I thought DX is long gone....

[Peter_S]

Hi all,
what do you think about DX?
I was waiting years for the first Nikon ff and finally got a D700 and then a D800.
I sold all my DX lenses and got a bunch of good FX lenses instead, because I was sure DX is gone....
Now only for the "walk around" I got a D3200 to use  it with my small chipped primes, e.g. 20mm f4 ai  and 50 mm f1.8 ais and other small primes.

And what a surprise, the image quality and especially the resolution is stunning. For macro it's darn perfect with my 50 2.8 and 3.5 lenses. Also the 105 mm 2.8 AFD with extension tubes and TC14b is excellent.

In principle it's one stop away from the D800. If I may use my D800 until iso 3200 with post processing I may use my D3200 until iso 1600.

Ok, it's not a D800 body in terms of handling, never.


What do you  think only regarding image quality?

Looking forward to read your replies.

Peter

[Ilkka Nissilä]

My latest experience with DX is with the 24MP D7100. The image quality was excellent with the best lenses, but the buffer was an issue for me. Today there are modern DX cameras with larger buffers (D7200 and especially D500) and better AF (D500) but still I find I prefer the larger viewfinder of FX cameras and the greater tolerance for certain kinds of errors during shooting, and the fact that the larger format makes lens aberrations less obvious in the final print. I find the colours and tonality of the D8x0 to be better than the D7100 and I like the availability of fast wide angles on FX.

I think DX is fine for most uses and excellent for certain telephoto applications, it is quieter than an FX DSLR, smaller and less expensive. I don't think DX is going anywhere as a widely used format but it is not really the right format for me, not without fast wide angle primes optimized for the format available. I think Nikon shot itself in the foot by making DX cameras for 18 years and still not providing wide angle primes for it (yes, I know you can use an FX lens but if the sun is just outside of the frame it will ghost and flare like no tomorrow). They somehow got away with it but I think in the long term people regard this as customer unfriendly trying to push everyone who needed fast wide angles to move to FX. 3rd party manufacturers at least make a 11-16/2.8 and 18-35/1.8 zooms nowadays but I think primes could be smaller and give better image quality, if they wanted to make them.  I think offering a complete system to users of all levels of cameras is important.

[gryphon1911]

Before getting the D500, my previous DX camera was a D300.   AF never disappointed, but the hard stop on that camera in terms of ISO was ISO 1600.   With the D500, ISO 14,400 is not unheard of and produces usable images if I need to go that high into the ISO range.  Normally, ISO 6400 is as far as I need to go.

Shooting a lot of sports, getting as close to the action from your often sequestered position is always a benefit.  The D500 has proven itself more than once to me to be a "cream of the crop" camera despite the sensor size.  In some ways it puts my D700 to shame(WB on the D700 can often be less accurate than that of the D500).

Right now, my feeling/perception/attitude is that the only camera right now that us "better" in IQ than the D500 is the D5.  Purely subjective on my part, but that is my take on it anyway.

I also come from a place of using some mirrorless cameras(Olympus m43/Fuji).  Fuji tends to get too aggressive with the hi ISO noise reduction and gives you limited control over how/when it uses it.  Olympus gives you more control, and they handle color noise quite well, even at ISO 6400.  However, even at base ISO, m43 sensors can show a noise pattern that some would consider unacceptable.

I only bring this up because these are failings that I do not see in the newest on Nikon sensors and JPG processes.

Here are some images from a sports festival that I shot this past weekend(March 2-5, 2017). 
https://goo.gl/photos/CDkd9xmeutRLd7Qh9

A mix of D500 and D700 images, mostly higher ISO and low, challenging light conditions.   I think you'll be hard pressed to tell which shots came from the D700 or the D500.  EXIF data is intact if you want to know the shooting details.

So, am I surprised by the OP's revelation.  Not at all.  I share it and have no qualms at all working in the DX wheelhouse.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I'm using whatever camera is suited to the task at hand. Over the years that translates into an array of different cameras and formats as well.

Specifically, the DX or smaller format cameras I use are as follows;

• Nikon D3200 for UV (stills)
• Panasonic GH-2 (mainly UV video)
• Nikon AW1 (rough or wet field situations)
• Nikon 1V1 (modified to take exotic lenses)
• Sony NEX-3 (as for the V1)
• Nikon D500 (general use)
• Nikon D5300 (main IR camera)
• Nikon D200 + D40X (backup IR cams)
• Fuji S3 Pro ('broad spectrum')
• Fuji S5 Pro (for false-colour IR)

I do use FX bodies: Nikon D3X, D3S, and D800 for landscapes and general work as well. For UV and multispectral work, there is a D600. On occasion, D700 in an underwater housing.

I'd say I'm pretty format agnostic these days.

[richardHaw]

there will always be a place for DX

[benveniste]

The success of the D500 is proof that the nay-sayers, including Nikon's marketing department, reported the death of pro- and prosumer level DX prematurely.  That said, the long register distance of the F-mount was never a comfortable fit with DX.  At shorter focal lengths, it makes lenses more expensive and larger than they need to be.  It'll be interesting to see how things play out as APS-C EVIL cameras improve and evolve.

[gryphon1911]

The success of the D500 is proof that the nay-sayers, including Nikon's marketing department, reported the death of pro- and prosumer level DX prematurely.  That said, the long register distance of the F-mount was never a comfortable fit with DX.  At shorter focal lengths, it makes lenses more expensive and larger than they need to be.  It'll be interesting to see how things play out as APS-C EVIL cameras improve and evolve.

I believe that Nikon will eventually have a new lens mount for their mirrorless for sensor sizes on the FX/DX scale.  However, if they are smart, they will make a converter that will allow, at least the AF-S lenses and never F-mount to work on the mirrorless.  This will make any transition from existing users to the newer systems much more palatable.  Just my thoughts, though.

[David H. Hartman]

My strong preference is for FX but there is a place for DX and I would like a Nikon D500 for telephoto, close-up and macro. A fine 12.5mm f/2.8 and 15mm f/2.8 DX lens would be nice.

Dave Hartman

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The success of the D500 is proof that the nay-sayers, including Nikon's marketing department, reported the death of pro- and prosumer level DX prematurely. 

Nikon marketing always try to sell what products they currently have. Anything else would be working against the company's best interest and their shareholders and potentially lead to the Osborne effect.

Some  interviews with higher level Nikon execs were much more moderate, and they said they knew many of their customers preferred the narrower angle of view of DX cameras and Nikon hadn't forgotten their DX users. This was a few years ago e.g. in the Nikon Owner magazine published in the UK. Looking at the D500 today it seems obvious they wanted to get it just right and before the Multi-CAM 20k it wouldn't have had the same impact. It would have been just an expensive, fast D7200. With Multi-CAM 20k it became a product which is clearly ahead of its competitors in telephoto action photography, and yet not take anything away from the D7200 in the much lower price class.

As for the long flange distance, it is what it is, but that very same thing allows such excellent coverage of the sensor area with AF points. DX DSLR with a shorter flange distance would not have space for the Multi-CAM 20k. A mirrorless camera with integrated phase detect points is more limited in handling situations where the focus is far off; the range of phase differences that can be measured by a DSLR focus sensor is greater, which leads to almost instant focus acquisition with fast teles. For wide angle mirrorless has its own advantages, and I would not be surprised if mirrorless cameras had better AF when using a fast wide angle prime. I don't think these relative merits are going to disappear over time. Time will tell how the products evolve but it is nice to see such diversity of camera types today compared to the past where there were fewer options.

For me a mirrorless camera isn't going to have an EVF; I will choose models which have LCD and an optical viewfinder  I was just trying out the Fuji X-T2 and when I pressed the shutter button half way the viewfinder image went all white for a short time and then it got to normal exposure again - what is that about? I tried to find settings to disable this flashing but wasn't able to. Also the outlines of objects were shown with jaggies (staircase like effect of pixels) where the steps move to different places as I turn the camera around even just a little. To me those artifacts are very distracting and I find it not possible to intepret the scene and human expressions in the presence of such moving artifacts. With the LCD I can live as it is such a small part of my visual field and I don't find the artifacts as bothersome when I can watch the subject with my eyes directly bypassing the camera. But using the back LCD wouldn't work for telephoto action photography due to stability concerns, and I think DX DSLRs will continue to have a large presence in that particular field of photography. The D500 viewfinder by the way seems larger, almost FX size due to its higher magnification, so even that argument is less of an issue today than it was 10-15 years ago. However, I do think Nikon ought to do a few DX fast wide angle primes to complete the lens portfolio available for DX DSLRs.

I tried out something interesting in the D5600. This camera and its predecessors have the option of using a part of the touch screen to move about the focus point, but by default this feature is disabled and can be accessed through reprogramming the touch screen Fn to select the focus point. After that it is a lot of fun to use, though I have to say that the D500's joystick is more responsive and precise than use of the touch screen of the D5600 for this purpose. I tried the D5600's Snapbridge, connecting to my iPhone 6 and after more than 30 minutes trying it out I wasn't able to get the two devices to establish pairing. It seems like it is a total joke, unfortunately. How is it possible that they market something like this that simply doesn't work and then advertise it as one of the main new features of the camera?  Otherwise the D5600 seemed like an excellent lightweight camera. The autofocus worked very well with the AF-P lens attached, and it was amazingly quiet. I was very pleased with the camera other than the Snapbridge thing; unlike the D5 you could use the touch screen to use the menu and select info screen features. It seemed far easier to use than the first D5x00 series camera which I tried a long time ago.

[Frank Fremerey]

What do you  think only regarding image quality?
Looking forward to read your replies.
Peter

I got a D500 and a bunch of more FX lenses last year and the IQ is stunning, the AF is stunning, ISO performance is stunning, color consitency is stunning, white balance is stunning, Ergonomics is great, speed is great. She runs circles around my D3!

This is a next to perfect instrument. Now I like to have the same with an FX Chip and ISO 32 or 25...

A dream come true to let Auto-ISO run from 32 to 32k? I guess it is possible and I hope this will save Nikon from the grave!!!

D900???

[MILLIREHM]

I started my Digial SLR era with the D200 a DX camera body and the first that could handle manual lenses properly. For wide angle purposes I bought the 12-24/4 DX , still my one and only DX lens. When the D700 arrived, FX era arrived but I have always kept using FX and DX in parallel. The DX body was only used as a crop camera for telephotography from the point i had the D700,that became my most used body. D300 was added and saw an additional niche as travel camera where I was using DX only. D800E with its resolution gave me built in DX capability that I had not experienced before so I switched often for the purpose of having faster fps in DX mode. Then I thought there is no more need for DX besides FX but:
D500 brought a DX revival again, also a perfect travel camera ( including fast bird shooting capability and high fps without battery grip) and brought a more versatile use for DX than I had the years before. Downside Pixel density is very high and it is not competitive to the FX bodies when high iso is required. I prefer not to go beyoind ISO 800 with it.

[paul_k]

I always considered DX a stopgap solution untill full frame sensors became more affordable and available. So when the D3 hit the market and became more widely available in 2008 I gladly switched over to it, from my then main body, a D2X
Prior to that made my way through the D1/D1H/D1X, and while the D1XX's and D2X were quite up to standards (i.e. the standards of their days) as far as built quality, AF, buffer etc, were concerned, the IQ and in particular high ISO (ISO 800 and over) were a bit of a challenge to put it mildly

The crop factor admittedly was great for shooting sports (surf in my case) but when e.g. shooting events forced to get wider then I was used to from my 35mm film shooting days glass
Tried a D300, but guess I got spoiled by the D3 IQ and high ISO, and after a very short period traded it for a 2nd D3
Kept a D1H just for fun (the grain over ISO 800), and a D70S for those occasions when I needed something with a better IQ then my phone, but not as big, heavy and expensive as a FX body, never put any serious money in DX lenses

Sometime ago upgraded from the D70S to a D7100 (smaller, lighter, better IQ/high ISO then the D70S, and a menu more similar to my D800's) but it still remains my not so serious option/tag a long camera

Did have a serious look at the D500 after its introduction, but while the AF and buffer are impressive, I didn't like the IQ compared to my D800 and the high ISO compared to my DF

[Frank Fremerey]

Did have a serious look at the D500 after its introduction, but while the AF and buffer are impressive, I didn't like the IQ compared to my D800 and the high ISO compared to my DF

DX was a intermediate state for me too, but I always bought FX-glass to be flexible. I currently have two FX and one DX body in my bag.

IQ of the D500 is a question of experience / experimenting with settings in the RAW converter. I know people who do US college sports for a living. The use ISO 20.000 for very clear shots. The standard setting for Noise Reduction is VERY ugly.

My wish for a D500-like FX-body is also caused by ergonomics, and the wonderfol responsiveness I experience in the D500.

[Peter Forsell]

I don't anymore think about the sensor size. I select and compare cameras based on capabilities and features, and the sensor size is just one feature among many.

I haven't bought new DX cameras after D2 generation, but it is not because of sensor size, it is about the whole feature set. (I was given a D300 some time ago, but that camera just doesn't feel right). As a matter of fact I lost interest in upgrading cameras somewhere between D3X/D3S and D4S. My next camera will be D5S because I am an old fox and sceptical cynicist and have learned to avoid anything 1st generation... I pick the "final" product, not the beta version. 

But back to topic. I believe DX bodies have all these years brought the most money to Nikon, that means DX is the most important sensor for them. The top end single digit cameras are just halo products, and probably do not make much money because they are expensive to make and sales numbers are low. Currently I am not interested in camera bodies, except perhaps a D5S sometime next year.

I don't have even the faintest idea what a future DX body could/should offer to make me even vaguely interested.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I believe the majority of profits are in mid to high end products, not in the consumer stuff. When the sales were growing it was possible to make money from low end products but today the consumer sector prices are pressed too low by intense competition by numerous manufacturers most of whom are offering their products at a loss.

The D3x00 have not been substantially improved in several generations suggesting that the margins are so low that Nikon cannot afford to put any real R&D money into them any more, to make substantial improvements. The fact that the D500 took so long to make suggests that Nikon wasn't sure it would make money. Otherwise they'd have made a D400, D400s in between. They are a business after all. I am not suggesting the D500 doesn't make Nikon money but I am sure the FX is what Nikon prefers to sell and the focus of new lens development shows where they think the money is. Sony also puts out a lot more full frame models and lenses and that's where the buzz is.

For most users DX may well be the sweet spot, but for manufacturers, I believe the less intensely competed high end is where they try to lure users.