If I were the decision maker at Nikon ....

Paperman

I would think of a way to suddenly phase out DX - make it obsolete in all levels other than beginners' .... Make photographers feel like they are falling behind times, missing it all staying DX.

Pull the D610 price down to $1,300-1,500 ; introduce the new DF Retro DSLR below $2,000 . ( We know putting a FF sensor can not bring more than $100 additional cost ) . Let every Nikon owner get in a FF frenzy; give away all their DX's to their wives & kids. Keep anything pro like D800 and above the same ( the pros have the money anyway )... In a way, create a FF for every price range keeping in mind each FF body sale is likely to bring an FX lens sale ...

Yep, this is what came to my mind while thinking the new Retro DF might be my D300 replacement if it came below $2,000 ... Those shutter speed knobs; dials are so appealing.....

TaoTeJared

( We know putting a FF sensor can not bring more than $100 additional cost ) .

That's a false statement. Every report puts the FX sensors at 5x-20x more expensive to produce in the last 10 years. The margins on FX cameras are less than DX counterparts as well. Good idea, but is more driven by an individual's pocket book than what realities of cost for business right now. The Df will be $2500-$3k - under $2k I think is a pipe dream. It just doesn't play out in a business sense way and Nikon is in business to survive, not go under making 100% of customers happy. I do think the D600 is a an effort to pull people out of wanting a D400 though - and it did quite well. The D700 and D600 already got everyone in a FX frenzy.
Comparison to the market, The Olympus EM1 is $1,300. To believe that a D610 could be the same and make money is wishful thinking.

The day will come, but not for 8-10 years or so. I have said for years that DX will eventually be phased out except for a couple of consumer class - just look at the lenses released in the last 5 years- all consumer glass.

moreorless

The margins on FX cameras are less than DX counterparts as well. - See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1810/if-i-were-the-decision-maker-at-nikon-#sthash.SwhF6rDd.dpuf

While I'd agree on the cost of FX sensors being a lot more than $100 I find this very hard to believe, a high end product with smaller sales and much less competision has lower profit margins than a similar cheap product?

I'm guessing that both Nikon and Canon want to avoid releasing any(or anymore in Nikon's case) ASPC only lenses with professional level build. If they can force people into buying FX lenses then they both make upgrading to FF easier and lock them into their own system.

What they really want to avoid doing is IMHO looking like they've seriously turned there backs on ASPC users. A lot of there success is I'd say base on the perception that their "safe" companies who aren't likely to dump a system.

JakesGT

I think that it would be a problem to phase out DX and just have full frame. One of the things that's nice about full frame and pro glass is that only people who actually need full frame and pro glass have it. There are already too many "photographers" that have kit DX gear and we can't have them getting nicer stuff and thinking they are even better. It sounds a little silly but the peasants have to stay in the fields

NSXTypeR

It sounds like a good idea, until you realize that DX DSLRs sustain Nikon as a company. I think Thom Hogan was talking about how if you got rid of DX as an entity Nikon would probably go under.

The low end compact camera market is shrinking and DX is still Nikon's bread and butter.

rbrylawski

Then I'm glad you are NOT the decision make at Nikon. I don't need a FF camera. I don't need to spend more money on glass I don't need. I'm not professional and don't need to be able to blow pictures up to billboard size. My D7100 is more capable than I am, by a long shot. It's low light abilities are just fine for the skill I have. It's the perfect size and has the functions I need. And it takes great pictures that I'm very happy with.

So yes, I'm glad you're not the decision maker at Nikon. For if you were, you'd be costing me more money for things I don't need or in reality don't really want.

Just my $.02 worth..........

shawnino

If I were Nikon, I'd firm up DX with a slow DX tele zoom. They've done 18-xx and 18-xxx to death. They have 55-200 and 55-300.

Tamron has FX 200-500 f/5-6.3 at about $950 weighing 2.7 lbs (1.2kg).
Surely Nikon can do DX f/6.3 with acceptable IQ near f/8 at rather less money ($700-$800?) and substantially less weight (halfsies?).

It doesn't even have to be that exact length/aperture; just looking for a baseline. Anybody who shoots DX outside at f/8 or slower would surely be all over something like that?

kyoshinikon

I had always hoped that the D600 series was going to be a D300 with an option for fx. That would have been the perfect camera. If it was optimized for both Dx and FX with the firmware and sensor of the D600 but the feature set and capability of the D300s. I think where Nikon is missing out is not in the lenses but in the bodies. I was soley Dx for years and was happy with most of the lenses offered on the tele end. What they need is a D400 and a breakthrough pro dx lens like a 13-70mm f/2.8 or a 16-35mm f/1.8. The tele Dx users wanted is now made, the 70-200mm f/4 A lens like a 105-500mm f/4.5-5.6 would work but id come with a nikon price tag...

Paperman

@TTJ That's a false statement. Every report puts the FX sensors at 5x-20x more expensive to produce in the last 10 years. The margins on FX cameras are less than DX counterparts as well. - See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1810/if-i-were-the-decision-maker-at-nikon-#Item_1

The more you produce an item, the more manufacturing cost comes down. Think of the DX DLSR prices when they first came out. The reason MF cameras stay so expensive is that they sell so little, not enough resources go into Research and Development, not enough sales are generated. We did discuss wafer costs in the past and a 5x production cost per FF sensor did not even come close to $100.

@rbrylawski Then I'm glad you are NOT the decision make at Nikon. I don't need a FF camera. I don't need to spend more money on glass I don't need. - See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1810/if-i-were-the-decision-maker-at-nikon-#Item_1

I am purely lookng at it from Nikon's perspective - how they can make a big sales jump/maximize profits etc. by creating a small revolution. I am also a DX user but don't mind moving to FF if it will cost me not more than an advanced DX. Sorry to say but you will not see an advanced DX body to your needs in 2-3 years time ; your only option staying in DX will be a starter level like a D3200.

We probably all agree that eventually all DSLRs will be FF ( as it is the only sure way to get more quality/resolution other than Mp ( which is near peak anyway due to diffraction ). So why not now...

I can actually bet my money on Nikon coming out with more FF bodies than DX from now on. I expect one more D7xxx DX to be produced - no more. Anyone keen on DX will be left with choosing between a D3xxx & D5xxx body - later that also coming down to a single body. And we will be seeing FF prices below $1,000 - I say in no more than 2 years.

Msmoto

When we get into hypothetical discussions it is primarily guessing. My guess is we will see the end of the DSLR within five years. Technology will produce viewing and AF Systems which eliminate the need for a reflex mirror. It may be the systems are already developed but marketing strategies keep them out of production.

My guess is a full frame or similar format will exist alongside a smaller format Consumer products do not need a full frame any more than they do medium format. And lenses which cover a smaller circle are less expensive to produce keeping consumer camera costs down.

If I were in charge this is where I would focus energy at Nikon.

kyoshinikon

The Nikon D6 will not have a built in grip and be the last DSLR... Just like the F6 lol

The sad reality is that the optical viewfinder is a dying breed. All dslrs already have a LCD glued on the front of a pentaprism (take out your batteries and you'll see what I am referring to) and if the latest from sony seems "good enough" nikon may go the way of it. Luckily unlike Canon nikon is a bit more traditionalistic so they probably wont dump their pentaprisms until Canon does

snakebunk

I would make a camera with an fx sensor that could be moved back into the camera to get a crop factor. And it should be possible to turn the sensor for portraits. Maybe not possible but it would be kind of ultimate, and I would afford it since I was the boss

JakesGT

I would make a camera with an fx sensor that could be moved back into the camera to get a crop factor. And it should be possible to turn the sensor for portraits. Maybe not possible but it would be kind of ultimate, and I would afford it since I was the boss

Novel idea except that then your lenses wouldn't focus correctly with the sensor to flange distance changed

kyoshinikon

Unfortunately like most corporations the management is looking at numbers and how to grow them safely... They dont design at all

moreorless

The sad reality is that the optical viewfinder is a dying breed. - See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1810/if-i-were-the-decision-maker-at-nikon-#Item_4

We can argue about the future but in terms of sales this isn't the reality at all, optical viewfinders have actually been on the rise for the past decade after becoming very rare in the early 00's when almost all people shot with a compact. Generally I think its very tough to predict what will happen here as your talking an optical system not an electronic one being replaced by another. I still have wing mirrors on my car for example dispite the tech for them potentially being replaced by screens having existed for years.

One thing to remember as well that even if it were to happen that doesn't mean that every mirrorless system would be like those on the market today, that is designed to save size with a tiny flange distance. Currently they go after that market because they offer slightly inferior performance to a DSLR but the size needed to include advanced controls and to balance large lenses isn't going to change in the future. With FX especially I think theres the question of whether a small flange even helps that much on digital, rather than the oft talked about holy grail of smaller wideangles the new Sony lenses actually seem longer than there DSLR equvilents would be, I'm guessing due to having to avoid extreme light angles hitting the sensor.

rbrylawski

@Paperman: I am purely lookng at it from Nikon's perspective - how they can make a big sales jump/maximize profits etc. by creating a small revolution. I am also a DX user but don't mind moving to FF if it will cost me not more than an advanced DX. Sorry to say but you will not see an advanced DX body to your needs in 2-3 years time ; your only option staying in DX will be a starter level like a D3200.

We probably all agree that eventually all DSLRs will be FF ( as it is the only sure way to get more quality/resolution other than Mp ( which is near peak anyway due to diffraction ). So why not now...

I can actually bet my money on Nikon coming out with more FF bodies than DX from now on. I expect one more D7xxx DX to be produced - no more. Anyone keen on DX will be left with choosing between a D3xxx & D5xxx body - later that also coming down to a single body. And we will be seeing FF prices below $1,000 - I say in no more than 2 years

I think you have disenfranchised all but the upper echelon of people who buy cameras. And if Nikon were to depend on that echelon, they will surely go out of business. We don't all agree all DSLRs will be FF. You clearly demand and can afford a level of perfection that is simply not on the minds or in the pocketbooks of the average picture taker.

Sorry, but your hypothesis doesn't hold it in my mind. And I truly hope your future isn't the future most of us have to live with.

No offense.

Paperman

@rbrylawski You clearly demand and can afford a level of perfection that is simply not on the minds or in the pocketbooks of the average picture taker.

No offense taken but you are missing the point I made about FF going below the $1,000 level. All I wrote is about suggesting Nikon boost FF sales by pulling prices down to the level of current DX DSLRs.

And I totally agree with moreorless on optical viewfinders. Car mirrors are a very good example. Though EVs are very likely to produce "enough" resolution in very near future, I can't imagine them ever reaching the perfection of an OV. I honestly can't see the plus of an EV and what it brings other than the ability to focus without a mirror in between. Is it cheaper to produce / is it more reliable ??

brownie314

I would think of a way to suddenly phase out DX - make it obsolete in all levels other than beginners' .... Make photographers feel like they are falling behind times, missing it all staying DX.

Pull the D610 price down to $1,300-1,500 ; introduce the new DF Retro DSLR below $2,000 . ( We know putting a FF sensor can not bring more than $100 additional cost ) . Let every Nikon owner get in a FF frenzy; give away all their DX's to their wives & kids. Keep anything pro like D800 and above the same ( the pros have the money anyway )... In a way, create a FF for every price range keeping in mind each FF body sale is likely to bring an FX lens sale ...

Yep, this is what came to my mind while thinking the new Retro DF might be my D300 replacement if it came below $2,000 ... Those shutter speed knobs; dials are so appealing.....

Yes, I agree. I know your statement is not really about DX so much, but I think Nikon should either 1 - start taking DX seriously (make serious lenses and serious, more compact bodies) or 2- do as you say and drop DX, give the smaller body market to oly/pany/fuji and concentrate on making FF bodies that are replacements for the current entry level bodies (at close to the same price points). And by the way, I fully agree that FF sensors do not add that much to the cost of bodies. DX sensors have the advantage of economies of scale. If Nikon went all in on FF, they would have the same economies of scale on FF sensors. I think this could be done.

rbrylawski

Not to be argumentative. But how will converting to all FF, increase Nikon's profits?

JakesGT

Not to be argumentative. But how will converting to all FF, increase Nikon's profits?

By "forcing" people to buy more expensive glass. But any new ff camera can use DX glass in crop mode

Paperman

Not to be argumentative. But how will converting to all FF, increase Nikon's profits? - See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1810/if-i-were-the-decision-maker-at-nikon-#Item_12

Nikon must have roughly sold 15-20 million DSLRs within the last 5-6 years ( all brands total nearly 60 million bodies ) +90% of it being DX. Probably more than half are still in use. Many people have bodies which won't gain much from a DX upgrade so they are staying where they are. Don't expect to sell a D7000/7100 owner a D7200 or a D5200/5300 owner a D5400. Mps are already maxed; what can be put in a DX body is already put in. Convincing them to go FF is like rejuvenating the initial DX DSLR craze.

moreorless

And I totally agree with moreorless on optical viewfinders. Car mirrors are a very good example. Though EVs are very likely to produce "enough" resolution in very near future, I can't imagine them ever reaching the perfection of an OV. I honestly can't see the plus of an EV and what it brings other than the ability to focus without a mirror in between. Is it cheaper to produce / is it more reliable ?? - See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1810/if-i-were-the-decision-maker-at-nikon-#Item_15

One thing to consider as well, a DSLR can add an EVF to an OVF in a similar way to Fuji, a mirrorless system cannot add an OVF to an EVF, at least not a though the lens one. If we don't see this happen on the DF I think we will somewhere else within the next couple of years.

TaoTeJared

The more you produce an item, the more manufacturing cost comes down. Think of the DX DLSR prices when they first came out. The reason MF cameras stay so expensive is that they sell so little, not enough resources go into Research and Development, not enough sales are generated. We did discuss wafer costs in the past and a 5x production cost per FF sensor did not even come close to $100.

Correct in the broadest of terms, just very incorrect in assuming there is a 1:1 ratio of production to cost and volume. I use to calculate production costs for companies and the amount you have to produce to drop prices due to volume is just enormous. Generally you are looking at a minimum of 10x but I have seen production of electronic items only drop in cost at 1000x more production. Nikon would have to sell 10x more systems every year to drop to the levels you are suggesting.
And the sensor cost was $1000+ not $100. Just a few years ago FX sensors cost $2500+ to produce. Most reports put a FX sensor cost at 15-25x the cost of DX. Manufacturing processes have improved, and will continue to due so but just hasn't reached that yet.

The other issues that is being ignored in the discussion is the cost of lenses is 50%+ higher in most cases, DX to FX for equal build/focal length. The cost savings on a body will be completely diminished by how much one has to spend on glass. Anyone who has already made the switch knows how much more it costs to shoot FX. Lenses, filters, hoods, accessories, etc.

As your arguments are stemmed from the size of your pocketbook, I think we can all agree that DX is needed to keep photography more affordable to more people. The enjoyment we all find from photography should not be only for the most well off.

My guess is we will see the end of the DSLR within five years.

It is a semantic discussion but my 2-cents is the term DSLR has grown to mean a camera that looks and acts as a "DSLR" whether or not it has a pentaprism, mirror or an optical view finder. In use, the Olympus EM5, EM1 are DSLRS, just with updated parts. If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck...
I've never been a fan of any of the names people have given to the new mirrorless systems - even the term mirrorless. ILC is even worse. Just a thought

The one thing that is interesting to think about with the removal of the Pentaprism (which is one of the highest cost parts) the mirror will drop the price of the bodies in time.

Paperman

And the sensor cost was $1000+ not $100. Just a few years ago FX sensors cost $2500+ to produce.

I don't know where the numbers from TTJ - it is probably what the camera manufacturers want us to believe... It is just hard for me to accept that a 24x36mm piece of wafer + some circuits ( let's say any electronic part ) can cost $1,000 at a time when you can buy any brand notebook for $359, a tablet for under $150, a Samsung LCD 52" 3D flatscreen TV for $450. We are talking purely about the sensor as whatever goes around it is similar in both APS-C and FF DSLRs.

spraynpray

Not to be argumentative. But how will converting to all FF, increase Nikon's profits?

By "forcing" people to buy more expensive glass. But any new ff camera can use DX glass in crop mode

@JakesGT: You have completely forgotten about all the other manufacturers that make lenses to fit Nikon cameras. I know one person that bought D7100 and just transferred the stinking old beaten up Tamron off her D40 on to it. There is no guarantee people would buy a Nikon lens to fit their new FF body.

sevencrossing

I would own up to the fact, the D400 will be full frame