Just think of the plant making the sensors and the cost of letting the production line run for 1000 units opposed to 100000. The setup and preparation for both runs probably take the same amount of time/effort.
hauxon wrote:
Just think of the plant making the sensors and the cost of letting the production line run for 1000 units opposed to 100000. The setup and preparation for both runs probably take the same amount of time/effort.
Isn't that figure more closely related to one wafer that to one chip?
I don't know what the yield is these days, but if the yield is low it will be much lower with larger chips.
I think it would be fair to say that Canon manufacturers the most FF sensors over anyone else (and possibly the most APS-C sensors as well), has anyone from within Canon ever indicated (or has Canon made publicly available) the cost or cost factor between making APS-C and FF sensors? I'm sorry if I sound argumentative, but I hear these claims all the time but I have never seen solid evidence to back them up? Back before the 5D was released, people were saying the same thing - that FF sensors cost too much to put them in a "cheap" body, and the 5D proved them wrong. Granted, it was more expensive than the 20D at the time, but it was a lot cheaper than the 1Ds and 1Ds II
wjmeyer wrote:
Back before the 5D was released, people were saying the same thing - that FF sensors cost too much to put them in a "cheap" body, and the 5D proved them wrong. Granted, it was more expensive than the 20D at the time, but it was a lot cheaper than the 1Ds and 1Ds II
this statement doesn't make any sense. there is no reason you can't put an expensive sensor in a cheap body. you can't put a expensive sensor in a cheap body and sell it for less than the cost of the sensor. people were saying they didn't think there was a market for a $3000 camera with a shi**y body and a FF sensor (because people paying that much demand a high quality body or something). obviously they were wrong. manufacturers are saying the same thing today – they don't think there is a market for a $2000 camera with small cheap body and a FF sensor. just as they were wrong then, i think they're wrong today.
as for the rest, i've seen quotes from people who deal with canon talk about the production differences between FF and aps-c (which are obvious to people who know how chips are made), but never any sort of public statement from canon. certainly nothing from canon about exact cost differences.
sebboh wrote:
correct, this is the main problem with FF chips.
Right. But given this, how much more does a 24mp FF sensor cost relative to the 24mp APS-c sensor? It not so much a "problem" as it is a cost of production -- yields are lower -- other costs are pretty similar. I note that the Sony a850 body with a 24mp FF sensor cost $1999 and a same generation a550 with a 14mp APS-c sensor cost about $999. Further, in the 2 years since their introduction, cost of production can be reasonably assumed to have got better.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Right. But given this, how much more does a 24mp FF sensor cost relative to the 24mp APS-c sensor? It not so much a "problem" as it is a cost of production -- yields are lower -- other costs are pretty similar. I note that the Sony a850 body with a 24mp FF sensor cost $1999 and a same generation a550 with a 14mp APS-c sensor cost about $999. Further, in the 2 years since their introduction, cost of production can be reasonably assumed to have got better.
it's difficult to make judgements on sensor price based on camera price because the sensor for a FF camera is a huge chunk of the cost and a tiny bit of the cost of an aps-c camera. also even though those cameras came out around the same time the FF sensor was probably at least one generation behind the aps-c in technology – my understanding is they don't use a given tech for FF sensors until they have maximized yield and efficiency as best they can (meaning they use older fabrication techniques that have matured).
pingflood wrote:
Somewhat on-topic, Carl Weese wrote a pretty decent post on TOP about printing large from 4/3 cameras. I am guilty of pixel-peeping quite a bit and was fretting over whether 4/3 would be "good enough". I think I can, after reading that, safely say that for my needs, it is.
"The good news here is that even difficult, detailed subjects shot with longer lenses can yield really good prints at 20 inches or more from 4/3 or Micro 4/3 sensors. The caveat is that there is no margin of error. The mechanical stuff has to be right on the money: perfect critical focus, complete suppression of camera shake. The optical quality of the lens, whether digitally enhanced or not, has to be up for the degree of enlargement. There's nothing like a tripod for holding the camera steady." ...
Yeah... And he's NOT even taking into account viewing distances! He's inspecting those 20" prints up close with a magnifying glass! I think this is silly myself. With viewing distances considered an image from a clear 8mp sensor has no print limits at all. You can print it the size of the Empire State Building and by the time you back up enough to actually see the image it'll look razor sharp! And this really applies to all sizes past 8x10. So to me this whole argument of print sizes became completely irrelevant with the advent of the 8mp sensor. There are some exceptions however... like for a printed map where the viewer is only interested in looking at a very small portion of the image and etc..
sebboh wrote:
it's difficult to make judgements on sensor price based on camera price because the sensor for a FF camera is a huge chunk of the cost and a tiny bit of the cost of an aps-c camera. also even though those cameras came out around the same time the FF sensor was probably at least one generation behind the aps-c in technology – my understanding is they don't use a given tech for FF sensors until they have maximized yield and efficiency as best they can (meaning they use older fabrication techniques that have matured).
Yes, it is difficult, no doubt, and we won't get an accurate figure. But we can suggest some parameters around the price. Can we effectively suggest an upper limit on the sensor price difference of about $1000 (built up to retail cost, and given that $1999-$999=$1000), and surmise that it might actually be a bit lower?
flashinm wrote:
I haven't read this whole thread, but do some people actually believe the senor will be larger than 4/3s, or is it just wishful thinking?
Lotusm50 wrote:
Yes, it is difficult, no doubt, and we won't get an accurate figure. But we can suggest some parameters around the price. Can we effectively suggest an upper limit on the sensor price difference of about $1000 (built up to retail cost, and given that $1999-$999+$1000), and surmise that it might actually be a bit lower?
that sounds plenty conservative to me. i really need to find the source where i read ~$50 versus ~$500...
sebboh wrote:
this statement doesn't make any sense. there is no reason you can't put an expensive sensor in a cheap body. you can't put a expensive sensor in a cheap body and sell it for less than the cost of the sensor. people were saying they didn't think there was a market for a $3000 camera with a shi**y body and a FF sensor (because people paying that much demand a high quality body or something). obviously they were wrong. manufacturers are saying the same thing today – they don't think there is a market for a $2000 camera with small cheap body and a FF sensor. just as they were wrong then, i think they're wrong today. ...Show more →
You state that what I wrote doesn't make sense and then you go on to explain exactly what I just wrote So I am confused at what didn't makes sense to you. But you also helped prove my point, that it wasn't the "sensor" itself that was causing the huge price gap, Canon proved with the 5D that they could sell a body with a FF sensor for much cheaper than what they had been with the 1Ds line, and in some ways they stepped on their own toes: they revealed that it wasn't just the sensor that meant you had to pay such a heavy price premium. Then in 2008 Nikon proved you can put a FF sensor in a body that included most of the bells and whistles of a pro series body and keep the price below $3000.
I've read so many posts in this thread that I'm a little lost, but I think the question at hand is whether or not a manufacturer can create a FF sensor "cheap" enough to be placed in a small mirrorless body and thus be sold at a reasonable price, and I think the answer is yes, it is possible, but that there are many other factors that hindering any of them from doing so.
Keeping with the original post topic, will the OM-D have a FF sensor, it is highly doubtful, could Olympus make an OM-D with a FF sensor, absolutely, but will they, or what benefit would it bring Olympus? Well, that is another question entirely.
I am a EE in the semiconductor industry - the difference in price between chip A and chip B (this is a real example)
Chip A = 18 sq mm
Chip B = 44 sq mm
Theoretical maximum yield of Chip A is 96% for a given defect density for a wafer
Theoretical maximum yield of Chip B is 92% for the same defect density for the same size wafer
It gets exponentially worse as the die size increases.
-------------
A FF sensor is 24x36mm = 864 sq mm.
I bet the yield is 25% or lower.
On top of that cost to manufacture difference they charge more because they can.
wjmeyer wrote:
You state that what I wrote doesn't make sense and then you go on to explain exactly what I just wrote So I am confused at what didn't makes sense to you. But you also helped prove my point, that it wasn't the "sensor" itself that was causing the huge price gap, Canon proved with the 5D that they could sell a body with a FF sensor for much cheaper than what they had been with the 1Ds line, and in some ways they stepped on their own toes: they revealed that it wasn't just the sensor that meant you had to pay such a heavy price premium. Then in 2008 Nikon proved you can put a FF sensor in a body that included most of the bells and whistles of a pro series body and keep the price below $3000....Show more →
sorry for the confusion, the statement that i was implying didn't make any sense was this: 'Back before the 5D was released, people were saying the same thing - that FF sensors cost too much to put them in a "cheap" body'. it doesn't make sense because there obviously no physical limitation to putting a large sensor in a cheap body. what they actually were saying was that they don't think it will sell. i never said i disagreed with you. i was trying to define what the actual impediment is both then and now.
wjmeyer wrote:
I've read so many posts in this thread that I'm a little lost, but I think the question at hand is whether or not a manufacturer can create a FF sensor "cheap" enough to be placed in a small mirrorless body and thus be sold at a reasonable price, and I think the answer is yes, it is possible, but that there are many other factors that hindering any of them from doing so.
Canon summarized in a whitepaper, "For now, appreciate that a full-frame sensor costs not three or four times, but ten, twenty or more times as much as an APS-C sensor. Here, then, is the greatest disadvantage of full-frame sensors and the greatest advantage of small sensors. Regardless of future technological developments, cameras with full-frame sensors will always cost much more than cameras with smaller sensors."
pingflood wrote:
Canon summarized in a whitepaper, "For now, appreciate that a full-frame sensor costs not three or four times, but ten, twenty or more times as much as an APS-C sensor. Here, then, is the greatest disadvantage of full-frame sensors and the greatest advantage of small sensors. Regardless of future technological developments, cameras with full-frame sensors will always cost much more than cameras with smaller sensors."
It was written in 2008 but I think is relevant for today. One of the responders mentions the following: Canon produced a White Paper which tries to suggest that full frame sensors cost up to 20 times as much as APS. While that was true when the 1Ds first came out (sensor yields were under 5%, Canon admitted at the time), it is fairly obvious that technology has moved on. There are now steppers and lenses capable of exposing an entire full frame sensor at once...
I bring emphasis to the point about "technology has moved on", the constraits that existed a few years ago which was partly responsible for the very high cost of a FF sensor are no longer there today (they can build a single sensor using one wafer as I understand it, but if I remember correctly they could not do this in the early stages).
He then goes on to say Of course, lower production volumes will add a higher fixed cost per sensor. Exactly, and that is something that a manufacturer must consider when creating a product, if you make a product that costs you a lot of money to make, and your revenue on the sales of that product is minimal, you are not going to make much or potentially lose money; however, if your product is in high demand, then you can afford to lower the cost because you know you'll recover simply because of number of units sold. So, for Olympus, if they thought they could sell a whole bunch of FF OM-D's and make up for all the costs associated, they probably would, but knowing how technology is exponentially increasing with sensor design and knowing their huge investment in four thirds to date (many, many lenses) the question becomes why? Simply to satisfy the desires of some photographers who would like a mirrorless or small format DSLR in FF, with small pancake lenses, etc. to boot? The fear I think they all have is would it be profitable. For Sony, they already make a bunch of APS-C sensors, so for the NEX-5 and new 7 series, they are "sharing" sensors between products and not coming out with something completely new. If Sony wasn't already using the sensors for their NEX series in their DSLR series would they have still made the NEX, that is questionable because if the NEX flops, they haven't lost out on all the effort to build the sensor specifically for that body, but if Olympus puts forth the effort for a FF sensor and it flops, they stand to lose a lot more.
The part about "steppers and lenses capable of exposing an entire full frame sensor at once" was something that was speculated about by one guy and was later shown to have little foundation in reality. Nobody knows for SURE what Canon has but there are good reasons to believe that they are still stitching full frame sensors. Also, the other large reason--that being how many FF sensors a wafer yields--still is highly relevant.
Finally a single sensor is not built from "one wafer", the wafer is a large-ish disc that is used to produce a bunch of 'em.
I think you and I are on the same page, just a misunderstanding It is much different writing impersonally on forums vs. if we were all hanging out at a coffee shop and talking photography. When you take the personal interaction out of it and are looking at each other face to face, we have much more grace and mercy for others A lot of us (including myself) could benefit from not being so quick to judge or quick to being offended on the forums, more often than not we are simply misunderstanding one another or have a difficult time expressing our point of view. That being said, there are definitely some who simply come to cause trouble, and for you - I have another solution in mind And I don't mean to indicate anyone in the latest posts, so please don't take offense
So to me this whole argument of print sizes became completely irrelevant with the advent of the 8mp sensor. There are some exceptions however... like for a printed map where the viewer is only interested in looking at a very small portion of the image and etc.. 
So I am confused at what didn't makes sense to you. But you also helped prove my point, that it wasn't the "sensor" itself that was causing the huge price gap, Canon proved with the 5D that they could sell a body with a FF sensor for much cheaper than what they had been with the 1Ds line, and in some ways they stepped on their own toes: they revealed that it wasn't just the sensor that meant you had to pay such a heavy price premium. Then in 2008 Nikon proved you can put a FF sensor in a body that included most of the bells and whistles of a pro series body and keep the price below $3000.
And I don't mean to indicate anyone in the latest posts, so please don't take offense 