gml1 wrote:
Plasma TVs didn't shrink in size either but their prices dropped 10-15 times for the last 7-8 years.
I am talking about manufacturing efficiencies, not shrinking die sizes. Initial investments had to be recouped and manufacturing certainly had its flaws, which could have justified the high initial prices. More than 5 years later, though, these cameras still cost basically the same (unless you consider 15% a massive discount).
Very good point
Plasma TVs have been an intensely competitive market. Manufacturers had to continually improve features and reduce costs to remain competitive on the showroom flow...
The P&S Digital camera market is similarly highly competitive, with manufacturers introducing new models several times a year to remain competitive. This has seen the classic feature wars, with prices dropping and new features being added competitively several times a year!
The reality is that for Nikon and Canon there has been no effective completion in the DSLR market for many years (just started to change in 2006 with Sony and Pentax)... They have treated the DSLR market (especially the higher end) as a "cash cow" (Google for DSLR Profit (Canon or Nikon) and see.
Indeed Nikon as per this kink http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05080802nikonprofit_soars.asp increased it's profits 4 times by moving its focus away from the P&S market to the DSLR market. There are similar posts about Canons record profits etc. However I think the rise in market share for the D40/D80/D200 shows the power of a little competition…
As I have posted earlier, the market follows profits and the competition in the DSLR from Nikon, Pentax and Sony (and to a lesser extent right now from Olympus and Fuji etc) is fantastic for the consumer. We are going to see more features and innovation over the next few years than we have in the past, with more rapid upgrades and the mid level DSLR in 3 or 4 years time will be amazing… Equally the best DSLR is likely to cost arround the same as a Caon 1Ds Mark II or Nikon D2X etc but will be light years ahead in value and features...
johnecon wrote:
Don't forget that both the 1D2N and 1Ds2 have seen major price drops
lately - - especially the 1Ds2. At B&H (with code PSJAN) you can find
the 1D2N for $3414, and the 1Ds2 for $6749. That's a $585 and $1250
drop respectively. That either means it has gotten cheaper to make them,
or they will be replaced soon. Or maybe it just means they want to try
to sell more by lowering the price point.
John
Add to that Canon are just making a less fat off these products. Their initial pricing reflected lack of competition and the fact they could still sell them at that price as they were the best show in town. They are now 2.5-3 yo, price cuts are inevitable as are replacements.
This post has gotten waaaaay off track. It's a looong time until PMA.
Does anyone think that Canon will go completely crazy this year because it's their 70th (?) anniversary, or will they do just enough to stay ahead of Nikon?
"The mirror box is larger and requires more sophisticated mechanics and electronics operating at tighter tolerances."
That was true of the least expensive SLRs back in the film days though. I suspect that the costs of producing this mechanical assembly is much less today (at least in inflation adjusted cost) than it was back then given the cost reductions in other manufacturing areas. (I base this on my knowledge of cost trends that I have observed for other mechanical devices such as - and here I date myself... ;-) - casette recorder mechanism, etc.
"Memory prices decline due to greater miniaturization"
True, but that is not the only factor that reduces cost here. While sensor size is an aspect of sensor cost, it is not the the only factor. To name one other, some cost benefits occur as devices like sensors are produced and sold in larger numbers.
Another interesting thought experiment: Has the cost of individual APS-C sensor units of a given MP quantity stayed the same or dropped since they were first produced? If you can demonstrate that their cost has stayed the same on an inflation-adjusted basis I might give more credence to the argument that such cost pattern would repeat with FF sensors. On the other hand, if APS-C sensors now cost less per unit then the same trend might be predicted for FF sensors.
"The new Pioneer Elite 1080P Plasma (same 50" size) I just ordered is also going to cost me that same figure."
Given inflation over a 10 year period and assuming the the two units are otherwise identical, you have just given support to the argument that the price does go down. If it still costs $10,000 today, the cost is lower in real terms. :-)
danmitchell wrote:
Given inflation over a 10 year period and assuming the the two units are otherwise identical, you have just given support to the argument that the price does go down. If it still costs $10,000 today, the cost is lower in real terms. :-)
Thus Canon's FF body prices have gone down more than my plasma. My first 1Ds I paid $7999 for, and the last 1DsII I bought I paid $6700 for, so applying your logic, the FF 1 series body has decreased to a greater percentage than the plasma, a veritable bargain.
"Thus Canon's FF body prices have gone down more than my plasma. My first 1Ds I paid $7999 for, and the last 1DsII I bought I paid $6700 for, so applying your logic, the FF 1 series body has decreased to a greater percentage than the plasma, a veritable bargain."
Not sure where your question fits in the (now belabored) discussion of whether it is possible that full frame sensor costs might decrease.
In any case, while I would not use the term "veritable" bargain, perhaps we agree that the newer camera is a "comparative" bargain on price and features - both better and less expensive than the earlier model.
But you confuse me. Once again, doesn't your new point also support the notion that costs are likely to be less on a future and even better camera in this line? ;-)
It seems to me that the "evidence" you presented in the first post supports the argument that there could be a less expensive full frame sensor in upcoming cameras... and your follow-up "evidence" presents a trend line supporting the notion that a future and better cameras could cost less than past cameras.
Or maybe that actually was your point and I'm missing something?
I'm going to try really, really hard to let this go now... Really. I promise. Sorta... :-)
danmitchell wrote:
It seems to me that the "evidence" you presented in the first post supports the argument that there could be a less expensive full frame sensor in upcoming cameras... and your follow-up "evidence" presents a trend line supporting the notion that a future and better cameras could cost less than past cameras.
Or maybe that actually was your point and I'm missing something?
Given the number of pages of drivel one would have to sort through, I can see how it would be easy to miss
I've stated I expect Canon to have a FF body for around $1500 or less in 2009. However, the top 1 series will likely be many times that figure, and probably close to what 1DsII models currently sell for. Others here have argued Canon has not lowered the price on the 1DsII as much as they could have due to advances in manufacturing or other areas. As you pointed out, even if the price had remained the same, they would in essence have lowered the price. Given they did actually lower the price over that timespan (as well as improving the product), I don't believe Canon is gouging me as others seem to believe. The argument was presented that plasma displays have dropped 10 to 15 times in price, and thus camera prices should have dropped far more than they have. I presented my scenario as evidence that, like for like, plasma displays have not dropped anywhere near that extent. The future FF $1500 camera I alluded to above will have no where near the feature set of the top 1 series of the day. Much like the current cheap plasmas, something has to give to allow a bargain basement price. Advancing technology but keeping the price the same or slightly lower seems to have been well received with the 10/20/30D, so I fail to see why a similar scenario with the 1 series line causes such an uproar; the 1 series line isn't, and has never been, a price leader line.
danmitchell wrote:
Another interesting thought experiment: Has the cost of individual APS-C sensor units of a given MP quantity stayed the same or dropped since they were first produced? If you can demonstrate that their cost has stayed the same on an inflation-adjusted basis I might give more credence to the argument that such cost pattern would repeat with FF sensors. On the other hand, if APS-C sensors now cost less per unit then the same trend might be predicted for FF sensors.
APS-C sensors have dropped in price, though perhaps not as quickly in recent years as a few years ago (think of the D-30 - D-60 - 10D price drop). I think that full-frame is starting to undergo a similar drop as the major manufacturing hurdles are ironed out. Once the larger issues are ironed out (and I believe that the 5D has gone a long way to achieving that goal), full-frame will remain above smaller sensors in price, but the differential will have shrunk and will likely remain at a relatively fixed level. What that differential is might be debatable, given all considerations such as mirror box, shutter, and pentaprism size. But it will likely not be a huge sum once full-frame completes its maturation.
Frankly, I think that Nikon and Pentax (and maybe Sony) are watching Canon and will learn from Canon's efforts. At least Nikon will produce a full-frame body in the next year or so (IMHO - no inside knowledge). Pentax may follow. Not sure on Sony as they seem to like the larger consumer markets and FF may or may not provide a large-enough market.
Hammerli wrote:
Given the number of pages of drivel one would have to sort through, I can see how it would be easy to miss
I've stated I expect Canon to have a FF body for around $1500 or less in 2009. However, the top 1 series will likely be many times that figure, and probably close to what 1DsII models currently sell for. Others here have argued Canon has not lowered the price on the 1DsII as much as they could have due to advances in manufacturing or other areas. As you pointed out, even if the price had remained the same, they would in essence have lowered the price. Given they did actually lower the price over that timespan (as well as improving the product), I don't believe Canon is gouging me as others seem to believe. The argument was presented that plasma displays have dropped 10 to 15 times in price, and thus camera prices should have dropped far more than they have. I presented my scenario as evidence that, like for like, plasma displays have not dropped anywhere near that extent. The future FF $1500 camera I alluded to above will have no where near the feature set of the top 1 series of the day. Much like the current cheap plasmas, something has to give to allow a bargain basement price. Advancing technology but keeping the price the same or slightly lower seems to have been well received with the 10/20/30D, so I fail to see why a similar scenario with the 1 series line causes such an uproar; the 1 series line isn't, and has never been, a price leader line....Show more →
I expect that in 5 years APS-C cameras will cost about $200-600 depending on the feature set, and the 1 series would drop to around the $2K a bit dearer than an 1V.
We are still in the R&D phase and DSLR technology has not fully matured, that todays 30D costs about the same as an EOS 1V says something.
With electronics the R&D phase never ends. The bottom has already fallen out of the low end of the DSLR market. But I see no reason that the high end will come down in price - except lack of innovation.
The price of large flat panel TV has certainly rapidly declined. It has even declined faster than the rapid rate forecast. That industry will allow customers the opportunity to buy technology a year too soon at silly prices. But that's not an argument against the collapse of prices (and profitability).
dcmiller wrote:
With electronics the R&D phase never ends. The bottom has already fallen out of the low end of the DSLR market. But I see no reason that the high end will come down in price - except lack of innovation.
The price of large flat panel TV has certainly rapidly declined. It has even declined faster than the rapid rate forecast. That industry will allow customers the opportunity to buy technology a year too soon at silly prices. But that's not an argument against the collapse of prices (and profitability).
Part of the reason for the rapid price reduction in plasmas is the use of cheap components. Same with VCRs, DVD players etc. Many of todays products are rubbish designed to be thrown away at breakdown. You still pay a fortune for a premium plasma, but what you get now at the low end is very dodgy. You don't get something for nothing.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Part of the reason for the rapid price reduction in plasmas is the use of cheap components. Same with VCRs, DVD players etc. Many of todays products are rubbish designed to be thrown away at breakdown. You still pay a fortune for a premium plasma, but what you get now at the low end is very dodgy. You don't get something for nothing.
That information comes from...where? If you look at the well regarded Panasoic commercial line, prices have fallen dramatically and there's no indication of a decrease in quality.
I have followed this industry for a long time, and the stuff some of you guys are coming up with would be news to all of the professional analysts.
You can't compare plasma television manufacturing to semiconductors. Semiconductor manufacturing is a very mature industry. Cost per square unit of die area is not going to drop by a large percentage any time soon. Therefore, neither will the cost of FF photo sensors (which are fixed at 36x24mm die area, at the minimum).
10DFT wrote:
At least Nikon will produce a full-frame body in the next year or so (IMHO - no inside knowledge).
Is it physically possible for Nikon to produce a full frame 35mm size body while still retaining the common F-mount diameter? Some rep at an industry trade show explained to me once that Nikon's decision to retain the F-mount limits the sensor size they can expand to. This same rep went on to explain that the fact that Canon jettisioned all previous lens mounts when they went with the larger hole of the EOS mount has enabled Canon to produce a full frame sensor within a 35mm chassis.
I know, the obvious question is why can all the Nikons from the F through the F6 expose a full frame of film, and not expose a full frame digital sensor. This is the question I failed to ask the rep. I'm wondering if the Nikon body would have to be made a lot deeper in order to move the sensor plane back far enough for all the light rays to hit it right. More speculation, in a speculative thread.
However, I would sort of like to have some confirmation of the logic presented by the factory rep... regarding Nikon's limitation to a DX 1.5 crop factor until they widen the lens mount.
Others here have argued Canon has not lowered the price on the 1DsII as much as they could have due to advances in manufacturing or other areas. As you pointed out, even if the price had remained the same, they would in essence have lowered the price. Given they did actually lower the price over that timespan (as well as improving the product), I don't believe Canon is gouging me as others seem to believe.
Canon has constantly touted their ability to bring down DSLR prices as a product of their ability to design cameras for more efficent parts fabrication and assembly--not cheaper sensors. At this point, Canon has turned out--what--five camera models since the last new 1D (I'm not counting the 1D MkII n--that consisted of nothing but a firmware change and a drop-in LCD).
They haven't yet marketed a 1D camera that reflects what they've learned about fabrication and assembly in the last 2+ years. It's not realistic to compare the price of a camera made on an antiquated assembly line to a much more modern camera.
Focus Locus wrote:
Is it physically possible for Nikon to produce a full frame 35mm size body while still retaining the common F-mount diameter? Some rep at an industry trade show explained to me once that Nikon's decision to retain the F-mount limits the sensor size they can expand to. This same rep went on to explain that the fact that Canon jettisioned all previous lens mounts when they went with the larger hole of the EOS mount has enabled Canon to produce a full frame sensor within a 35mm chassis.
I know, the obvious question is why can all the Nikons from the F through the F6 expose a full frame of film, and not expose a full frame digital sensor. This is the question I failed to ask the rep. I'm wondering if the Nikon body would have to be made a lot deeper in order to move the sensor plane back far enough for all the light rays to hit it right. More speculation, in a speculative thread.
However, I would sort of like to have some confirmation of the logic presented by the factory rep... regarding Nikon's limitation to a DX 1.5 crop factor until they widen the lens mount....Show more →
You have to be careful when talking to stupid people as they tend to make up stupid answers.
dcmiller wrote:
That information comes from...where? If you look at the well regarded Panasoic commercial line, prices have fallen dramatically and there's no indication of a decrease in quality.
I have followed this industry for a long time, and the stuff some of you guys are coming up with would be news to all of the professional analysts.
Talk to the guys in the service departments and the specialized home theatre stores. The margins are so thin many have given up on one or the other formats (LCD or Plasma). Somethings got to give. You have trouble now finding good quality DVD players for example at most stores. In Australia the market for a $500 player is almost non existent; 99% of the people could care less about the quality of the compnents. If they are only paying $99 for a brand name player, who cares if it lasts 2-3 years. They aren't putting high spec components in these cheapies. Try and return one for repair out of warranty as my friend did.
As I said that's just part of the reason for the price falls and I'm not saying they are all rubbish, but I won't be buying a $2000 126cm plasma, no matter how good the brochure.
That information comes from...where? If you look at the well regarded Panasoic commercial line, prices have fallen dramatically and there's no indication of a decrease in quality.
I have followed this industry for a long time, and the stuff some of you guys are coming up with would be news to all of the professional analysts.
Talk to the guys in the service departments and the specialized home theatre stores. The margins are so thin many have given up on one or the other formats (LCD or Plasma). Somethings got to give. You have trouble now finding good quality DVD players for example at most stores. In Australia the market for a $500 player is almost non existent; 99% of the people could care less about the quality of the compnents. If they are only paying $99 for a brand name player, who cares if it lasts 2-3 years. They aren't putting high spec components in these cheapies. Try and return one for repair out of warranty as my friend did.
As I said that's just part of the reason for the price falls and I'm not saying they are all rubbish, but I won't be buying a $2000 126cm plasma, no matter how good the brochure.
I cannot agree with you on this one. It is a mistake to compare a $99 very low end product with a $2000 one. The consumers demand is much higher on the later.
And trying to contradict your logic I will give an example: my cousin boght in 2001 a 107 cm Samsung plasma TV for 5000 €, and it was a naked model lacking even the TV tunner. I bought a 107 Samsung plasma at the end of 2005 for 2000 €, it has dual tunner capability and much nicer image quality. So I think youre wrong ont this one.
