Investment in DX body and lenses a dead end?

cryptochrome

I just recently upgraded from a Nikon D80 to a D300 and invested in a couple of lenses, most of them being expensive DX only.

Now with the introduction of the D700 and the Sony A900 the market seems to move away from DX towards full frame.

That kind of worries me. I put quite some bucks into my gear and now I fear it might not be worth much anymore in a couple of years (talking 2-3...).

What's your view on this?

swintonphoto

Just because more full frame cameras are available doesn't mean crop sensors are bad. In fact, I personally think way to many people are getting excited about full frame cameras. They cost a lot more, require more expensive, larger, heavier lenses. And, you don't get the telephoto benefits of the crop sensors. Technology has been progressing rapidly, and the quality of the sensor on the D300 is fantastic. There are not many situations where you would really benefit from a full frame sensor over the D300's sensor in my opinion. The D300 handles noise extremely well, the camera is built like a tank, and it is extremely powerful. I would choose the D300 over the D700 any day.
Just my opinion. Lean on the side of technology I say - better sensors will keep on coming, and the drawbacks of the crop sensors will continue to diminish. Don't feel bad, the D300 is AMAZING! I would sure be happy with one.

cryptochrome

I am not really worried about crop format quality or the quality of my D300. I was rather thinking about the future, when I will possibly upgrade to a newer model. Will the crop format still be alive then? Will I be able to keep using my lenses? Will I be able to sell my D300 for a reasonable amount? If the crop format fades out and is subsequently replaced by full format, I doubt all these things. That's what I am worried about.

So basically: Will crop factor stay or will it disappear?

NikonsandVstroms

cryptochrome wrote:

I am not really worried about crop format quality or the quality of my D300. I was rather thinking about the future, when I will possibly upgrade to a newer model. Will the crop format still be alive then? Will I be able to keep using my lenses? Will I be able to sell my D300 for a reasonable amount? If the crop format fades out and is subsequently replaced by full format, I doubt all these things. That's what I am worried about.

So basically: Will crop factor stay or will it disappear?

I can't see it going away for a while, especially with Nikon since they have so much R&D invested in DX lenses. I was going to say maybe in a generation or two they would stop making semipro bodies but if the technology keeps advancing and they get D3 type iso performance we might see a pro-bodied sports photographer body with aps-c or for other work where longer focal lengths are needed

Mitchell

While I can't see DX going away within the next few years, I certainly won't be buying any DX lenses myself. The trend is clearly towards FX at this point. As these FX sensors come down in price, there won't be any reason to not put them in consumer level bodies.

luckyrwe

swintonphoto wrote:

...They cost a lot more, require more expensive, larger, heavier lenses. And, you don't get the telephoto benefits of the crop sensors. Technology has been progressing rapidly, and the quality of the sensor on the D300 is fantastic. There are not many situations where you would really benefit from a full frame sensor over the D300's sensor in my opinion. The D300 handles noise extremely well, the camera is built like a tank, and it is extremely powerful. I would choose the D300 over the D700 any day.
Just my opinion. Lean on the side of technology I say - better sensors will keep on coming, and the drawbacks of the crop sensors will continue to diminish. Don't feel bad, the D300 is AMAZING! I would sure be happy with one.

Actually the light sensitivity of the D700 sold me. I shoot at asa 5000 and have no grain. I did have the Olympus E3 and the 50-200 was a lot lighter than my current Nikon 200-400!

But the "telephoto benefit of crop sensors" is no different that cropping once you get the image into a photo editing program. Yes I lose pixels and have 5MP or so, but I still have the "telephoto benefit." I guess I can have a D300 for when I want to get the most detail from my 200-400 at a distance, like needing to read airplane tail numbers.

Other than that, I am tempted to get another D700!

swintonphoto

I'd like to add a little perspective to this discussion. Here are a list of all the DSLRs that are crop vs FF by all the manufacturers (as listed on company websites):
Canon
FF: 3
Crop: 7

FujiFilm
FF: 0
Crop: 1

Leica
FF:0
Crop: 1

Nikon
FF: 2
Crop: 6

Olympus
FF: 0
Crop: 6

Panasonic
FF: 0
Crop: 2

Pentax
FF: 0
Crop: 3

Samsung
FF: 0
Crop: 3

Sigma
FF: 0
Crop: 1

Sony
FF: 1
Crop: 4


TOTAL FF: 6
TOTAL CROP: 34

I think this adds a little perspective. Plus all the manufacturers are releasing new crop lenses all the time. I'd also like to add that a FF camera that costs $3000 is not taking over crop sensors any time soon. You can get pretty powerful crop cameras for $600.

Lastly, I find it interesting that historically - back in the film days - most used 35mm cameras. Even though larger, more detailed medium format cameras were available. Most stuck with 35mm because it was lighter and more affordable. Just because medium format was available did not mean 35mm died. Just because some more FF cameras are becoming available, doesnt mean the crop sensors are going to disappear. I actually think it is mostly a sign that DSLR manufacturers are running out of things to upgrade and they need to find another reason for people to keep spending money. Thats the business.

But, crop sensors are never going away. Only a handful of the DSLR owner market have FF cameras - a very small percentage. These companies make most of their money on crop cameras.

Mitchell

Jonathan, that's an interesting tally, but you are ignoring the trend.

I don't see how you can compare the present FX vs DX debate with the older medium format debate.

I can certainly imagine Nikon producing a prosumer FX body for less than $1000 within the next 2 years. Look at how they came out with the D700 so quickly after the introduction of the D3. It's just a matter of time. The prosumer market will demand these low noise FX sensors, and Nikon will give it to them in an affordable body.

NikonsandVstroms

Mitchell wrote:

Jonathan, that's an interesting tally, but you are ignoring the trend.

I don't see how you can compare the present FX vs DX debate with the older medium format debate.

I can certainly imagine Nikon producing a prosumer FX body for less than $1000 within the next 2 years. Look at how they came out with the D700 so quickly after the introduction of the D3. It's just a matter of time. The prosumer market will demand these low noise FX sensors, and Nikon will give it to them in an affordable body.

This all depends on Nikon's business model, they obviously are going to put a lot of effort now into making FX lenses but as I mentioned earlier do they really want to kill DX? It's a double-edged sword right now, you get people in the system, and they buy a lot of lenses many DX specific then want to switch to FX and have to buy a few new ones for specific applications (like wide angle) so you get them twice, but they aren't so happy, and they could jump ship to Sony or Canon.

But beyond Nikon I don't think the crop sensor will be going away, especially with Olympus. They physically can't go full frame since none of the lenses will work. But looking at the quality of the 50D I think even the 4/3 format will be providing us with dynamic range and low noise performance that is more than we will ever need currently, but it will open up a whole new forms of photography. And when the format's reach this point digital will have come of age

ziggy53

The "vast" majority of dSLR sales is crop 1.5x/1.6x format. To think that will change quickly is probably not too realistic. Canon is just now saying that they are using micro-lenses which completely cover the photosites. That alone signals a significant achievement and physical limitation in fabrication technology. It probably does not end the reduction in photosite size which affects pixels density because new technologies are coming to bear which allow potentially greatly increased densities at current signal-to-noise ratios.

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=745282&postcount=1

I suspect that when the camera companise cease to develop new "crop" lenses for a couple of years in a row that may signal the end of the crop cameras. The camera companies won't develop lenses for a market that won't exist.

On the other hand, if we see more and more high-end lenses develpoed for the crop cameras that's an indication that the camera companies see a bright future in crop sensor technology.

I currently own 4 crop 1.6x cameras and I have faith that they will serve me for some time to come as will the crop lenses I own.

Mitchell

ziggy53 wrote:

I currently own 4 crop 1.6x cameras and I have faith that they will serve me for some time to come as will the crop lenses I own.

As usual, interesting thoughts, Ziggy. The better question for you is would you buy a new $1,000 lens made specifically for a cropped body?

I also own 4 crop bodies. When I look at my glass collection and consider my next purchase to satisfy my lens lust, I can't imagine myself buying a DX lens. I don't think these will hold their value down the road. You can always put an FX lens on a DX body.

i_worship_the_King

Welp, from the other side of the fence I hope DX goes out FAST so broke college students everywhere can finally afford great glass and great used bodies.:D

Cygnus Studios

I also wondered why so many invest in the DX glass. With 30 years of glass available, plus plenty of new options that work just as well with DX cameras, why invest in options that only work with limited models.
While I assume that the DX systems will be around for quite some time, eventually the FX system will be the rule of thumb.
The sensors will get better and megapixels will follow. It seems to me that if you can get lenses that work with either system that is the better choice in the long run.

ziggy53

Mitchell wrote:

As usual, interesting thoughts, Ziggy. The better question for you is would you buy a new $1,000 lens made specifically for a cropped body?

...

Absolutely, and I did so just this year. I purchased the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM brand new not too long ago. There is no full-frame lens like it in terms of range and quality and feature set.

It is a wonderful lens and almost perfect for my application of weddings and events, both paying and personal. I use it all the time and I have absolutely no regrets.

It compares very well in terms of image quality with the several Canon "L" lenses I own.

System

Question
First off, please, please please take this for what it is and nothing more than a simple question / opinion.

My first instinct at the original posters question is: are we truly concerned with "how" much our gear is going to be worth in a few years. Please someone correct me if I have read his/hers concerns wrong. I agree that our gear should retain it's value but if that is the main reason for the purchase of the gear, am I not heading down the wrong path of photography.

Shouldn't my, or our concerns as a photographer, be more of what or how can this particular piece of equipment help me with my final outcome of producing quality images.

I certainly am not a seasoned pro and I don't have an abundant amount of money laying around to purchase glass. With that being said isn't it more appropriate to look at a perspective piece of equipment and value what it can offer me as a photographer as apposed to what it will offer me in value money wise, a few years from now.

I certainly know that I have made some purchases that I have regretted, but that was my own fault for not investigating more of what I needed.

Again, I don't mean to upset anyone with this post. I have read everyones statements and find great value in all of them. But for some reason it felt to me that the original question was over looked.

The monetary value of our gear is meaningless to the outcome of our photography in my own opinion.

For example, look at the 7 completed challenges on here and you will see a wide variety of images shoot with a wide variety of equipment.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe Andy once said that a great photographer can make bad equipment work well under any circumstance. I strongly believe in this statement as I look around this message board and see the high quality of images being produced by the seasoned pro and the newest of beginners, it's obvious that equipment has a part in it, but it's the person behind the camera with the vision that makes it happen.

Just my .02 cents and again I apologize if I offended anyone with this post.

Cygnus Studios

barrotj wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe Andy once said that a great photographer can make bad equipment work well under any circumstance.

I don't believe that anyone thinks that DX glass is bad. I have seen great lenses in the DX format. Personally I have never sold any SLR equipment, so I have not considered resale value as a primary thought when purchasing a lens. One of the reasons I chose to stay with Nikon when switching to digital was the ability to use all of my old lenses.
When I upgraded to the D3, I remembered why I love some of this glass so much.

System

Correction, I was not trying to say that DX glass is bad, I was merely pointing out that regardless of equipment used, it is the photographers ability to use that equipment, that makes or breaks the photograph.

Calnumismatist wrote:

I don't believe that anyone thinks that DX glass is bad. I have seen great lenses in the DX format. Personally I have never sold any SLR equipment, so I have not considered resale value as a primary thought when purchasing a lens. One of the reasons I chose to stay with Nikon when switching to digital was the ability to use all of my old lenses.
When I upgraded to the D3, I remembered why I love some of this glass so much.

swintonphoto

barrotj wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe Andy once said that a great photographer can make bad equipment work well under any circumstance. I strongly believe in this statement as I look around this message board and see the high quality of images being produced by the seasoned pro and the newest of beginners, it's obvious that equipment has a part in it, but it's the person behind the camera with the vision that makes it happen.

Well said!

kts

Another thing to think about, is as the resolution/MPs go up on the new FX bodies that in turn should also up the resolution/MPs when you're on "DX mode" on an FX body and using a DX lens.

Since the D3x/D4/whatever they are calling it will probably be in the 24mp range that should mean that in DX mode will be in the 10-12+ MP range making your shots about the same quality as they would be if you took them with a D300.

I was also debating if I should get a 17-55 since Nikon seems to be moving to FX, but when I found a great deal for one I jumped on it since it will probably be a few years before I move from my D300 to an FX body and that's a lot of shooting between now and then. Not to mention the higher resolution of DX-on-FX when the next generation of FX stuff comes out so I can still use my DX lenses and get the same quality as I am now.

luckyrwe

Olympus would argue that they are full frame. Yes they left 35mm completely, but their lenses do not crop at all.

swintonphoto

luckyrwe wrote:

Olympus would argue that they are full frame. Yes they left 35mm completely, but their lenses do not crop at all.

Thats true. Guess that would also apply to Panasonic & Leica as well.

jonh68

If manufacturers can get noise performance of the FX cameras in DX bodies, I think there will be a big market for DX for wildlife and sports. I don't see the DX format dying off anytime soon

Where I see the problems in getting DX lenses would be on the wide angle side where the true benefits of full frame come into play. I will not buy a wide angle geared for DX like the Tokina 10-20 2.8 for the D300 when there are better options for the D700.

That being said, my next lens purchases are going to be more geared for the full frame of the D700 unless a DX lens comes out that just sings on the cropped format.

davidweaver

This is starting to follow along the lines of Nikon v Canon. It doesn't matter. What matter is being able to use the gear to produce quality images.


The vast majority of pictures taken these days are with P&S and phone-cameras. Those formats are the biggest market formats these days. I was helping someone with a camera-phone take better pictures the other day. I didn't dismiss the equipment at all. I was only providing some training to help them take better pictures with what they had. Look at the the D700 that allows you to shoot in DX or FX!

For me, I'm very happy that I bought a FX lens (120-300 f/2.8) to use on my dinky D300s. with a TC I get a 360-900mm f/5.6 lens. It, and my other lenses are just tools to use to make images that I can sell. I'm also really happy with my 10.5mm DX fisheye lens. It is light and small. The 15mm Nikkor is a beast and a great lens too.

I used to do a lot of film-based underwater photography in the 80's. I used 8080s and not the F4 as the cost of housings and bodies made it affordable to make great pictures without having to mortgage the house.

Time marchs on as does the innovation in optics. I have a great prime 300mm Nikkor but it is slower to focus than newer versions. I have a 70-300vr FX lens that has some issues but works great for me in many of the places that I shoot.

Again, all tools.

If you need a 12" chop saw then buy a 12" shop saw. If a 10" chop saw does what you need it to do then that is fine. No one should look at a photograph and say that was shot with a DX or FX or Medium/Large format camera. It is all about the images that are created.

Just MHO.

cheers,
David

InsuredDisaster

Calnumismatist wrote:

I also wondered why so many invest in the DX glass. With 30 years of glass available, plus plenty of new options that work just as well with DX cameras, why invest in options that only work with limited models.
While I assume that the DX systems will be around for quite some time, eventually the FX system will be the rule of thumb.
The sensors will get better and megapixels will follow. It seems to me that if you can get lenses that work with either system that is the better choice in the long run.

Well, from a non pro end, there are some great lenses that work with the DX format. Take the 18-200mm zooms. Sure, they leave a lot to be desired, but I don't think you can find too many such lenses in the FX format, especially with many of them having VR/OS/IS, etc.

Matthew Saville

My Professional Opinion:
Alright, as a full time photographer who has been shooting DX for about 4 years now, here's my take:

Bottom line is, I gotta get work done, DX gets the work done without complaints from my clients, and FX costs twice as much. End of discussion. Sort of.

Yes, A D700 would be really sweet. Yes, I might buy one in 1-2 years. Yes, I might end up selling some of my DX lenses / bodies. However, I'm not worried about the resale value, I'm probably going to shoot this gear into the ground, and it's mostly a business expense anyway. I'll sell it for a few bucks to a friend who is just gettting into photography, just like I sold my beat up old D70.

What's more, as I said I simply must get work done between now and when I can afford FX, so it is an obvious decision to "invest" in the DX gear that I need NOW.

That's my take. Professionally, FX may be the future for 90% of shooters, but that's the future, and I've got hundreds of jobs to shoot between now and then.

As an amateur, (?) you need to decide- do you really need that expensive gear anyway? I must admit, it doesn't make sense to buy an $1800 toy now if you think you want a $3000 toy in the long run. (And also consider, in a couple years the D700 may cost as little as $2000, who knows...)


Also, the concept that FX will take over the entire DSLR industry is just ridiculous. The MASSES want a $99 DX DSLR, not a $999 FX DSLR. 75% of the DSLR consumers out there have WAY more than they'll ever need in the likes of the D90 / 40D / 50D. Slapping an FF sensor in the D90 is just a terrible idea, fueld only by us camera geeks who WOULD appreciate such a camera. Yes, I admit it sounds like a good idea at first, but think about it. People want FPS, quality AF, etc. etc. FAR more than they want clean ISO 6400 and an extra stop or two of DOF.

All Nikon needs to do is make some AF-S primes, and the DX lineup once again makes complete sense.

=Matt=

BigAl

Mitchell wrote:

I don't see how you can compare the present FX vs DX debate with the older medium format debate.

Posted on dpreview yesterday:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091002leaf_afiII_aptus_10_7_6.asp

Full frame an is an overrated buzzword. 35mm film was never "full frame".

cryptochrome

barrotj wrote:

The monetary value of our gear is meaningless to the outcome of our photography in my own opinion.

Well that's your opinion and I get your point. Of course I buy my cameras based on their quality and the goals I want to achive.

But let me tell you, if Nikon (or whoever else) is telling me today that DX is great and I invest thousands (not hundreds) in DX glass, I will be absolutely pi§$(/ed if five years later Nikon tells me now DX is dead and I can throw all my DX lenses into the trashcan. It's not like I am looking at every single penny I spend, but throwing thousands and thousands of dollars in the trash is not what I want. So yes, when purchasing new equipment it is definitely worth checking what the value of these items will be like in a couple of years or whether you will be able to use your gear with new camera bodys five years from now.

Matthew Saville

cryptochrome wrote:

Well that's your opinion and I get your point. Of course I buy my cameras based on their quality and the goals I want to achive.

But let me tell you, if Nikon (or whoever else) is telling me today that DX is great and I invest thousands (not hundreds) in DX glass, I will be absolutely pi§$(/ed if five years later Nikon tells me now DX is dead and I can throw all my DX lenses into the trashcan. It's not like I am looking at every single penny I spend, but throwing thousands and thousands of dollars in the trash is not what I want. So yes, when purchasing new equipment it is definitely worth checking what the value of these items will be like in a couple of years or whether you will be able to use your gear with new camera bodys five years from now.

There is one flaw in this logic. New gear does not make old gear "dead". You don't HAVE to throw your DX gear in the trash in five years.

You need to qualify your argument: You want to remain at the cutting edge of technology. That's perfectly acceptable, and common practice among those with enough discretionary income to do so.

And when this is the case, I am sorry but I think no "setup" will last the test of time. In 5+ years, "cutting edge" may not even use the F-mount. In fact I'd BANK on that!

Which is why I say, to heck with staying cutting edge. If the D300 is good enough for me now, it'll still be good enough in 5 years. I can't even imagine buying every new body that comes out! Especially if you shoot Canon; 40D owners (who want to stay on the cutting edge) are really hurting right now! (And yet, the other 40D owners who are happy with their 40Ds, well, they're still out making great photos!)


It's all a matter of perspective, my friend. DX DSLR's have truly arrived, especially with the D300's sensor. As good as DSLR's might get in 2010, as affordable as FX might be then, it's still two years away and we can't change that fact. You can't despise the present just because the future will be better...

=Matt=

System

Matthew Saville wrote:

There is one flaw in this logic. New gear does not make old gear "dead". You don't HAVE to throw your DX gear in the trash in five years.

You need to qualify your argument: You want to remain at the cutting edge of technology. That's perfectly acceptable, and common practice among those with enough discretionary income to do so.

And when this is the case, I am sorry but I think no "setup" will last the test of time. In 5+ years, "cutting edge" may not even use the F-mount. In fact I'd BANK on that!

Which is why I say, to heck with staying cutting edge. If the D300 is good enough for me now, it'll still be good enough in 5 years. I can't even imagine buying every new body that comes out! Especially if you shoot Canon; 40D owners (who want to stay on the cutting edge) are really hurting right now! (And yet, the other 40D owners who are happy with their 40Ds, well, they're still out making great photos!)


It's all a matter of perspective, my friend. DX DSLR's have truly arrived, especially with the D300's sensor. As good as DSLR's might get in 2010, as affordable as FX might be then, it's still two years away and we can't change that fact. You can't despise the present just because the future will be better...

=Matt=

I 100%

i_worship_the_King

BigAl wrote:

Posted on dpreview yesterday:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091002leaf_afiII_aptus_10_7_6.asp

Full frame an is an overrated buzzword. 35mm film was never "full frame".

Leaf Aptus‐II camera backs boast a 12 f‐stop dynamic range

geez...

swintonphoto

I guess the biggest thing for me is that when I upgrade, it is because my current gear is limiting me. I don't feel limited by my current gear. I feel like I am able to produce high quality images that my clients are happy with. To drop everything and invest thousands makes no sense to me when the current setup makes me extremely pleased.