This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009What happened to the affordable FF dream?
p.3 #1What happened to the affordable FF dream?
JohnJ80 wrote:
Most of these features have a minimal - if any - impact on the cost of goods sold. Most of it is software which is an R&D expense that you amortize into the cost of the product over time (much lower). Taking out these features will not have an appreciable impact on producing a consumer full frame camera. The fact still remains that the semiconductor size impact on the sensor cost is what stops FF in it's tracks from getting into the consumer price points.
J.
People won't get this. A 24x36mm chip is ENORMOUS in semicon speak, especially on a 200mm platform (I'd be shocked if they use 300mm). What is intel's biggest die right now--somewhere around 250mm^2? The yield part of my brain just hurts thinking about that die size. That chip has to be very expensive to manufacture.
It's also the reason you won't see really small transistors on a sensor die--the photolithography over that large an are is tough. Stitching is even worse.
Sub-frame sensors make a lot of sense from a manufacturing standpoint.
Most of these features have a minimal - if any - impact on the cost of goods sold. Most of it is software which is an R&D expense that you amortize into the cost of the product over time (much lower). Taking out these features will not have an appreciable impact on producing a consumer full frame camera. The fact still remains that the semiconductor size impact on the sensor cost is what stops FF in it's tracks from getting into the consumer price points.
J.
People won't get this. A 24x36mm chip is ENORMOUS in semicon speak, especially on a 200mm platform (I'd be shocked if they use 300mm). What is intel's biggest die right now--somewhere around 250mm^2? The yield part of my brain just hurts thinking about that die size. That chip has to be very expensive to manufacture.
It's also the reason you won't see really small transistors on a sensor die--the photolithography over that large an are is tough. Stitching is even worse.
Sub-frame sensors make a lot of sense from a manufacturing standpoint.
Aug 06, 2009 at 11:24 AM
p.3 #2What happened to the affordable FF dream?
David Baldwin wrote:
"Very simple, go back to basics get rid of all the crap like video, liveview etc and just produce a simple solidly constructed camera with a decent AF."
Personally I can't do without Live View, with this all my manual focussing is totally accurate. AF and focussing screens don't come anywhere close. Do agree about the video though.
totally agree, if anything, the old guard should love liveview since it can bring them back to their groundglass viewcam days
and yeah a FF sensor is hard to produce
(the 1dsmkiiii does appear to have a bit of an obscene markup though)
"Very simple, go back to basics get rid of all the crap like video, liveview etc and just produce a simple solidly constructed camera with a decent AF."
Personally I can't do without Live View, with this all my manual focussing is totally accurate. AF and focussing screens don't come anywhere close. Do agree about the video though.
totally agree, if anything, the old guard should love liveview since it can bring them back to their groundglass viewcam days
and yeah a FF sensor is hard to produce
(the 1dsmkiiii does appear to have a bit of an obscene markup though)
Aug 06, 2009 at 11:31 AM
p.3 #3What happened to the affordable FF dream?
i've started to wonder why the 1Ds2 sensor didn't make its way into their budget FF offering. if the 5DMk1n had only had 16MPs and would have gone for 2100 initially, wouldn't that have been industry-changing?
monkeys.
monkeys.
Aug 06, 2009 at 11:35 AM
p.3 #4What happened to the affordable FF dream?
Daniel Heineck wrote:
People won't get this. A 24x36mm chip is ENORMOUS in semicon speak, especially on a 200mm platform (I'd be shocked if they use 300mm).
Well, prepare to be shocked - according to this CNet article, Canon has been using 300mm wafers since maybe 2006. Here's the relevant part:
Indeed, when I asked him about it, Canon Technical Adviser Chuck Westfall told me, "The machine that Canon uses to manufacture its CMOS image sensors for EOS digital SLRs does in fact use a 300mm wafer...Canon has had the capability to use 300mm wafers since at least 2006."
Current pricing of FF cameras is mostly marketing driven.
As I said in my previous post, these are premium products (at least for now).
Until they lose this status, they won't get cheap.
People won't get this. A 24x36mm chip is ENORMOUS in semicon speak, especially on a 200mm platform (I'd be shocked if they use 300mm).
Well, prepare to be shocked - according to this CNet article, Canon has been using 300mm wafers since maybe 2006. Here's the relevant part:
Indeed, when I asked him about it, Canon Technical Adviser Chuck Westfall told me, "The machine that Canon uses to manufacture its CMOS image sensors for EOS digital SLRs does in fact use a 300mm wafer...Canon has had the capability to use 300mm wafers since at least 2006."
Current pricing of FF cameras is mostly marketing driven.
As I said in my previous post, these are premium products (at least for now).
Until they lose this status, they won't get cheap.
Aug 06, 2009 at 12:39 PM
p.3 #5What happened to the affordable FF dream?
George.ML:
i've started to wonder why the 1Ds2 sensor didn't make its way into their budget FF offering.
Agreed. I would even ask why Canon did not make $1700 5D mk1N with the old sensor and new electronics. After all the price of 5D was down to ~C1700 ($1530) with all the rebates, at one point.
I simply refuse to pay current, inflated prices.
i've started to wonder why the 1Ds2 sensor didn't make its way into their budget FF offering.
Agreed. I would even ask why Canon did not make $1700 5D mk1N with the old sensor and new electronics. After all the price of 5D was down to ~C1700 ($1530) with all the rebates, at one point.
I simply refuse to pay current, inflated prices.
Aug 06, 2009 at 01:06 PM
p.3 #6What happened to the affordable FF dream?
George.ML wrote:
Well, prepare to be shocked - according to this CNet article, Canon has been using 300mm wafers since maybe 2006. Here's the relevant part:
Current pricing of FF cameras is mostly marketing driven.
As I said in my previous post, these are premium products (at least for now).
Until they lose this status, they won't get cheap.
whether it is 200mm or 300mm is secondary. The massive size of die does not lend itself to cost effective volume manufacturing. Either way the yields are low and the majority of the wafer cost will be born by a very low number of die per wafer. Your statement about being "mostly market driven" is not correct. If they, as you say, are priced based primarily on status, if they get cheap, they won't be produced because it won't be economical. Certainly they have lost some of their status over the last few years and there hasn't been significant price erosion.
J.
Daniel Heineck wrote
People won't get this. A 24x36mm chip is ENORMOUS in semicon speak, especially on a 200mm platform (I'd be shocked if they use 300mm).Earlier quote
Indeed, when I asked him about it, Canon Technical Adviser Chuck Westfall told me, "The machine that Canon uses to manufacture its CMOS image sensors for EOS digital SLRs does in fact use a 300mm wafer...Canon has had the capability to use 300mm wafers since at least 2006."As I said in my previous post, these are premium products (at least for now).
Until they lose this status, they won't get cheap.
whether it is 200mm or 300mm is secondary. The massive size of die does not lend itself to cost effective volume manufacturing. Either way the yields are low and the majority of the wafer cost will be born by a very low number of die per wafer. Your statement about being "mostly market driven" is not correct. If they, as you say, are priced based primarily on status, if they get cheap, they won't be produced because it won't be economical. Certainly they have lost some of their status over the last few years and there hasn't been significant price erosion.
J.
Aug 06, 2009 at 01:18 PM
p.3 #7What happened to the affordable FF dream?
digitalbug30d wrote:
J.so the 1dsmk3s sensor costs 4400.00 
but the FF sensor in the 5dmk2 is 1500.00..
cost of goods sold, not retail price which is cost of goods sold plus mfg margin and overhead plus retail overhead.
While I don't know the price numbers, let's presume that Canon has about 50% margins on their products and that includes the retail margin. Then if a the 5Dmk2 costs $2800, the cost of goods sold will be about $1400 and the sensor would be about $770 or so. This doesn't include the cost to mfg and I don't know what that would be, but the $700 to $500 price range for this at Canon's cost wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I've had chips in the high unit quantity that were considered big, but much smaller than this, cost that much.
There are also certainly testing and yield differences because of performance between the two. For example, suppose the exact same die design could be used in two cameras - one of the 1D level performance, the other of the 5D level performance. The 1D sensor would be selected based on its performance to high ISO, it's lower level of noise and other performance factors over the 5D. So, the best of the best would be selected for the 1D over the 5D - or in IC terms, the 1D yield is a much smaller part of the overall yield. Test time is a huge cost factor as well - so the 1D by nature of its lower yield and more time to verify it's performance will cause it to cost more.
J.
JohnJ80 wrote
sensor is about 55% of the cost of the entire body. Until the semiconductor cost comes down for such a large IC, you are just not going to get to a consumer FF body.J.
but the FF sensor in the 5dmk2 is 1500.00..
cost of goods sold, not retail price which is cost of goods sold plus mfg margin and overhead plus retail overhead.
While I don't know the price numbers, let's presume that Canon has about 50% margins on their products and that includes the retail margin. Then if a the 5Dmk2 costs $2800, the cost of goods sold will be about $1400 and the sensor would be about $770 or so. This doesn't include the cost to mfg and I don't know what that would be, but the $700 to $500 price range for this at Canon's cost wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I've had chips in the high unit quantity that were considered big, but much smaller than this, cost that much.
There are also certainly testing and yield differences because of performance between the two. For example, suppose the exact same die design could be used in two cameras - one of the 1D level performance, the other of the 5D level performance. The 1D sensor would be selected based on its performance to high ISO, it's lower level of noise and other performance factors over the 5D. So, the best of the best would be selected for the 1D over the 5D - or in IC terms, the 1D yield is a much smaller part of the overall yield. Test time is a huge cost factor as well - so the 1D by nature of its lower yield and more time to verify it's performance will cause it to cost more.
J.
Aug 06, 2009 at 01:26 PM
p.3 #8What happened to the affordable FF dream?
What happened to the dream? It's still a dream, and will be for many years. I don't know if it's even economically possible to make a sub-$1000 FF and still make a profit--I doubt it is.
If Canon produce a FF for less than $2000 MSRP I'll be impressed, let alone $1000. FF for less than $1000 just ain't gonna happen soon I'm afraid.
If Canon produce a FF for less than $2000 MSRP I'll be impressed, let alone $1000. FF for less than $1000 just ain't gonna happen soon I'm afraid.
Aug 06, 2009 at 02:58 PM
p.3 #9What happened to the affordable FF dream?
cynic that i am, canon was in 2008 producing a FF camera and selling it for as low as $1700USD (half of what it was initially offered for a mere three years prior) -- and now that there are soon to be three other dslrs in the budget FF class, i'm optimistic that competition will work for us in the coming 24-36 months.
Aug 06, 2009 at 03:17 PM
p.3 #11What happened to the affordable FF dream?
nads wrote:
What in the heck happened? Four years go by and instead of dropping in price, the FF options have increased in price by nearly $1000?
I believe at introduction the 12Mp 5D cost $3400, whereas the 21Mp 5D Mark II was introduced at $2700. Not only has the resolution and high-ISO image quality increased markedly in the new model, but there have been many other refinements and advancements too numerous to mention. (And don't forget HD video capture.) So it's not quite correct to say that FF options have increased in price.
If you must have FF on the cheap, a used 5D in good condition at ~$1200 is a great deal in terms of image quality for the dollar.
As far as "consumer-level" FF cameras go, I don't think either of the top two manufacturers will be in a hurry to compete on price in this category. Instead, they will try to maintain price points and increase functionality with newer models. That's why 3 generations of the Canon 1Ds have been introducted at $8K, and why the Nikon D3x is priced the same.
What in the heck happened? Four years go by and instead of dropping in price, the FF options have increased in price by nearly $1000?
I believe at introduction the 12Mp 5D cost $3400, whereas the 21Mp 5D Mark II was introduced at $2700. Not only has the resolution and high-ISO image quality increased markedly in the new model, but there have been many other refinements and advancements too numerous to mention. (And don't forget HD video capture.) So it's not quite correct to say that FF options have increased in price.
If you must have FF on the cheap, a used 5D in good condition at ~$1200 is a great deal in terms of image quality for the dollar.
As far as "consumer-level" FF cameras go, I don't think either of the top two manufacturers will be in a hurry to compete on price in this category. Instead, they will try to maintain price points and increase functionality with newer models. That's why 3 generations of the Canon 1Ds have been introducted at $8K, and why the Nikon D3x is priced the same.
Aug 06, 2009 at 04:53 PM
p.3 #12What happened to the affordable FF dream?
"based on what?"
based on the first 49 words of my last post. need a hug?
based on the first 49 words of my last post. need a hug?
Aug 06, 2009 at 05:24 PM
p.3 #13What happened to the affordable FF dream?
garyvot:
I believe at introduction the 12Mp 5D cost $3400
Many have said that 5D reached $1700 price level. There was nothing wrong with selling this camera at that price.
Video is the last thing some (I did not say "everybody") care about.
As a matter of fact I do not really need FF (I almost exclusively shoot tele) but it bothers me that there is no simple camera in Canon offering. As I said already, I may get Sony FF just because it "does not have the stupid video". It would be my FF, 50mm, "back to basics" camera.
Edited on Aug 06, 2009 at 06:17 PM · View previous versions
I believe at introduction the 12Mp 5D cost $3400
Many have said that 5D reached $1700 price level. There was nothing wrong with selling this camera at that price.
Video is the last thing some (I did not say "everybody") care about.
As a matter of fact I do not really need FF (I almost exclusively shoot tele) but it bothers me that there is no simple camera in Canon offering. As I said already, I may get Sony FF just because it "does not have the stupid video". It would be my FF, 50mm, "back to basics" camera.
Edited on Aug 06, 2009 at 06:17 PM · View previous versions
Aug 06, 2009 at 05:28 PM
p.3 #14What happened to the affordable FF dream?
abam wrote:
i've started to wonder why the 1Ds2 sensor didn't make its way into their budget FF offering. if the 5DMk1n had only had 16MPs and would have gone for 2100 initially, wouldn't that have been industry-changing?
monkeys.
had only had 16MP
it only had 12.7, nevermind more than 16
unless you mean a 16MP 5dmkii??
but the MP count doesn't add as much as the sensor size itself so i dont think the 1dsmkii sensor would've been 600 less expensive
plus that camera would barely have more deail than 50D and a ton less reach than the xxD
i've started to wonder why the 1Ds2 sensor didn't make its way into their budget FF offering. if the 5DMk1n had only had 16MPs and would have gone for 2100 initially, wouldn't that have been industry-changing?
monkeys.
had only had 16MP
it only had 12.7, nevermind more than 16
unless you mean a 16MP 5dmkii??
but the MP count doesn't add as much as the sensor size itself so i dont think the 1dsmkii sensor would've been 600 less expensive
plus that camera would barely have more deail than 50D and a ton less reach than the xxD
Aug 06, 2009 at 06:09 PM
p.3 #15What happened to the affordable FF dream?
George.ML wrote:
The sensor size is a great opportunity for the camera makers to segment the market - with the FF cameras going straight to the premium segment.
What you are basically asking why are these premium products not getting cheaper over time.
If nice expensive cars are any indication, you know what the anwer is.
Nice expensive cars really aren't any indication at all. The product life cycle of a automobile bears almost no similarity to that of a technology product.
The DSLR market is getting extremely close to maturity. The days of real, significant innovation that produces greater functionality and usability are behind us. If anybody thinks that Canon is going to be able to continue the pattern of producing a new iteration of a past product and releasing it back to retail at the same price point, they are mistaken.
Look at the xxD series... What are they going to improve on that body that will encourage 40d or 50d owners to upgrade? Without meaningful innovation in that body, they will face saturation and be forced to compete entirely on price.
The sensor size is a great opportunity for the camera makers to segment the market - with the FF cameras going straight to the premium segment.
What you are basically asking why are these premium products not getting cheaper over time.
If nice expensive cars are any indication, you know what the anwer is.
Nice expensive cars really aren't any indication at all. The product life cycle of a automobile bears almost no similarity to that of a technology product.
The DSLR market is getting extremely close to maturity. The days of real, significant innovation that produces greater functionality and usability are behind us. If anybody thinks that Canon is going to be able to continue the pattern of producing a new iteration of a past product and releasing it back to retail at the same price point, they are mistaken.
Look at the xxD series... What are they going to improve on that body that will encourage 40d or 50d owners to upgrade? Without meaningful innovation in that body, they will face saturation and be forced to compete entirely on price.
Aug 06, 2009 at 07:51 PM
p.3 #16What happened to the affordable FF dream?
Everybody talking about stripping out features on the 5D2 to make a cheaper FF makes no sense! The only thing I can personally see the 5D2 standing to loose would be the video, and that certainly wouldn't make it $600-$800 cheaper. What else would anybody give up just to get FF?
Aug 06, 2009 at 09:26 PM
p.3 #17What happened to the affordable FF dream?
While your waiting for a new, sub-1000, FF camera......go buy a used 1D for 4-600 and be amazed (up to 1250/1600).
Tad
Tad
Aug 06, 2009 at 09:39 PM
p.3 #18What happened to the affordable FF dream?
really Canon should bring out the internet legend 3D
16.7mp
digic4x2
3 inch high rez screen
interchangeble focus screens
same A/F and metering as the 1d Series
weatherized as a 1D,ISO 100-6400
form factor of a eos3 film camera
1899.00
why to jump the competition other than a high in mp count
16.7mp
digic4x2
3 inch high rez screen
interchangeble focus screens
same A/F and metering as the 1d Series
weatherized as a 1D,ISO 100-6400
form factor of a eos3 film camera
1899.00
why to jump the competition other than a high in mp count
Aug 06, 2009 at 10:00 PM
p.3 #19What happened to the affordable FF dream?
Agreed. I would even ask why Canon did not make $1700 5D mk1N with the old sensor and new electronics. After all the price of 5D was down to ~C1700 ($1530) with all the rebates, at one point. I simply refuse to pay current, inflated prices.
Many have said that 5D reached $1700 price level. There was nothing wrong with selling this camera at that price.
Yes there is--there's no margin at that price. Canon probably refuses to make no profit too
The only reason why the 5D reached that level was it was at the end of the product planning cycle. It was getting long in the tooth and couldn't justify a higher price for customers in comparison to a much higher resolution 1Ds3 or much cheaper 40D. How far the 5D dropped was a question of inventory and how fast the 5D2 came on stream in the product line, plus the relation to the competition.
It's a bad idea to gauge the cost of producing a product towards the end of a lifecycle--traditionally a manufacturer will dump the last few months as customers are expecting a new model and the other products above and below in the line have become better or cheaper. Who knows why it fell that far? Maybe there was an excess of units and they didn't want to ruin the 5D2 launch? Maybe half the people who qualify for a rebate never turn in their coupons so they don't lose anything on rebates? Maybe they made a last ditch promotion to bring up market share numbers? Maybe they blended one margin with another (eg, printer bundles) to bolster their quarterly report?
Unless you're the product manager at Canon evaluating the profitability of that model, you can't judge of $1700 is a profitable/sustainable price for an FF DSLR. I also can buy moldy fruit for half price at my grocery store in the clearance bin, but that's a consequence of inventory, not an indication of what a piece of fruit can be sold for.
Very simple, go back to basics get rid of all the crap like video, liveview etc and just produce a simple solidly constructed camera with a decent AF.
That's a really small market. A set of technically aware purchasers who can't afford or refuse to buy a 5D2, ignoring the already plentiful options (used 5D, new 5D2, new 1Ds3, used 1Ds2, used 1Ds) but demand a featureless, non competitive product that no other vendor (Sony, Nikon) has chosen to make either.
What you're saying is, invest in all the non recoverable expense required to develop a high performance digital SLR, set up tooling for it and produce and market it, then ignore the margins required and sell it for just about nothing.
One really has to ask, how many of these buyers will there be? Those who demand technical performance, but at a price that can't be recouped to make a profit?
Aug 06, 2009 at 10:26 PM
p.3 #20What happened to the affordable FF dream?
RobertLynn wrote:
keep FF out of the sub 1K market.
why?
keep FF out of the sub 1K market.
why?
Aug 06, 2009 at 10:31 PM