That headline seems to be the question of the month. More so than I think Nikon or anyone else expected, a lot of you have been planning to "eventually get to FX." You've been making your lens choices that way, often buying lenses that make some sense for both DX and FX use. The fact that Nikon seems to refuse to make a full range of DX lenses just adds to that customer tactic.
But some of you seem surprised that US$3000 is still the lowest price for an FX body. It's the sensor that does that. Sensor cost goes up rapidly with size. It used to be that it was $5, $50, $500 (compact, DX, FX). While those prices have changed a bit in relationship to one another, FX sensor prices are still very high and ultimately dictate the price of the product. Manufacturing rule of thumb is you multiply parts cost by 3.5 to get retail price impact, so a US$400 sensor means that there is US$1400 worth of cost in the final product implied by the sensor alone. You still need to put electronics, viewfinder, shutter, battery, body, LCD, controls, and more into the product.
So how did Sony manage a US$2000 FX body? By ignoring costs, basically. Their hope was that by underpricing cameras like the A850 they could get leverage in the high-end camera market. The strategy didn't work, and next time we see Sony in the full frame market, they'll take a somewhat different approach (EVF, for one thing).
Meanwhile, we've got what looks like Nikon's next generation of FX sitting in front of us, so Nikon users who were thinking about FX are all asking themselves the question in the headline. Let's take things backwards:
- Wait. There's a chance that the camera that appears between the D7000 and D800 will be FX. Many think there won't be a camera between those, but I'm 100% sure there will be. The price gap is too large, and it's too easy for Canon, Sony, and Pentax to use that to advantage if it's not plugged. There needs to be a camera at somewhere between US$1700 and US$2000 in Nikon's lineup. The question is whether that will be a high-end DX or a low-end FX. History and price say that it will be DX and called a D400. But Nikon's been on an aggressive bent lately. It's not out of the question for them to pull an FX rabbit out of the hat. I just don't think it's very likely. If you're waiting for a US$2000 FX camera, you only have one clear option: buy something used.
- D800E. I suspect demand for this is running higher than Nikon expected. Everything Nikon officials have said, plus the one month extra wait, all seem to indicate that they thought only a few would opt this way. Based upon talks with dealers and looking at what people say they did for preordering via my In Box, I'd say that at least a third of you are opting to go this route. My personal advice: unless you're primarily photographing something you know shouldn't be a big issue--basically landscapes--you shouldn't go this route. Photographing in and around cities and photographing people that aren't nude makes you susceptible to moire. Moreover, you're not likely to see it at capture time: you'd need to be constantly zooming the playback on the LCD to see it, and 36mp is a pretty big mess of pixels to try to examine closely on the 3.2" LCD. Simply put: removing moire is way harder than adding perceived acuity through sharpening. Way.
- D800. The D700 upgraders keep getting hung up on the sensor. They have very good high ISO results on a pixel basis with their current camera, and they anticipate that they'll get far worse results with three times the pixels. Well, yes, if you look only on a per-pixel basis, that might be true (we won't know for sure until cameras are available). But if you blew up a D700 image to 36mp the per pixel results wouldn't look so great, either. This is a tricky subject, but the net is the same as the D3/D3x debate once was: using all the pixels, I'd pick the D3x over the D3 up to about ISO 800, the D3 above that. Using only 12mp sizes, the crossover gets pushed higher (for me, ISO 1600, but for others they'll take ISO 3200 from a downsized D3x image). One thing people are forgetting is that the D800 sensor is at least two generations newer than the D700's. Sensors are getting better. I think people are going to be surprised by the D800 sensor, but again, we must await cameras to test to verify that.
- D700. At the moment, used D700s are running close to the price you can find one new (assuming you can even find one). As I wrote not too long ago, if you told me I could only have one camera, the D700 would be that choice. It produces high quality images, it's more compact than a D3 series body and thus more carryable in more situations, it has a solid, advanced feature set, and it's a workhorse. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a D700. A lot of you are expecting D700 used prices to plummet when the D800 hits. I'm not so sure. First, it's a damned good camera, and even US$2300 is enough different than US$3000 that the demand will stay high for D700s. Moreover, D800s are going to be in short supply for awhile, and there aren't that many D700's out there changing hands. No, I suspect the D700 will command at least D300s/D400 prices for the foreseeable future (currently it fetches more).
- D4. Here's another connundrum. Is the D4 better than the D3s? Again people get stuck on the sensor, though here the answer is already a little clearer. I'm slowly coming round to the position that I'll use my D4 exactly the same as I did my D3s. Same ISO limits and expectations. There are some small caveats in there, as I do think channel response has changed slightly, but all evidence I see so far points me towards considering a D4 as being a D3s with 4mp more. Is that enough to make you switch? I have strong doubts about that. Yes, it gives you a bit more cropping flexibility, but the primary D3/D3s users probably will consider the changes to the focus and metering systems as being more substantive for their work. Add in the video and live view changes, and there's a lot to like. Subtract out the new battery and hefty price, and there's a lot to keep you from upgrading quickly. Even more so than the D800, the D4 is going to be in very short supply for the forseeable future. Unless you're already in a high position in a queue, you have plenty of time to consider what you'll do about this camera if it's in your target list.
- D3x. Prior to last week, the D3x was the DSLR capable of producing the very best images at base ISO. This week, it might be number two. That's nothing to scoff at. It's a rock solid camera that produces exceptional results, even when pushed to some higher ISO values. I've photographed wildlife with it at ISO 1600 and been pleased with the results. At ISO 800 and below it arguably holds its own against the other D3 models when you do apples-to-apples comparisons. I suspect we will eventually see prices drop on this camera on the used market, but not as fast or as far as most people are anticipating. #2 is still damned good, and landscapers who have it shouldn't be in a big hurry to drop this fine camera. Price is a component of supply and demand. Supply has always been low. Demand is still reasonably high. For the life of me, I still don't know why Nikon priced it so high in the first place, but it's more than paid for itself in my book. Over the long term, as the D800 becomes available off the shelf (and assuming it's as good as we expect), the D3x will see large drops in its used value. That doesn't mean it will be cheap.
- D3s. Still state of the art at high ISO values. Where the D3x dropped to #2 camera at something with the D800E intro, the D3s remains #1 (now tied) despite the D4 introduction. Yes, you can now get more pixels and better video and some nice tweaks in focus, exposure, and live view. But is that worth the upgrade price and hassle? I can't answer that, only you can (if you're in this position). The battery change didn't make the decision any easier, and it made it less likely that people want mixed D3/D4 bags. I expect D3s bodies to stay popular for some time, and command fairly high prices on the used market.
- D3. The D3 slipped to #2 at high ISO work when the D3s came out. You need to think of this camera in conjunction with the D700, as they use the same sensor and generate the same results. At the moment, if you look closely, you can pick up a used D3 for about US$800 more than a used D700 from the reputable sellers (e.g. KEH). For that US$800 you get a more solid body, the vertical grip, a bigger battery (by far), faster frame rates, a 100% viewfinder, and more. For a lot of you who decided that the used market is where you'll go to move up to FX, the D3 is a very tempting camera, and I think that's going to continue to be for some time.
- Wait. Hey, didn't I already cover that? Well, here the "wait" is about what's next in the D4 line. Will there be a D4s, a D4x, a D800 with the D4 sensor? Well, yes, probably yes to all of those. But not any time soon. Nikon has its hands full for 2012 just trying to build what they've announced. If you look at historical patterns, Nikon uses two-year refresh cycles on the high-end products (though the D700 appeared a year after the D3). So best case: D4 sensor in a D800 body in 2013, D4s/D4x in 2014. Worst case? D4s in 2014, no other FX models in the interim.
Thus, if you accept what I just wrote as being likely, and if you don't believe a D400 will be FX, then all your choices are laid out in front of you today and you should be able to make an intelligent choice just as soon as the initial image quality verifications start to hit.
We are indeed in a sweet spot for FX users. Maybe not sweet in terms of pricing, but certainly sweet in terms of our options. We have six different Nikon FX bodies, any one of which I'd be happy to use for the next couple of years.