The Future of Nikon FX and DX

I personally buy from Ritz, Adorama and Amazon. I can't vouch for any other ads.

The Future of Nikon FX and DX Formats
© 2008 KenRockwell.com. All rights reserved.

35mm film marked with Nikon sensor sizes.
(Green: FX, full-frame, Red: Nikon DX. See also Crop Factor.)

I get my goodies at Ritz, Amazon and Adorama. It helps me keep adding to this site when you get yours from those links, too.

Nikon DX and Canon 1.6x formats are here to stay for a long time for practically-priced cameras.

Nikon FX and Canon full-frame cameras will be expensive and always be at the top of each maker's line for a long time. I see no hot deals in full-frame cameras for quite a while. FX cameras will always be priced above anything else in smaller formats – that's just how marketing departments plan out product ranges.

I wouldn't postpone anything expecting to see cheap full-frame cameras anytime soon. See also Obsolesce.

Nikon's first camera, the Nikon I rangefinder of 1948, shot a 24 x 32mm frame. The 1949 Nikon M shot in 24 x 34mm.

Ever since 1954, all Nikon's film cameras have shot in FX: 24 x 36mm. (I'm graciously forgetting the idiotic APS format, which I always told you was stupid, while photo magazines of the era told you to buy them.)

In 1999 Nikon introduced the world's first practical DSLR (see DSLR history), which for reasons of economy and practicality, shot a diminutive (DX) 16 x 24mm frame.

Back in the early days, when 6 megapixels was only science fiction, these tiny DX chips were a great way to allow smaller lenses and less expensive cameras. Nikon introduced a limited range of DX lenses which were smaller physically, but are not able to cover the larger film or FX frame.

DX lenses were needed for wide angles and fisheyes, since even the widest and fishiest FX lenses weren't short enough to be really wide or fishy on DX. DX lenses were never needed for normal or tele lenses. Conventional FX lenses work perfectly on DX for that.

When sensors made it to 10 MP, there started to be too many pixels in too small a space for optimal quality. 10 MP cameras like the D200 were very demanding of lens performance, and because each pixel was so small, collected less light and thus had less sensitivity, which lead to more noise when pushed to same ISO as a larger sensor, or the same sized sensor with fewer pixels.

As resolution increased, Canon started making a practical 11MP FX format digital SLR in 2002, while Nikon still tried to cram too many pixels into a DX sensor. At 11 MP on a DX sensor, noise is starting to climb enough to be visible even at normal ISOs.

In 2007, Nikon introduced its first FX DSLR, the 12 MP D3. The D3 is smart enough to use only the small central part of its big sensor when a DX lens is used, so all the DX lenses work great on the D3.

As of 2008, Canon makes the only FX format DSLR in the $2,000 range, the Canon 5D, which has been around since 2005.

Nikon's D3 is still $5,000, beyond the breaking point for most hobby photographers.

Nikon's various VPs have gone on record as saying it's inevitable that Nikon will introduce affordable FX DSLRs. Duh, Canon's been doing it for years.

No one knows when, but Nikon inevitably will put the D3 into a consumer body, exactly as Nikon put the D200 inside a D70, with upgraded features, to make the D80, and put the D2Xs inside in a D200 body, with upgraded features, to make a D300.

Whenever a Nikon comes out with an FX camera in a D300 body, it will most likely cost a little over $3,000. It certainly will not be the same price as the D300.

Nikon won't likely be making any DX pro cameras ever again, however any FX camera is most likely going to be on the top of Nikon's product line, and very expensive, for years to come.

FX sensors are still very expensive precisely because they are FX. Electronics have gotten cheaper every week for the past 50 years because circuits are continually made smaller, which makes them cheaper. In 1985, one-micron technology was state of the art, and today, 45 nanometers is state of the art. Smaller geometries let us make smaller chips, which are faster and cheaper. An FX sensor is still a huge chunk of silicon wafer, which is still, and will continue to be, very expensive.

I don't expect to see a $1,000-range FX camera for many, many years. There won't be any $1,000 FX cameras until Nikon's very top DX camera (like the D300), and Canon's very top 1.6x camera (like the 40D) are selling at $750.

Even if FX sensors magically became free, FX cameras will remain at the top of the line, and remain as the most expensive DSLRs. We're not likely to see any "budget" FX DSLRs. The marketing world doesn't work that way; FX cameras will be the premium cameras of a line-up. Digital isn't like film, where you can pick up a used large-format camera cheaper than a 35mm SLR.

Don't worry, get what you need to shoot today, and be happy. Whatever you buy today ought to work great on any potential upcoming Nikon or Canon FX DSLR.

When Nikon introduces an amateur FX camera, it also inevitably will have full compatibility with DX lenses. That's how Nikon does things. Unlike Canon, who dumpstered all its previous lenses when Canon changed its lens mount in 1985, almost all of the over 40 million Nikkor lenses Nikon has made in the past 50 years works to some extent on every camera.

With Nikon, so long as your camera and lens are within about two decades of each other, everything works perfectly. The Nikon D3 automatically works perfectly with every DX lens, although using a DX lens on the D3 sort of wastes most points for buying the D3, except for its high speed.

Should you buy a DX lens today? Sure, if you have a DX camera. You'll make a lot of pictures with it until you ever see an inexpensive FX camera. If Nikon comes out with a less expensive FX camera, its most likely going to cost way more than any DX lens you may be considering.

Used Nikon lenses are always worth money. If Nikon comes out with a free FX camera tomorrow, you can sell any DX lenses and not have lost much money from their new price.

If you do get an FX camera, it's unlikely you'll ever want to touch a DX lens again. All Canon's lenses for the past 20+ years, and most of Nikon's lenses for the past almost 50 years, work fine on their respective FX digital cameras. Neither Nikon nor Canon need to introduce any new lenses for FX, although of course all of us have wish lists of lenses we'd like to see.

I expect Canon, Nikon and everyone to be making DX and 1.6x cameras indefinitely. DX makes, and will continue to make sense for a long time for most practical cameras. I'm still waiting for at least a DX sensor in a professional pocket camera. Hey Nikon - put my D3 sensor in my 35Ti, will you please?

DX and 1.6x cameras always have worked perfectly with FX lenses. That won't change. The only potential compatibility issues have been mechanical, not optical.

Should you hoard old FX lenses in speculation that they might become more expensive used if an affordable FX camera arrives?

No way! Are you really going to invest in yesterday's technology today in anticipation of tomorrow?

People tend to forget that there are zillions of people happily buying these lenses today to shoot on film. It's just that the people shooting on film aren't wasting their boss' time at work farting around on internet forums talking about it.

When Nikon introduces new SLRs they usually introduce new lenses well suited to it, like the exotic 14-24mm that came out with the D3 in August 2007 and the landmark 18-200mm VR that came out with the D200 in November 2005.

Whenever an affordable FX camera arrives, it will most likely be announced at the same time as the lens you really want to use with it, like a 28-200mm VR or 24-135mm VR.

Nikon has made so many FX lenses over the decades (about 40,000,000), and so many people are still using them every day, that it's unlikely that any new cheap FX camera of your dreams will have enough of an effect on the broader used lens market to affect prices much. All the better FX lenses, like the 17-35mm and 70-200mm VR, are already being used today on film and digital.

It's far more likely that Nikon will introduce new AFS FX lenses that will drop the values of the current FX lenses. For instance, the discontinued 28mm f/1.4 AF sells for a lot of money used today, and the suckers that are paying $3,000-plus for them will be stuck when a new improved AFS version surfaces.

Yesterday's FX technology, the old screw-type AF system, is a pain. New lenses will be AFS, which allow instant manual focus simply by grabbing the focus ring. Most of today's lenses, like the 50mm f/1.4 AF, are of the old focus type.

Ordinary FX lenses, like the 28-105mm, aren't likely to go up in value because: 1.) the same people who might want to use them on a FX camera are already using them on their DX cameras, 2.) Loads of people, like me, have been using them all along to shoot film on our FE and F6 film cameras , and 3.) an affordable FX camera is going to cost $3,200, not $1,299. It's still going to be a rich man's game, not one for bargain hunters.

Extraordinary FX lenses, like the 28mm f/1.4 AF and 13mm f/5.6, are already astronomically priced more for collectors than working photographers. New, improved versions of these lenses are likely to come out, dropping the values of the older classics.

If you find this as helpful as a book you might have had to buy or a workshop you may have had to take, feel free to help me continue helping everyone.