TR Forums

How bad of an investment do you guys think DX/APS lenses are? How long until a cameras in the D90/40D arena are built with full-frame sensors?

SpotTheCat wrote:

How bad of an investment do you guys think DX/APS lenses are? How long until a cameras in the D90/40D arena are built with full-frame sensors?

I, for one, like the "free" 1.5/1.6 zoom that said camera's give. Certainly helps for telephoto performance.

The D90 cameras are essentially advanced consumer DSLR's. and aren't meant for professional purposes. Also, there are actually benefits for cropped sensors such as smaller and lighter cameras, smaller and lighter lenses. and they are obviously cheaper. I don't think you will have to worry about APS-C lenses becoming obsolete anytime soon.

Full frame sensors are a big piece of silicon. They'll always be more expensive than a smaller piece, like the APS-sized sensors. So Nikon and Canon will always put them into their more expensive, Pro and "prosumer" cameras. Even if they start migrating the full-frame sensors down the product mix, there will always be a cheaper model with the smaller sensor (and other favorable attributes, as Ozenmacher suggests). When has Nikon made any lenses obsolete? You can use lenses from decades ago or more on modern cameras (in some cases with fewer capabilities, of course).

Personally, I do most of my photography at the wide end of the lens spectrum, so the crop factor on the smaller sensor is a PITA and made shopping for new lenses a requirement. But the full sensor SLRs would have to drop in price a lot before I'd switch back. I don't see that happening any time soon. Canon and Nikon like having the two niches with price segmentation. Some upstart like Sony might bring fullframe sensors into the cheaper price range eventually, and force them to respond, but it will be years before that happens (and if it does, there still will be SLRs that take the old lenses).

SpotTheCat wrote:

How bad of an investment do you guys think DX/APS lenses are? How long until a cameras in the D90/40D arena are built with full-frame sensors?

in a thread back around Fall 2007 I predicted that the 60D would be the last for canon with a cropped sensor. .. in that line. I suspect the Rebel line will stick around with cropped sensors a bit longer. Naturally, I could be wrong.. but if the 60D was the last in the line, that would make it somewhere in 2011 that the 70D or whatever its called goes FF.

its not like your camera will just quit working once Canon quits making new cropped sensor cameras in a particular line, though.
I'm still planning on picking up the 10-22 and the 18-270 from tamron eventually. besides that though.. I am trying to go with standard EF lenses.

I don't see full-frame cameras coming in below $1,500 anytime soon. APS-C cameras remain a wise investment as far as Iam concerned. I shudder to think what equivalent full-frame gear would have cost me. The cool thing is that you can use full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras (I am using a Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D and a Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM on my Nikon D80).

On the Nikon side, the DX lenses at least mount and work on the FX bodies, with the option to auto-crop (or not, if you want to use more f the image circle). Canon's aps-c glass is physically incompatible with their full frame equipment.

I doubt that they'll be obsoleted any time too soon, and by the time that they are pixel density will be so high that even cropping to DX from FX will be as good as current DX cameras anyway.

mattsteg wrote:

On the Nikon side, the DX lenses at least mount and work on the FX bodies, with the option to auto-crop (or not, if you want to use more f the image circle).

Cool. I didn't know that.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

mattsteg wrote:

On the Nikon side, the DX lenses at least mount and work on the FX bodies, with the option to auto-crop (or not, if you want to use more f the image circle).

Cool. I didn't know that.

Nikon didn't leave APS people to rot .

The APS/DX size is "good enough" for "most people", and when it comes to providing DSLR's for those same "most people" the smaller, cheaper piece of silicon is just the thing. Make no mistake, DSLR's have gotten really affordable in the past few years, but there's still a long way to go. In five years (give or take), I anticipate the entry-level camera bodies to cost just two or three hundred dollars, and there's no way any DSLR manufacturer can do that with full frame.

SPOOFE wrote:

The APS/DX size is "good enough" for "most people", and when it comes to providing DSLR's for those same "most people" the smaller, cheaper piece of silicon is just the thing. Make no mistake, DSLR's have gotten really affordable in the past few years, but there's still a long way to go. In five years (give or take), I anticipate the entry-level camera bodies to cost just two or three hundred dollars, and there's no way any DSLR manufacturer can do that with full frame.

Or the price points will be the same and there will just be better equipment to choose from.

I was wondering if anybody was speculating with some kind of evidence that FX cameras will trickle down the line to the point where the $1,000 body has an FX sensor.

I'm sure that will happen, I just doubt it'll be any time soon. And I don't think there's going to be a big push for it; I think you're more likely to see sub-$500 bodies for the Everyguy long before you see $1000 FX bodies. The way I see it, high-resolution large sensors are going to need the higher quality lenses to really take advantage of resolving power. This essentially limits such a product to a smaller market of individuals with more spending power and willingness to part with wads of cash.

SpotTheCat wrote:

I was wondering if anybody was speculating with some kind of evidence that FX cameras will trickle down the line to the point where the $1,000 body has an FX sensor.

i really have no idea what an FX sensor would be... some Nikon marketing title for their FF line?

danny e. wrote:

SpotTheCat wrote:

I was wondering if anybody was speculating with some kind of evidence that FX cameras will trickle down the line to the point where the $1,000 body has an FX sensor.

i really have no idea what an FX sensor would be... some Nikon marketing title for their FF line?

FX~= full frame which is about 35mm size.

Considering that by the time the cost of the sensor for FF drops to the point of supporting an under $1500 FF DSLR, the cost of the sensor for a DX DSLR will have dropped to the point that its price will be in the $300 range, I seriously doubt that DX lenses' usefulness are in jeopardy. Plus, Nikon, at least, seems to be incorporating DX compatibility with all its FX sensors. Considering how conservative Nikon is about camera design and its long-lived F-mount, I'd expect that practice to continue indefinitely.

You do know that the current D40, D60 and D90 models can use lenses made for the original, mechanical, film-based Nikon F released way back in 1959, don't you? You have to focus manually and use the histogram to figure exposure, but the lenses work just fine. That's one heck of a commitment to maintaining system integrity on Nikon's part.

One other note that may have some bearing on the issue: Even with the choice of FF versus DX, many professional photographers and advanced amateurs are choosing to continue using DX bodies over their FF counterparts for many situations.

Disclaimer: I am a professional photographer shooting with Nikon, Hasselblad, Leica, Linhof & Rollei equipment for over 40 years in addition to being a computer geek.

edh wrote:

Considering that by the time the cost of the sensor for FF drops to the point of supporting an under $1500 FF DSLR, the cost of the sensor for a DX DSLR will have dropped to the point that its price will be in the $300 range, I seriously doubt that DX lenses' usefulness are in jeopardy. Plus, Nikon, at least, seems to be incorporating DX compatibility with all its FX sensors. Considering how conservative Nikon is about camera design and its long-lived F-mount, I'd expect that practice to continue indefinitely.

That's my thought. However painful the thought of using part of your sensor may be to some people...they should still mount and work well into the future. They won't be state of the art, but they'll work.

edh wrote:

You do know that the current D40, D60 and D90 models can use lenses made for the original, mechanical, film-based Nikon F released way back in 1959, don't you? You have to focus manually and use the histogram to figure exposure, but the lenses work just fine. That's one heck of a commitment to maintaining system integrity on Nikon's part.

Can the D90 mount pre-AI lenses? The D80 couldn't (well, unless you modified them to AI, of course) and other than the 40/60 line I didn't think any of the current or recent cameras were pre-ai lens compatible. It's worth mentioning that the motor omission on the d40/60 bodies is a bit less conservative than normal, considering that it makes much of their current lens lineup less functional.

edh wrote:

One other note that may have some bearing on the issue: Even with the choice of FF versus DX, many professional photographers and advanced amateurs are choosing to continue using DX bodies over their FF counterparts for many situations.

Yeah, in a lot of cases they're essentially identical in functionality and a lot more economical. In others they're ahead.

SpotTheCat wrote:

I was wondering if anybody was speculating with some kind of evidence that FX cameras will trickle down the line to the point where the $1,000 body has an FX sensor.

Yes, it will happen eventually. However, by the time it does, a functionally equivalent DX format camera will be priced under $250.

The problem is that, unlike in the processor world where newer, more powerful processors with higher transistor counts are produced on smaller and smaller bits of silicon, with sensors, the physical size is dictated by the camera format and one can manipulate only the size of the photo sites. Even there, there are limits based on a wide variety of physical constraints. In other words, the only real economy that applies with sensors is that of quantity. The greater the number of devices produced, the lower their per unit cost. But the smaller DX sensors will most probably always cost about 20% the price of similar FF sensors.

mattsteg wrote:

edh wrote:

You do know that the current D40, D60 and D90 models can use lenses made for the original, mechanical, film-based Nikon F released way back in 1959, don't you? You have to focus manually and use the histogram to figure exposure, but the lenses work just fine. That's one heck of a commitment to maintaining system integrity on Nikon's part.

Can the D90 mount pre-AI lenses? The D80 couldn't (well, unless you modified them to AI, of course) and other than the 40/60 line I didn't think any of the current or recent cameras were pre-ai lens compatible. It's worth mentioning that the motor omission on the d40/60 bodies is a bit less conservative than normal, considering that it makes much of their current lens lineup less functional

My bad. Sorry. You are right. Like the D80, the D90 does require that lenses be "Ai'd" (All Nikkor lenses produced since 1972 are Ai or Ai-S, including all current lenses.)

As to limited functionality, that, too, is true. non-AF-S lenses must be focused manually on D40 and D60 bodies; however, the auto rangefinder function in the viewfinder does still work properly.

I went to bestbuy today and looked at their slew of Nikon Cameras (I don't intend to buy there, but they're the only place in town the the D90 on display!)

the D90 is a lot like the D80 in feel. It's top ISO is the same as the D40, but I would need to see how it actually performs at high ISO to judge it. The added resolution is meaningless to me if everything gets distorted. I'm leaning more and more toward the D40, which is so much better feeling than any canon below the 40D.

The lens that comes with the D90 seems pretty nice though. I'm thinking I'll get a D40 now, by preference. Hopefully if Nikon replaces the D40 before I buy, they do so with a camera with another low resolution, high sensitivity sensor. I'll then be able to more easily afford that freaking sweet 18-200mm VR DX lens.

I hope you are talking about the D40x and not the vanilla D40.

EDIT: Oh my:

Nikon ceased production of the D40x in December 2007, shortly before they introduced its successor, the Nikon D60.

That sucks majorly. I wouldn't buy the D40.

SpotTheCat wrote:

I went to bestbuy today and looked at their slew of Nikon Cameras (I don't intend to buy there, but they're the only place in town the the D90 on display!)

the D90 is a lot like the D80 in feel. It's top ISO is the same as the D40, but I would need to see how it actually performs at high ISO to judge it. The added resolution is meaningless to me if everything gets distorted. I'm leaning more and more toward the D40, which is so much better feeling than any canon below the 40D.

The lens that comes with the D90 seems pretty nice though. I'm thinking I'll get a D40 now, by preference. Hopefully if Nikon replaces the D40 before I buy, they do so with a camera with another low resolution, high sensitivity sensor. I'll then be able to more easily afford that freaking sweet 18-200mm VR DX lens.

They have D90s on display? Neat, I might have to go play for some fun. The high-iso output from the d90 should be pretty good. The sensor is d300-derived - these guys have a fair number of samples at all isos, and the same scene with other cameras as well. I've never thought of the D40 as a high-iso monster before - the sensor is descended from the D100 and my D70, neither or which are high-iso aces. If you use the comparator at the link above, the D90 is significantly better at high-iso. There's detail and texture that's just beyond what the d40 can capture. In fact, the D90 captures more detail at iso3200 than the d40 does at its base iso (d90 3200 vs D40, base). Even when quality falls apart at 6400, there's some added detail vs. the d40. Plus, the d90 has better AF lens compatibility.

How cheap is the d40 these days anyway?

D40 is $450 on amazon with the kit lens. It's a freaking steal.

The D40's ISO performance isn't monstrous, but it is better than the D40x, D60, and, perhaps, D80.

How on earth do you think the D90's high-ISO is better than the D40's base? Did you look at the images? The D90 there looks about on-par with a handheld. Very impressive for ISO3200, but nowhere near the D40's base. Look at the black and darker blue test square, and the black bottle and cup. There is a lot of lost quality on the D90 compared to the D40.

I'm still thinking D40 because the lens to me is more important than the body. Only needing the 18-200mm for almost anything I would ever want to do is really tempting.

I would love a 6MP DX camera based on the D3/D700 sensor. That would be a monster, and something I could afford.

SpotTheCat wrote:

D40 is $450 on amazon with the kit lens. It's a freaking steal.

The D40's ISO performance isn't monstrous, but it is better than the D40x, D60, and, perhaps, D80.

How on earth do you think the D90's high-ISO is better than the D40's base? Did you look at the images? The D90 there looks about on-par with a handheld. Very impressive for ISO3200, but nowhere near the D40's base. Look at the black and darker blue test square, and the black bottle and cup. There is a lot of lost quality on the D90 compared to the D40.

I'm still thinking D40 because the lens to me is more important than the body. Only needing the 18-200mm for almost anything I would ever want to do is really tempting.

I didn't say better, I said that more detail was present. For example, you can read parts of the bottles and make out detail in the lighter green square that aren't legible on the D40 sample. There's obviously some shadow contrast that's gone, of course, but it's not pure smear either. No, it's not a better quality image, but there's a fair bit of detail left (other than shadows which clearly get smudged there).

I consider lens way more important than body as well - the D40 wouldn't autofocus most of my lenses and being unable to use those and similar lenses to their fullest would be a significant drawback to me. If you're looking into sticking with the 18-200 and other new afs glass that's clearly not the big deal that it is for me, though.

mattsteg wrote:

SpotTheCat wrote:

D40 is $450 on amazon with the kit lens. It's a freaking steal.

The D40's ISO performance isn't monstrous, but it is better than the D40x, D60, and, perhaps, D80.

How on earth do you think the D90's high-ISO is better than the D40's base? Did you look at the images? The D90 there looks about on-par with a handheld. Very impressive for ISO3200, but nowhere near the D40's base. Look at the black and darker blue test square, and the black bottle and cup. There is a lot of lost quality on the D90 compared to the D40.

I'm still thinking D40 because the lens to me is more important than the body. Only needing the 18-200mm for almost anything I would ever want to do is really tempting.

I didn't say better, I said that more detail was present. For example, you can read parts of the bottles and make out detail in the lighter green square that aren't legible on the D40 sample. There's obviously some shadow contrast that's gone, of course, but it's not pure smear either. No, it's not a better quality image, but there's a fair bit of detail left (other than shadows which clearly get smudged there).

I consider lens way more important than body as well - the D40 wouldn't autofocus most of my lenses and being unable to use those and similar lenses to their fullest would be a significant drawback to me. If you're looking into sticking with the 18-200 and other new afs glass that's clearly not the big deal that it is for me, though.

Ahh. I am starting from scratch, so things are different. Other than the 18-200mm I would probably want a wide angle and a really fast normal prime.

Now that canon has a 18-200mm IS lens, I'll look into them too. I just can't see myself with a rebel though-I hate cycling through their menus.

SpotTheCat wrote:

Now that canon has a 18-200mm IS lens, I'll look into them too. I just can't see myself with a rebel though-I hate cycling through their menus.

Mind if I ask what kind of things you'd be looking to change in the menu's?

SpotTheCat wrote:

Ahh. I am starting from scratch, so things are different. Other than the 18-200mm I would probably want a wide angle and a really fast normal prime.

Now that canon has a 18-200mm IS lens, I'll look into them too. I just can't see myself with a rebel though-I hate cycling through their menus.

Well, then they're not so different after all. If you want a fast prime, hope the rumored new afs primes make good, plan on manual focusing or getting a body with a motor, or plan on going third-party with a sigma 30/1.4 or something. Wide angle? Assuming you're talking ultrawide zooms the Nikon and Sigma will AF on the d40, the rest (including the excellent new tokina 11-16) won't. The cost of the nikon isn't proportional to its quality, so realistically you're looking at the sigma. It's a fine choice, but at the same time it's not really a "choice" when you haven't much else to select from. I guess there's the phenomenal 14-24 budget-breaker too.

When you start to step away from buying new zooms, having an in-body motor becomes awfully handy on nikon. The price difference between what I've purchased and otherwise pretty much equivalent af-s alternatives is multiple times the value of my body. 2 control wheels instead of 1 is a big boost when shooting manual as well.

Couple things.

1. Dont diss the D40. Its has better dynamic range then the D40x and D60. MUCH better flash sync as well.

2. Not to add another format to nikons line up... BUT

DX, FX, and soon MX?

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/09/n ... dying.html

mattsteg wrote:

SpotTheCat wrote:

Ahh. I am starting from scratch, so things are different. Other than the 18-200mm I would probably want a wide angle and a really fast normal prime.

Now that canon has a 18-200mm IS lens, I'll look into them too. I just can't see myself with a rebel though-I hate cycling through their menus.

Well, then they're not so different after all. If you want a fast prime, hope the rumored new afs primes make good, plan on manual focusing or getting a body with a motor, or plan on going third-party with a sigma 30/1.4 or something. Wide angle? Assuming you're talking ultrawide zooms the Nikon and Sigma will AF on the d40, the rest (including the excellent new tokina 11-16) won't. The cost of the nikon isn't proportional to its quality, so realistically you're looking at the sigma. It's a fine choice, but at the same time it's not really a "choice" when you haven't much else to select from. I guess there's the phenomenal 14-24 budget-breaker too.

When you start to step away from buying new zooms, having an in-body motor becomes awfully handy on nikon. The price difference between what I've purchased and otherwise pretty much equivalent af-s alternatives is multiple times the value of my body. 2 control wheels instead of 1 is a big boost when shooting manual as well.

I'm thinking the kit lens would stay on my camera until I can afford the 18-200mm, at which point I'll be good to go on almost anything I want to do. I'm fairy certain I'd rather have the camera first, the 18-200mm second, and worry about the rest later. If I swing a better body now I won't be able to afford as nice of a lens as the 18-200mm, the lens that I would use for 99% of my shooting.