Hey folks,

I'm in a decision making quagmire about moving to FX with the D800(e) or sticking with DX. I now shoot with a D300s.

One of the factors in my decision is that I'm employed NOW. In a couple of years I might be retiring. My thoughts are that this might be the time to jump to FX while I can afford to.

Further, I'm wondering if DX will be sunsetted in the near future.

I understand the technical aspects of the decision. I'm just thinking that if I purchase the successor to the D300, support and products might start to get scarce.

Appreciate any opinions.

Beck

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The DX line won't be going away for years for one simple reason: cost. The cost to make an FX sensor is several times higher than the cost of a DX sensor. Thom Hogan indicates that the basic cost of a compact sensor to DX to FX is $5, $50, and $500.

But all that aside there's a simple reason why DX will stay around: look at compacts and camera phones. DX didn't replace those. FX hasn't replaced DX. They target different markets and different consumers.

> I'm just thinking that if I purchase the successor to the D300, support and products might start to get scarce.

Highly doubtful, at least in the relatively near future. Today, the FX bodies make up less than 10% of Nikon's DSLR shipments, and even if a price drop on the D700 moves that to 15%, it's still a tiny fraction of the market. It may not seem like it here at Nikonians where nearly 100% of the population is an avid enthusiast or professional, but the vast majority of the market is downstream, and Nikon won't be dropping that any time soon.

Arguably the lens selection might not improve, but FX lenses work perfectly well on DX bodies, if not better than that. Flashes work on all of the bodies.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Interesting thoughts guys. And I hadn't considered maybe upgrading to FX glass now for my DX and work towards an FX body later.

Thanks,

Beck

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I think DX will stick around for the long haul as has already been mentioned. When I bought my D200, I did not buy any DX lenses, because I was hoping for a FX camera. I kept my F100 and F5 lenses and added only one or two new FX lenses. I was unemployed for 16 months due to the recession, so didn't buy a D700. I have been working since May, 2010 and have a very stable job. Even so, I held off on a D700 since I figured a newer model was in the works. Now I find, later than I thought, the D800 is here. I am ready to buy.

Shoot nature with respect and don't trample it or startle its inhabitants.

Your decision to migrate to FX glass is probably very meritorious. I can foresee a situation where the cost of an FX sensor will be only pennies more than a DX sensor. And, since a 24-36 mp sensors will, perhaps, yield more MP per square inch than the current crop of DX sensors, that the camera manufacturers can make the marketing argument that a 36mp D800 sensor will yield a better image with a DX lens than a 14mp image will with a DX body. So, why not buy the FX sensor camera since you can still use all of your DX lenses in DX crop mode, but if you decide to buy FX lenses, all the better.

I think that this reasoning is similar to the post about not having to buy a telephoto lens for the D800 since it will have more MP per square inch than a D300S and similar to those on the D7000 sensor.

But, then what do I know.

jP

I'm waiting for the D 400 to come out and be tested before I decide which camera to buy. If the D 400 has the 16mp ( D7000) sensor in it with better AF and even better high ISO, I will probably get it over the D 700 at $ 2199.

DaveO

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Almost ditto for me - either a D400 or D800.

Phil
A Canadian Nikonian
My portfolio: www.pjr99.500px.com

The glass permits the flexibility. In the early 2000s I bought an F5. I accumulated several lenses for it: the Sigma 15-30mm, Nikon 35-70mm f2.8, Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AFB and the Nikon 80-400mm VR.

When I got my first digital SLR I considered dumping the FX glass, but a wise camera salesperson told me not to. He swung the decision on the 80-200, for example by showing me I had the equivalent of a 300mm f2.8. I didn't of course, but I bought that and held my old film glass. I held it through my D100 and D200, adding a Sigma 10-20mm on the wide end.

Then when I made the transition to the D700 and FX; voila' -- I had all my FX glass. I gradually got rid of a 24-120 f3.5-5.6 I had acquired, replacing it with a 24-70mm f2.8. But unpacking the 15-30 I was back in business. I recently bought a superb like-new 70-200mm f2.8 VRII and will sell the 80-200mm.

My point? Cameras come and go. Technology does likewise. But glass endures, especially if you have stretched for the pro stuff. So acquiring FX glass -- especially if you can find choice used items at reduced prices, is a right, long range plan. Good luck and if you make the move to FX, you'll already be there with your lenses. Whatever you have for a camera body, henceforth, buy only FX glass and you'll be all the way there when you make that transition.

Alan
Waterloo, IL, USA
www.proimagingmidamerica.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>My point? Cameras come and go. Technology does likewise. But glass endures, especially if you have stretched for the pro stuff.

Alan

Like you, I never bought a DX lens, (with the exception of the 18-55 that came with my travel camera, the D3100, which lens I subsequently sold even though it was a very capable lens), knowing that full frame was just around the corner. I wouldn't have even purchased a DX body, but I couldn't stand the suspense of having all of these Nikon cameras and Nikkor lenses in this digital age, so I broke down and bought a Fuji S3 Pro a few days after it was announced. I do not, however, agree with your statement that "glass endures" unless you change the second two words "especially if" to the words "provided that."

Technology has dramatically affected lens construction. Lens technology has exploded equally as fast as body technology. With a few exceptions like the 105mm 2.5 and the 55mm 2.8 micro, most of the Nikkor lenses of yesteryear do not hold a candle to today's crop of high quality lenses. I sold all of my old Nikkor non Ai, Ai and Ais lenses with the exception of the 55mm 2.8 micro, and I don't miss a one of them, not even the 105. My 24-70 and 70-200 knock the socks off of all of them. Is there an 85mm AIS that even comes close to the 85mm 1.4 D or G? How about the 24mm 1.4G or the 35mm 1.4G?

My point. Just like camera bodies, lenses have also benefitted dramatically from changes in technology.

jP

Beck,

I was in your situation a few years ago and made the transition to FX glass and then bought a D700. Others have made good points about the likely life of DX bodies and the fact that you can still use FX glass. I won't add to that.

I think two key factors with retirement looming are whether you can afford to tie up the additional capital by going FX and whether you can afford to keep replacing your FX bodies after retirement. That has to be balanced against the extra photographic benefits you expect to get.

I don't regret going FX, but I sometimes feel a little guilty about the amount of capital that is tied up. Those attacks of guilt usually occur as whenever NAS strikes and I add something to the collection.

Regards,

John

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

These pronouncements of the death of DX come with every new FX camera, and I generally believe they are short-sighted. However, the real threat to DX I believe is coming from below - what we have this time that we didn't have before is CX filling in the consumer market.

DX is gone from the pro bodies. With a $2200 D700 and an $1300 D7000, however, there isn't so much gap there for a D400 anymore. Nikon made the decision to include some of the traditional semi-pro features like magnesium body & weather sealing in D7K, which really positioned it closer to the D300s than the D90 ever was.

I still believe there's room for a semi-pro DX camera that offers pixel density and speed, which is why I don't plan to ditch my D300s when the D800 arrives, and would never ditch it for a D700. This D400 occupies a different niche than D700 and could perhaps live close to it price-wise.

But I have to say there's no denying this slot is getting pinched by D700 moving down and D7000 moving up from the traditional D70/80/90 market, and CX filling in the consumer market.

That said, I still wouldn't worry about making an investment in DX. With all the talk about the D800's allowing us to crop, you'd think DX was something just invented and not yet shipped. These machines are for taking pictures after all; they are not investment vehicles. They provide value in the images they capture, so pick the right tool for the job at hand and enjoy.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

Larry,

the real threat to DX I believe is coming from below

Not a threat in terms of Image Quality (IQ).
Current DX models like the D7000 already exceed the theoretical maximum for any CX sensor.
PDR Chart


Bill

Visit me at My site

Okay I will bite. What is CX

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43019448@N04/

> What is CX

That's what the Nikon 1 series uses for lens mount. I think Bill is referring to the sensor, though, not the lens mount, since in fact the mount doesn't have that much to do with resolution.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Brian,

FWIW.

Nikon calls the Lens Mount 'Nikon 1 mount' and the Image Sensor Format 'CX'.
So CX really only refers to the sensor.
Technically, Nikonians new lens forum is misnamed.
It should be Nikon 1 lenses not CX Format lenses.

Regards,
Bill

Visit me at My site

Ah. No wonder.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

>It should be Nikon 1 lenses not CX Format lenses.

You may be correct, but the new Forum was named with potential 3rd Party lenses in mind.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

And Nikonian's is sure, for example, that Sigma would call their lenses "CX format" rather than "Nikon 1"? (!)

Visit me at My site

It's entirely your call if you want to move to FX now, but we can be certain that DX won't be going away for many, many years, if ever. I read that over 90% of the DSLR gear (bodies and lenses) that Nikon sells are DX. This is their bread and butter business. FX would go away sooner than DX...

DX cameras and lenses will always be lighter, smaller and less expensive than corresponding FX gear. As an analogy, the fact that GM makes a nice Cadillac SUV does not mean that compact cars will go away.

Tom
Bay Area Nikonian

http://www.tkphoto.me/

I think that DX is doomed to be the poor relative compared to FX when it comes to lenses. There are still no fast wide angle DX lenses, as Nikon seems to be putting development resources into their FX lenses. Considering that the Pro bodies were all DX until a few years ago, it seems that Nikon is ignoring their user base if 90% of the sales are DX. Of course Nikon is in business to make money, and I don't know how the profit split between DX and FX plays out in Nikon's product decisions, but I still feel that DX gets less attention than it should as far as some lenses are concerned. This is a consideration in my plans for future upgrades as technology advances.

Matthew

DX isn't going anywhere. Make the decision based upon which sensor technology makes the most sense for the type of shooting you do.

To tag on to what several folks are saying further up, the glass is the key. I am in a similar situation as you. I don't expect to be working much longer. The up side for me is that I've been shooting Nikon since the late 70's. After going digital, I only ever purchased a couple of DX lenses and the only one that I would replace is the 18-200mm with the 28-300mm. I was planning to do that anyway because I really don't like the IQ on the 18-200mm anyway. I'll just shoot the DX 10.5mm (my other one) in DX mode on the D800. So my decision to jump to an FX body is simple.

If I were in your situation (assuming that you don't NEED to jump to FX now), I would invest my short term money in FX glass and target buying an FX body later. Assuming that FX body options will only get cheaper as time goes by, you could pick up an FX body in a couple of years as a "retirement gift" (even if it is to yourself - LOL). It would be newer and possibly cheaper at that time.

Another thing to consider - If you buy a D800 now, you're going to be chasing glass later and we can all see that the glass just keeps on increasing in price.

Hope this helps. And if you happen to be on the same D800 vendor list that I am, PLEASE take my advice in case you're ahead of me.

Dave

DX, CX, APS-C in general, micro four-thirds and a couple of other non-full-frame sensor formats are expanding in scope, not contracting. Nikon and all of its direct competitors are fully committed to expanding their 'small' sensor lineups. Nikon just released its Nikon 1/CX format, Sony's hottest new cameras are APS-C/DX sized sensor formats (the NEX series), Panasonic/Olympus/Samsung are all fully committed to the excellent micro four-thirds sensor format. DX is here to stay, evolve and become even better than it is now for many, many years.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

Great thought guys and I appreciate them.

Thanks, Beck

Visit my Nikonians gallery.