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.6 #1What happened to the affordable FF dream?
at introduction? I doubt it.
I would expect to see more introductions at equivalent price points with more features, more MP, better performance. That I would agree with.
J.
I would expect to see more introductions at equivalent price points with more features, more MP, better performance. That I would agree with.
J.
Aug 08, 2009 at 01:50 PM
p.6 #2What happened to the affordable FF dream?
Daniel Heineck wrote:
15Bit--I think we're going to see a lot of innovation before we see a new wafer size. The cost of moving to 300mm from 200mm was staggering for most major fabs, it's a very long-term investment to make a switch.
I agree, but there is not enough room for improvement to knock zeros off the costs. Even with changes in wafer diameter. The simple truth is that this is a manufacturing process based on well understood and highly optimised materials science - high temperatures, carefully controlled (oriented) single crystal growth of an ultra pure material. There is probably still some space for tweaking, but i doubt there is very much. I think the real savings are to be made in synthesis and purification, and (probably more so) in the processing. Cutting and polishing crystals into wafers is very wasteful as it both removes a lot of material (more than is used in the wafer, if i remember correctly) and contaminates the material removed (so it requires reprocessing before re-use). If someone can invent a better way to cut the ingots they'll be rich beyond their wildest dreams.
In the long term i agree with regards to thin films. We have a strong research interest in thin films (i work at a Uni), and it looks like the way forward for a lot of technologies. There is also a surprisingly poor understanding of the fundamental science going on in many thin film techniques. I think there is a lot to come there.
I was under the impression that CVD/MBE type technologies were still rather too expensive for mass production purposes (especially for growth of thicker layers like Si would need to be). I did read something a while back about a US company working on some sort of vapour deposition process to make diamond sheets as an alternative substrate to Si, but haven't seen anything about it since. That would be *very* interesting if it came to be.
15Bit--I think we're going to see a lot of innovation before we see a new wafer size. The cost of moving to 300mm from 200mm was staggering for most major fabs, it's a very long-term investment to make a switch.
I agree, but there is not enough room for improvement to knock zeros off the costs. Even with changes in wafer diameter. The simple truth is that this is a manufacturing process based on well understood and highly optimised materials science - high temperatures, carefully controlled (oriented) single crystal growth of an ultra pure material. There is probably still some space for tweaking, but i doubt there is very much. I think the real savings are to be made in synthesis and purification, and (probably more so) in the processing. Cutting and polishing crystals into wafers is very wasteful as it both removes a lot of material (more than is used in the wafer, if i remember correctly) and contaminates the material removed (so it requires reprocessing before re-use). If someone can invent a better way to cut the ingots they'll be rich beyond their wildest dreams.
In the long term i agree with regards to thin films. We have a strong research interest in thin films (i work at a Uni), and it looks like the way forward for a lot of technologies. There is also a surprisingly poor understanding of the fundamental science going on in many thin film techniques. I think there is a lot to come there.
I was under the impression that CVD/MBE type technologies were still rather too expensive for mass production purposes (especially for growth of thicker layers like Si would need to be). I did read something a while back about a US company working on some sort of vapour deposition process to make diamond sheets as an alternative substrate to Si, but haven't seen anything about it since. That would be *very* interesting if it came to be.
Aug 08, 2009 at 02:47 PM
p.6 #3What happened to the affordable FF dream?
people can say that this or that defies the *laws* of physics and economics... and yet... in the realm of DSLRs... recent history suggests that "miracles happening" seem to be the norm...
I'm not going to jump into the fray... but I would be suprised if a $1000 FF DSLR didn't materialize sometime reasonably soon...
JohnJ80 wrote:
and your point is..... what?
J.
I'm not going to jump into the fray... but I would be suprised if a $1000 FF DSLR didn't materialize sometime reasonably soon...
JohnJ80 wrote:
and your point is..... what?
J.
Aug 08, 2009 at 02:59 PM
p.6 #4What happened to the affordable FF dream?
15bit,
Both MBE and MOCVD are used in manufacturing, mostly for optoelectronics (3/5 stuff) and communications. Small, expensive chips. I just heard a talk yesterday about superlattice solar cell technologies, and those are beyond prohibitively expensive for mainstream use. At least, for the moment. The good thing about these technologies is you only need ~5 um of material or so.
CVD diamond isn't too hard to get one's hands on at the moment, but it is quite expensive. I was helping another group with etching it to make VCSEL's, so I know it is around. Sapphire substrates seem to be more common though.
I did my MS working with amorphous thin-film materials sets that could be realized for future generation LCD use. It was pretty cool stuff that I hope takes off--I wouldn't mind having a couple of "classic" papers
Cheers,
D
Both MBE and MOCVD are used in manufacturing, mostly for optoelectronics (3/5 stuff) and communications. Small, expensive chips. I just heard a talk yesterday about superlattice solar cell technologies, and those are beyond prohibitively expensive for mainstream use. At least, for the moment. The good thing about these technologies is you only need ~5 um of material or so.
CVD diamond isn't too hard to get one's hands on at the moment, but it is quite expensive. I was helping another group with etching it to make VCSEL's, so I know it is around. Sapphire substrates seem to be more common though.
I did my MS working with amorphous thin-film materials sets that could be realized for future generation LCD use. It was pretty cool stuff that I hope takes off--I wouldn't mind having a couple of "classic" papers
Cheers,
D
Aug 08, 2009 at 03:28 PM
p.6 #5What happened to the affordable FF dream?
mh2000 wrote:
people can say that this or that defies the *laws* of physics and economics... and yet... in the realm of DSLRs... recent history suggests that "miracles happening" seem to be the norm...
I'm not going to jump into the fray... but I would be suprised if a $1000 FF DSLR didn't materialize sometime reasonably soon...
J.
Nor do I--but I think it's a lot further into the future an on a different architecture than a silicon chip. Paradigm shifting takes a long time.
D
people can say that this or that defies the *laws* of physics and economics... and yet... in the realm of DSLRs... recent history suggests that "miracles happening" seem to be the norm...
I'm not going to jump into the fray... but I would be suprised if a $1000 FF DSLR didn't materialize sometime reasonably soon...
JohnJ80 wrote
and your point is..... what?J.
Nor do I--but I think it's a lot further into the future an on a different architecture than a silicon chip. Paradigm shifting takes a long time.
D
Aug 08, 2009 at 03:32 PM
p.6 #6What happened to the affordable FF dream?
Pick up a Canon EOS 5D off the buy/sell forum
Aug 08, 2009 at 03:38 PM
p.6 #7What happened to the affordable FF dream?
Boy oh boy, a nice captive market, real or aspiring one, Canon seem to have for their $8k FF pro grade cameras as well as $2.7k FF prosumer cameras.
FF sensors extremely expensive to make ? Well, I've got news for you: any EOS system component Canon markets seems "extremely expensive" to make. That is, judging by their retail prices, like....
$100 ...end rubber protector for supertelephoto hoods.
$140 ...locknut for supertelephoto hoods.
$550 ...tripod mount ring for 300 f/2.8
$33 .....lens strap
What Canon needs is some real competition to kick the methane outta that profit (and/or gross inefficiency) baloon.
FF sensors extremely expensive to make ? Well, I've got news for you: any EOS system component Canon markets seems "extremely expensive" to make. That is, judging by their retail prices, like....
$100 ...end rubber protector for supertelephoto hoods.
$140 ...locknut for supertelephoto hoods.
$550 ...tripod mount ring for 300 f/2.8
$33 .....lens strap
What Canon needs is some real competition to kick the methane outta that profit (and/or gross inefficiency) baloon.
Aug 08, 2009 at 03:50 PM
p.6 #8What happened to the affordable FF dream?
mh2000 wrote:
people can say that this or that defies the *laws* of physics and economics... and yet... in the realm of DSLRs... recent history suggests that "miracles happening" seem to be the norm...
I'm not going to jump into the fray... but I would be suprised if a $1000 FF DSLR didn't materialize sometime reasonably soon...
Prepare to be surprised.
Either way, we'll see. I wouldn't be surprised to see a FF DSLR for under $1000 at some point but it won't be based on current semiconductor technology. It will be some other form of a sensor and it won't be associated with the word "soon."
J.
people can say that this or that defies the *laws* of physics and economics... and yet... in the realm of DSLRs... recent history suggests that "miracles happening" seem to be the norm...
I'm not going to jump into the fray... but I would be suprised if a $1000 FF DSLR didn't materialize sometime reasonably soon...
Prepare to be surprised.
Either way, we'll see. I wouldn't be surprised to see a FF DSLR for under $1000 at some point but it won't be based on current semiconductor technology. It will be some other form of a sensor and it won't be associated with the word "soon."
J.
Aug 08, 2009 at 04:04 PM
p.6 #9What happened to the affordable FF dream?
To address the OP's title, this has already occurred.
I got a used, low-mileage 5D I in January for $1100. If that isn't affordable, I'm not sure what is. Not to mention, I am a recent college grad, and I managed to save my monies long enough to pay for it. Just start saving now, do some research, and sniff out a deal.
I got a used, low-mileage 5D I in January for $1100. If that isn't affordable, I'm not sure what is. Not to mention, I am a recent college grad, and I managed to save my monies long enough to pay for it. Just start saving now, do some research, and sniff out a deal.
Aug 08, 2009 at 05:06 PM
p.6 #10What happened to the affordable FF dream?
It's not hard to find cached pages pointing out the fact that f J&R was selling 5D+24-105L kit for 2749 flat with free shipping. The really price conscious would have realized that Circuit City was selling that kit for $2700+tax to anyone with a AAA card. Those less price conscious consumers were paying 2799 instead.
As I said, I'm not talking about marketing gimmicks. I suspect the profit margin on the lens is quite high--a lot higher than on the bodies.
I'm sure many would consider that a 3-card monty trick though, since they were sticking you with a lens that was widely panned as being crap on the 5D.
Yeah, that would be a 3-card monty trick. Stick you with a $200 lens that they normally sold for $900 and make you think you had a good deal on the camera.
As I said, I'm not talking about marketing gimmicks. I suspect the profit margin on the lens is quite high--a lot higher than on the bodies.
I'm sure many would consider that a 3-card monty trick though, since they were sticking you with a lens that was widely panned as being crap on the 5D.
Yeah, that would be a 3-card monty trick. Stick you with a $200 lens that they normally sold for $900 and make you think you had a good deal on the camera.
Aug 08, 2009 at 06:00 PM