m4/3 that would justify the added expense. Pixel-peeping, you could see minute IQ differences in favor of the 7D and AF was noticeably faster against my E-PL3. The EM-5 cured both of these shortcomings. Sure, an EM-5 can't keep up with birds in flight like my 7D, but generally we're not shooting fish swimming at 70+ miles per hour underwater.

 

The Canon 5D2/3 and the D800/600 from Nikon, OTOH, are clearly superior to either m4/3 and APS-C.

 

FF body prices compared to what they were even one year ago are dropping faster than an American diver that didn't know lead in the UK is weighed in kilos . Witness the D800, D600, recent 5D2/3 price drops, and upcoming 6D. Underwater, I predict a lot of APS-C shooters moving up to FF and P&S shooters moving to mirrorless.... The relative few of us that adopted m4/3 underwater will either stay or skip right over APS-C to FF. All this will result in APS-C SLRs dying a slow death underwater first and eventually, topside as well.

Edited October 2, 2012 by m1mm1m

[loftus 42]

Still makes absolutely no sense to me why Nikon or Canon would kill DX, despite the whinings and complaints of Thom Hogan et al. Sony have shown that it is quite feasible to make a pretty compact DX camera with their NEX cameras, so it could be argued that M4/3's do not offer that much in the way of compactness vs DX, just as one does not trade that much in image quality between the two. The only possibility would be that they would embrace 4/3 as well which seems highly unlikely considering Nikon in particular have always been committed to keeping the Nikon F mount. Even Nikon has to understand that their V1 / J1 is just a step up from compact camera sensors. Short of converting to M4/3 Canon and Nikon would simply be walking away from what is arguably the largest prosumer segment of the market which is the m4/3 / DX or thereabout segment. Interestingly Sony has acquired a significant stake in Olympus, and if Sony walks away from DX to M4/3 then that would be interesting. I am also a little confused with Hogan's obsession with the lack of DX lenses particularly as all the mid and telephoto range lenses are effectively interchangeable with FX lenses. I guess it's possible that Nikon would forego a D400 camera, but that would surely leave a significant gap in their offerings. There's really no sign that they are backing off the lower end up to the D7000 - which is still a very competent camera by any standards. I think it's quite possible that Nikon in particular has just been busy with some pretty groundbreaking cameras like the D800, and they are just a little behind in their DX line, particularly considering the manufacturing issues they had last year with the Thailand floods and the earthquake in Japan. Just because Olympus has come up with a pretty awesome camera in the OMD-5, can't see how that would make Nikon or Canon want to simply throw in the towel. The OMD-5 as great as it is, has only equaled DX offerings like the D7000 or the 7D that are effectively 1-2 years old, but not surpassed them.

Edited October 2, 2012 by loftus

[pKai 1]

Still makes absolutely no sense to me why Nikon or Canon would kill DX, despite the whinings and complaints of Thom Hogan et al.

 

I don't think necessarily killing DX/APS-C is in the cards for Nikon and Canon. I think its more like a move to mirrorless. I don't see Canon or Nikon adopting m4/3 -- I see them making APS-C mirrorless offerings like the EOS-M. This will appeal to topside amateurs looking for APS-C IQ in a smaller package and UW shooters looking for a less expensive alternative to SLRs but much better performance than P&S. There's no reason an EOS-M (or equivalent Nikon) housing can't cost as little or even less than Nauticam's $1300 EM-5 offering. That's much more attractive than $3.5k+ for a 7D housing or even a Rebel at $2800 or so.

 

I think what's being dealt the death-blow is APS-C SLRs, not the format itself. I could be wrong! All that said, I see this playing out for years before we see our last APS-C SLR on a store shelf.

Edited October 2, 2012 by m1mm1m

[loftus 42]

I don't think necessarily killing DX/APS-C is in the cards for Nikon and Canon. I think its more like a move to mirrorless. I don't see Canon or Nikon adopting m4/3 -- I see them making APS-C mirrorless offerings like the EOS-M. This will appeal to topside amateurs looking for APS-C IQ in a smaller package and UW shooters looking for a less expensive alternative to SLRs but much better performance than P&S. There's no reason an EOS-M (or equivalent Nikon) housing can't cost as little or even less than Nauticam's $1300 EM-5 offering. That's much more attractive than $3.5k+ for a 7D housing or even a Rebel at $2800 or so.

 

I think what's being dealt the death-blow is APS-C SLRs, not the format itself. I could be wrong! All that said, I see this playing out for years before we see our last APS-C SLR on a store shelf.

I agree; it could be argued that it's only a matter of time before mirrorless replaces existing reflex mirror cameras altogether as the drawbacks of mirrorless for higher end cameras are eliminated.

Edited October 2, 2012 by loftus

[Aussiebyron 57]

Just as a matter of interest is there a mirrorless camera/lens out there which has the same field of view as my Tokina 10-17mm FE at 10mm and can AF as quick as the Nikon D7000?

[Scubysnaps 9]

I'm hoping the Sony NEX-6 with their new sensor and their 10-18 will do the job, Sony seem to be the one with their fingers in all the pies at the moment,

 

correction...just found out the angle of view of the sony sel1018 is only 109 degrees when will someone make a 10mm or less fisheye for the NEX!!?

 

The Sony fisheye converter looks to be a different diameter too

Edited October 3, 2012 by Scubysnaps

[John Bantin 101]

We must not lose sight of the fact that the requirements of underwater photographers are simply not relevant to camera manufacturers. We are a tiny minority among the tiny minority that actually scubadives.

[pKai 1]

Just as a matter of interest is there a mirrorless camera/lens out there which has the same field of view as my Tokina 10-17mm FE at 10mm and can AF as quick as the Nikon D7000?

 

I see 2 options:

 

The Panasonic 8mm FE for m4/3 has a 180 degree FOV. I don't think there's a FE zoom for m4/3.

 

The Olympus OM-D focuses pretty quick. Whether its as quick as the D7000, that's another story. I don't shoot Nikon, so IDK, but the EM-5 rivals/equals the 7D in focusing the type of subjects we shoot underwater. I don't think the EM-5 would keep up with birds in flight moving at 70+ mph, but UW, our subjects are generally much slower than that.

 

If you haven't already, read the EM-5 review by Alex Mustard elsewhere on WP where he discusses the particulars of this camera versus existing APS-C DSLRs.

 

The EOS-M could use the Canon version of the Tokina 10-17 with the same FOV as on a Canon APS-C SLR and with full electronic support. We'll see who ends up making a housing for it, if anyone. DPReview has a preview where they state focusing speed is not bad and that they expect better with a production model and production lenses. I'd wait to read more on this one.... specially how well it functions with EF/EF-S lenses via the Canon-supplied mount adapter that promises full support of all lens/camera features.

 

 

One thing is certain.... after a period of relative boredom, things are happening again in the photo gear world!

Edited October 3, 2012 by m1mm1m

[jmauricio 24]

I'm hoping the Sony NEX-6 with their new sensor and their 10-18 will do the job, Sony seem to be the one with their fingers in all the pies at the moment,

 

correction...just found out the angle of view of the sony sel1018 is only 109 degrees when will someone make a 10mm or less fisheye for the NEX!!?

 

The Sony fisheye converter looks to be a different diameter too

 

For NEX users there is this Rokion (samyang?) 8mm Fisheye (http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-ultra-wide (weitwinkel)-Fisheye-E-mount-28FE8MBK-SE/dp/B0086UXT9K/ref=reg_hu-rd_add_1_dp). Its not ideal. Tho it's inexpensive, it's both manual focus and aperture. Maybe a F11 or F16 setting for depth of field and fixed focus will allow plenty of opportunities until something better comes along.

[jmauricio 24]

Canon and Nikon cannot let DX disappear. It is far too important to them in the volume end of the segment. Neither one can afford to abandon it, nor will they. These are business decisions. They will give the market what sells. There will almost certainly be new bodies and lenses well into the future. However, the SLR DX form factor is being challenged for the first time with mirrorless & low cost full frame. Those enthusiast that can afford it will likely move to the SLR FF form factor. That affordability will extend wider as FF becomes less expensive as is happening now. The rest of the market (well, those wanting more than a compact or Smartphone) will then choose Mirrorless or SLR DX. I think the reality Nikon and Canon face is simply competition. Canon has thrown their towel into the DX mirrorless form factor, probably rightly so. I think Nikon is playing a dangerous game with the J/V series. If m4/3 or DX mirrorless eat into the SLR DX market at all, Nikon comes out a loser.

[johnspierce 25]

The problem I have with the current APC Mirrorless offerings are they still use the same size lenses as my larger DSLR which in most cases has better button ergonomics. I'm with Alex on this one -- if you are going to give me a small body, make the accompanying lenses small too which means smaller, more high performance sensor.

 

I have the FT1 adapter for my Nikon V1 which is pretty cool because on occasion I can hang my 105mm F2.8 VR or other full size lens on it for some very nice photos, but it is kind of like putting a pot roast on a popsicle stick. I wouldn't want that to be my only choice; the V1 10-30mm and 30-110mm are more appropriate for most shots with that camera. On my brother-in-law's OMD the lenses feel "size appropriate" to me. Just my opinion, obviously lots of people are buying NEX cameras, so maybe that's the way to go.

[rtrski 20]

The funniest part of this whole discussion to me is the bit about if DX / APS-C SLR's disappear, most of you would prefer to go mirrorless for smaller lenses and perhaps even to smaller high performance sensors.

 

Yet just a couple years ago the 4/3rds system's 2x crop got reamed by many for being....smaller than even a DX or APS-C sensor. Now m4:3rds seems to be getting most of the mirrorless commentary in this thread.

 

How times change. Not intending to bash anyone, just find it curious.

[Otara 0]

I dont think its so much 'cannot' as theres no compelling reason to go to a m4/3 format for most of the advantages you get with a mirrorless setup. The whole point of M format with canon is to make the lens even smaller again without changing the sensor size, while still offering access to a massive available lens range.

 

Conversely, Nikons option is to go smaller again. Its M4/3 that is ending up in the middle really, not APS/DX, or at least thats the way Canikon is trying to go with the market.

 

Otara

[Otara 0]

The funniest part of this whole discussion to me is the bit about if DX / APS-C SLR's disappear, most of you would prefer to go mirrorless for smaller lenses and perhaps even to smaller high performance sensors.

 

Yet just a couple years ago the 4/3rds system's 2x crop got reamed by many for being....smaller than even a DX or APS-C sensor. Now m4:3rds seems to be getting most of the mirrorless commentary in this thread.

 

How times change. Not intending to bash anyone, just find it curious.

 

Because the early sensors sucked by comparison, the lens range was pretty ordinary, and there wasnt that much of a cost advantage. Speaking as someone who managed to sell his Olympus range not too long before 4/3 got abandoned in favour of M4/3, it kind of deserved a reaming as being too early and not good enough.

 

Otara

[Phil Rudin 461]

I think this is a lot of do about not much.

 

Some issues that may not have been addressed here are the fact that Nikon just passed 70 million lenses none of which were designed for mirrorless cameras. The cost difference between APS-C and Full frame is chaning but you still have two very different price points. A large number of photographers are not yet willing to give up on optical view finders which are still superior in favor of EVF's, if this were the case we would all be asking for Sony DSLR housings. Only a small section of the mirrorless camera market are cameras with an EVF though the number is growing. Many people like the idea that smaller sensors extend lens focal length. If larger sensors were a total panacea for photographers we would all be shooting Hasselblad or PhaseOne cameras which by the way are both supported by Nauticam housings and ports.

 

I also think a lot of this dissussion has been brought on by the release of these "full frame" cameras at Photokina. Photokina is held every other year and has traditionally been a show where the most advanced "pro" equipment has been announced like the offerings from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Hasselblad and others at this show.

 

The CES/PMA show is in January in Las Vages, this is more of a consumor type of show and I would expect to see any new offerings in the APS-C range at that show.

 

While I expect to see sub full frame cameras change over the next few years I think it will be a long time before we see them go away in favor of mirrorless cameras.

[pKai 1]

If larger sensors were a total panacea for photographers we would all be shooting Hasselblad or PhaseOne cameras which by the way are both supported by Nauticam housings and ports.

 

 

I have a lot of respect for you, Phil, but I have to take exception with that statement. A lot of (most?) serious and pro photographers would be shooting exactly those systems if they didn't cost more than their homes and weren't almost impossible to travel with absent a staff of assistants.

 

OTOH, I agree with you that sub-frame (meaning smaller than APS-C) won't likely replace DSLRs any time soon, if ever.... I do believe that APS-C mirrorless offerings such as the EOS-M will put a dent in the consumer-level DSLR market above as well as underwater. They may even become the dominant force in this segment a few years out.

 

A lot of people, myself included, started underwater photography with an LCD/EVF and never knew the joy of an optical viewfinder underwater. They won't miss it when they move from P&S or m4/3 to APS-C mirrorless.

 

Due to a fortunate quirk of fate, I shifted from m4/3 to a FF 5D2 for my underwater setup. Topside, I've been a Canon SLR shooter most of my life. On dry land, holding a camera 2 feet in front of my face is a most unnatural act. Underwater, OTOH, it seems perfectly normal because that's all I ever knew. I have to say, even with the 5D2, I find myself using live-view quite a bit. Whenever quick focus is not required and/or my position relative to the camera makes it hard or impossible to look through the viewfinder, the LCD happily comes on. Maybe a $1500 angle finder will cure this.... but so far, I'm not itching to get one.

 

I'm looking to hit the bridge this weekend.... shoot me a PM if you're into it....

Edited October 4, 2012 by m1mm1m

[Phil Rudin 461]

I am teaching a Macro class for Reef Photo starting in about twenty minutes and we will be at the bridge Fri, Sat and Sunday. So yes i will be there. I will post on the other issues you address another time.

 

Phil

[Glasseye Snapper 47]

How APS-C DSLRs rank relative to FF DSLR and mirrorless in a few years depends a lot on the rate of progress in each segment. Mirrorless is still young both in terms of marketing and technology. As one poster mentioned, not long ago mirrorless and 43rd sensors where looked down upon and now they create a lot of excitement. A big change has been a race to the top. No longer aiming for P&S upgraders but competing directly with DSLR and vying for advanced users. Apparently marketing showed that that is where the margins are and it is probably no surprise to see Sony, Olympus and Panasonic coming out with some very interesting, innovative, and high-priced bodies. The latter two are also upping the ante with lenses such as the new constant F2.8 zooms from Panasonic and the recent or announced range of high quality F1.8 primes, as well as the 60mm macro from Olympus. An influx of more demanding users will only create a bigger market for higher quality in all parts that make up a complete camera system.

 

So where does mirrorless still need to improve to really compete with DSLR?

- Viewfinder: the EVF in the NEX 7 and EM-5 are greatly improved over earlier versions and Toshiba just released a higher resolution version of the one used in the EM-5. Optical finders have been around for ages with little room for major improvements, at least not cheap ones. EVFs are basically electronics and as volumes go up and the competitive pressure is on to make them better chances are high that an EVF that matches or exceeds the utility of an OVF emerges while cost goes down. EVFs also create opportunities for more informative displays beyond what an OVF can offer.

- Autofocus: CDAF has already improved to the point where it is competitive with DSLR for static subjects. On-chip PDAF is a mixed bag with Nikon's mirrorless apparently doing best and the Canon EOS-M doing very poorly. We will find out what Sony's engineers have been able to accomplish shortly. But this is really just the first generation, compared to decades of development in DSLR autofocus. DSLR may well remain king but I expect the gap to close relatively quickly to the point where it becomes a non-issue for most buyers, it arguably already is, especially if DSLRs continue to lag on life-view and video autofocus.

- Other issues: body ergonomics, battery life ... but I don't think these are big ones for the bulk of buyers

 

Of course DSLRs have continued to get better as well but being a mature technology there is less room for improvement. So my tea leaves are telling me the following: 1) APS-C DSLRs have peaked and will fade out over the next decade, with perhaps a low volume production remaining for special user groups. 2) The bulk of the loss will be a move to mirrorless, with the rest moving up to full frame. 3) Nikon has to start again with a larger sensor, most likely APS-C, mirrorless model. 4) Canon is off to a poor start aiming for the well covered low-end of the market while all the other players are aggressively courting the high-end users. They will get it right eventually and use their resources and marketing cloud to get back into the game. 5) Sony will be fine and if they can push their lens line-up they will be doing great. 6) m43 will do fine for now but may have to compete more on price if/when their lens system advantage becomes smaller.

 

With so many detailed predictions I am bound to be wrong on most of them but had I know them to be right they wouldn't be predictions and it wouldn't have been half the fun

[Paul Kay 62]

APS dSLR are a compromise. a small format camera with a full format bayonet and flange to sensor distance which compromised lenses being built specifically for their format. They fulfilled a role but should now be on the wane as smaller format cameras with more appropriately sized bodies, bayonets, flange to sensor diistances and suitably sized lenses start to mature. Logically a better designed uncompromised system should displace a compromised one. (That said there have always been lesser systems which have wone out until something better came along - VHS usurped the 'better' Betacam until usurped itself by DVD). But in terms of cameras in an extremely competitive market I suspect that, as was commented in the last post, APS dSLRs have peaked and will now fade.