Lotusm50 wrote:
Small fraction or not, $2000+ cameras with FF sensor are profitable and have higher margins. They will continue to be built.
i would certainly think so (at least until mirrorless FF can match all the strengths of FF dslrs). i can see how a consumer electronics company with little market share might decide it's not worth it though.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Even if people are moving to mirror-less cameras, there is nothing that says they can't make a FF mirror-less camera (e.g., Leica M9). Further, increasing acceptance of these consumer mirror-less cameras more spells doom for APS-DSLR's (no mirror box and prism so cheaper to build as well as being smaller) than FF DSLR's. One could easily see a situation evolving where we have APS mirror-less cameras and FF DSLR's.
this sounds entirely reasonable to me, though wildlife photographers would probably keep some crop dslrs being built. unless FF sensors get substantially cheaper though, only niche companies like leica will get the majority of their profit from FF cameras. the large camera makers will always make most of their money on consumer cameras. hopefully this is all just a rumor and sony realizes that without any high end FF cameras many of the people guiding buyers of consumer cameras won't take them seriously as brand and they will lose many of their low end customers in addition to their high end customers.
The inception of crop DSLRs was based on economics not design or marketing. It was a compromise between price and IQ (as everything is . If price is no longer a factor, the necessity of the crop sensor will not be as secure as it has been thus far.
I expect that when the time comes where FF sensors will be low enough in cost to fabricate bottom end DSLRs, the crop sensor will become marginal and eventually cease to exist in that format.
Lotusm50 wrote:
What Thom seems to ignore is that FF users would gladly pay the additional $450 (+ markup) for the FF sensor over the DX sensor -- and the numbers of those willing are only increasing.
guess you have never worked in manufacturing. i a part cost x, it'll cost a multiple of x to the end user. i doubt an fx chip costs nikon 500 bucks if they sell an FX body to the shops in europe for £1100.
Lotusm50 wrote:
...Even if people are moving to mirror-less cameras, there is nothing that says they can't make a FF mirror-less camera (e.g., Leica M9). Further, increasing acceptance of these consumer mirror-less cameras more spells doom for APS-DSLR's (no mirror box and prism so cheaper to build as well as being smaller) than FF DSLR's. One could easily see a situation evolving where we have APS mirror-less cameras and FF DSLR's.
I agree. When the technology becomes available of full HD, real-life colour EVFs what will the advantage of the physical OVF be? The camera as a unit can be re-examined and the physical perematers re-designed to suit the next generation of the imaging device.
dasrocket wrote:
I expect that when the time comes where FF sensors will be low enough in cost to fabricate bottom end DSLRs, the crop sensor will become marginal and eventually cease to exist in that format.
unfortunately, the argument thom makes, that i've heard from numerous people before, is that the cost to make FF sensors will never undergo the order of magnitude drop that is necessary to reach the price point that allows it to be placed in low end dslrs. the cost of producing such a big chunk of silicon is not dropping at anywhere near the rate of the cost of producing pieces of silicon that are not required to be a fixed size.
Apparently Sony has a new full frame camera in the pipe, so they are not throwing in the sponge just yet. A new affordable 85mm (f2.8?) lens that might be worth looking up as well.
Both are rumors but from the SonyAlpha rumor site and the new full frame is said to heard of from "reliable sources".
sebboh wrote:
unfortunately, the argument thom makes, that i've heard from numerous people before, is that the cost to make FF sensors will never undergo the order of magnitude drop that is necessary to reach the price point that allows it to be placed in low end dslrs. the cost of producing such a big chunk of silicon is not dropping at anywhere near the rate of the cost of producing pieces of silicon that are not required to be a fixed size.
Electronics technology, more than probably any other industry comes down in price in the most dramatic ratios. I would really be surprised to see FF sensors stay up in price for manufacturing reasons.
The D30 in 2000 retailed at $3K
US. the 55D/T1i now retails at $700 US.
Not the same cameras in sales level, but really similar cameras in terms of manufacture
dasrocket wrote:
Electronics technology, more than probably any other industry comes down in price in the most dramatic ratios. I would really be surprised to see FF sensors stay up in price for manufacturing reasons.
The D30 in 2000 retailed at $3K
US. the 55D/T1i now retails at $700 US.
Not the same cameras in sales level, but really similar cameras in terms of manufacture
i do hope your right. what i've been told though is that the reduction your talking about was due to all the other electronics, not the sensor which can't be reduced in size and price the way computer chips (the other heavy duty piece of equipment in cameras) can. i should also add that the D30 was a first ever product that was priced to recover the full development costs of canons first foray into house made dslr sensors. the price drop between the 5D and 5D mkII does not inspire near as much hope that cheap FF are around the corner. i think it will happen sometime, i'm not confident that it will happen particularly soon or be a dslr though.
Canon has just started delivering steppers/scanners that can do the full 42x28mm sweep at one pass. In a few years this will show on the FF/FX sensor prices, but not yet for a while as far as I've been told. Large sensor cameras (4/3" and up) are a vanishingly small part of the overall semiconductor manufacturing business, and is often left with the production machinery already written off as "useless for high-volume production" - i.e 4-5 year old equipment.
As long as the FF/FX sensors has to be stitched, the production cost will remain at at least 7-8x the APS sensor cost. This is a pure manufacturing reality stemming from the more than three times longer production times and the much increased complexity of the operations involved when you have to stitch frames. You also have to include that even at peak, industry-leading performance at least 25-30% of the sensors on a normal wafer has to be scrapped due to killer defects, a more than four times higher yield-loss than with APS sensor sizes. So, 5 times higher production cost, add in one third higher rejection loss, adds up to at least 7x more expensive sensors. This is in a "best case" scenario - all deviations from optimal production yield will further increase the cost difference.
Where Hogan got the notion from I don't know, but the fact that Nikon has been scouting the market for alternative manufacturing venues for FX sensors has been "known" for a while. This does not in any way have to mean that Sony Kumamoto CAN'T or WON'T deliver 36x24mm sensors any more.
dasrocket wrote:
I expect that when the time comes where FF sensors will be low enough in cost to fabricate bottom end DSLRs, the crop sensor will become marginal and eventually cease to exist in that format.
Not necessarily....dx has a strong following. Its cheaper and easier to go long on a dx than fx courtesy of the crop factor.
Also factor in cost of fx glass...dx will always have a home to come to for the glass alone. I like primes so my recent fx change over has been cheap (and was planned out with bulk of glass picked up on deals over a long period of time). I am lucky....others will have problems cause they don't dig primes for whatever reason (which is cool, we all like what we like). Nikon FX for example does not have a reasonably priced equivalent to the the 18-70....one of nikons finest zooms around and even new is a steal for what its capable of producing. Used...man mine was the best $150-$ 175 I hgave ever spent tbh. Till nikon makes an fx zoom for less then $400 that except for the ability to shoot at 2.8-3.4 is virtually the same in performance as a $1200+ zoom...dx gonna have a very long fruitful life. this nikon side of the house,
Can't comment on canon as not very familiar with them. Sure they have a rare gem dx glass or 2 that gives quality on par with thier higher end glass.
Locster, the FF Sonys are very available and very affordable, and will most likely be around for many years - plenty of time for you to enjoy them! Sony made a large commitment to the Minolta faithfull and I doubt they will exit the full flowering of that move - the FF cameras.
Thom is a web speculator in the dpreview vein (and no disrespect to him as someone has to do it), and he has been forecasting a D700x forever...in a contest between what an internet pundit says and what actually happens, you know which horse to take - based on previous forecasts.
BTW, the Contax Zeiss lenses (with Leitax mounts) work extremely well on the FF Sonys.
I am really doubting, and hoping that Thom is not right about Sony and their FF future. I have been absolutely in love with my A850 so far.
I have found his articles to be pretty interesting and a good read a lot of the time, but as far as predictions go, a lot of people can do the same thing and get it right every now and then.
Lotusm50 wrote:
What Thom seems to ignore is that FF users would gladly pay the additional $450 (+ markup) for the FF sensor over the DX sensor -- and the numbers of those willing are only increasing.
Well, not so fast. My background is I went from 4x5 to 645, then started shooting DSLR not all THAT long ago. Assume I am picky. I have the cash but am just very hesitant to put the $$ into FX, mostly because of the cost of lens switch. I've tried D700 for two different weekends and just didn't see enough of a difference for me to justify the cost. I will NOT sell more photos or get more for them if I switch. If (more like when) they figure out how to make DX sensors even better that will likely completely kill any motivation for me to spend the thousands for the FX lens switch. I got the cash; I just don't want to spend it if it doesn't give me that much extra.
Another thought. My day job does partly involve point & shoot cameras at Walmart & other large chains. I kind of go by what I'm seeing at Walmart since they are very good at spotting trends. They have cut the number of P&S cameras they carry by about a third. They have increased the number of entry level DSLR bodies that they carry from two to six. They stock no EVL (mirrorless) cameras. They have dramatically increased the number of cell phones with better cameras. What this is saying is Walmart must think that most people just want shots of their friends and mostly do that with cell phones. There are more people now who will buy an entry DSLR. The middle ground held by P&S cameras is being squeezed out. They must not see much demand for EVL cameras at the moment as they don't carry any.
It would be shocking and disappointing, but the more I think about, the more I'm wondering if it should be surprising (assuming it's true). How much longer is the 35mm frame going to be the standard? It made sense to retain it in the transition from film to digital, and I'm not saying it's going away in the immediate future, but in the coming years I would expect Canon and Nikon to start pushing bigger sensors in their pro models, ones, like the S2, that hover somewhere between full 35mm and medium format.
Fortunately, it is just a rumor. The 850 and 900 are great cameras, and it would be a shame if Sony abandoned the line without giving it a better chance by producing a model with live view.
Two23 wrote:
Well, not so fast. My background is I went from 4x5 to 645, then started shooting DSLR not all THAT long ago. Assume I am picky. I have the cash but am just very hesitant to put the $$ into FX, mostly because of the cost of lens switch. I've tried D700 for two different weekends and just didn't see enough of a difference for me to justify the cost. I will NOT sell more photos or get more for them if I switch. If (more like when) they figure out how to make DX sensors even better that will likely completely kill any motivation for me to spend the thousands for the FX lens switch. I got the cash; I just don't want to spend it if it doesn't give me that much extra.
Another thought. My day job does partly involve point & shoot cameras at Walmart & other large chains. I kind of go by what I'm seeing at Walmart since they are very good at spotting trends. They have cut the number of P&S cameras they carry by about a third. They have increased the number of entry level DSLR bodies that they carry from two to six. They stock no EVL (mirrorless) cameras. They have dramatically increased the number of cell phones with better cameras. What this is saying is Walmart must think that most people just want shots of their friends and mostly do that with cell phones. There are more people now who will buy an entry DSLR. The middle ground held by P&S cameras is being squeezed out. They must not see much demand for EVL cameras at the moment as they don't carry any.
louis fusco wrote:
guess you have never worked in manufacturing. i a part cost x, it'll cost a multiple of x to the end user. i doubt an fx chip costs nikon 500 bucks if they sell an FX body to the shops in europe for £1100.
Ummm, I said, "+ markup".
But I do agree with you on this, I doubt that an FX chip costs Nikon $500.
And if the 35's anything like Nikons 35/1.8 or Sony's 50/1.8 DT it's really a FF lens with poor edge performance wide-open.
I'll probably get the 85 myself, it'll make a great compact tele for my Maxxum 7. Note it's a Sonnar, I wouldn't be surprised if it's derived directly from the C/Y 85/2.8 despite the lack of Zeiss badging.
Two23 wrote:
Well, not so fast. My background is I went from 4x5 to 645, then started shooting DSLR not all THAT long ago. Assume I am picky. I have the cash but am just very hesitant to put the $$ into FX, mostly because of the cost of lens switch. I've tried D700 for two different weekends and just didn't see enough of a difference for me to justify the cost. I will NOT sell more photos or get more for them if I switch. If (more like when) they figure out how to make DX sensors even better that will likely completely kill any motivation for me to spend the thousands for the FX lens switch. I got the cash; I just don't want to spend it if it doesn't give me that much extra....Show more →
Everyone must make a choice when switching formats that goes beyond the simple camera. However, "most" DSLR lenses are full frame so the switching cost for a DLSR user, provided he stays within the same brand, is fairly small. Further, if you use wide angle lens, the DX option is rather limited in lenses. You're in a different situation than most, looking at DDLR's from a 645 format.
Further, remember this, every advance they might make with a DX sensor is also an advance for an FX sensor. Unless ther is some radical tech change, or they figure out how to re-write the laws of physics, the FX sensor will be better. At this point, most of the changes in sensor tech will be incremental the FX sensor will alsway have an edge, and the cost difference between DX and FX sensors will decline over time.
Two23 wrote:
Another thought. My day job does partly involve point & shoot cameras at Walmart & other large chains. I kind of go by what I'm seeing at Walmart since they are very good at spotting trends. They have cut the number of P&S cameras they carry by about a third. They have increased the number of entry level DSLR bodies that they carry from two to six. They stock no EVL (mirrorless) cameras. They have dramatically increased the number of cell phones with better cameras. What this is saying is Walmart must think that most people just want shots of their friends and mostly do that with cell phones. There are more people now who will buy an entry DSLR. The middle ground held by P&S cameras is being squeezed out. They must not see much demand for EVL cameras at the moment as they don't carry any. ...Show more →
Walmart is usually slower at new type products. They are a mas marketer and wait to see (or be convinced in some way) if something will sell to the mass market before they buy mass quantities of them. I've noticed the EVIL (or "LVIL") camera are not in Costco yet either. Yet, these newly introduced camera are selling well and are in short supply. These camera are responsible for putting Panasonic in the top 5 in those sales rankings, and Olympus in the top 7. EVIL (LVIL) are an appealing, equivalent quality, alternative to a DSLR. Yes, more people are buying into DSLR's from compacts - primarily for quality and flexibility. These are the same reason why these customers will buy EVIL, and they might find the EVIL (LVIL) form factor and controls more familiar. With these products in short supply and high demand, manufacturers aren't cutting their prices on volume sales to put them in Walmart or Costco just yet. They don't need to. They are selling all they can make. Also, initial models were a little pricey for Walmart. With EVIL (LVIL) camera now finding their way to the $499/$599 and being advertised on TV (Olympus) production is probably being ramped up and you may soon see them in Walmart.
. If price is no longer a factor, the necessity of the crop sensor will not be as secure as it has been thus far.