large chip cost

[Ken Phillips]

... it DOES matter what the market is! And Canon absolutely OWNS the FF market. They can, and SHOULD, charge what they can!! That's how business works.
Not a pro, are you?
Ken

--



http://www.ahomls.com/photo.htm
Voted Best of the City 2004 by Cincinnati Magazine

I don't believe in fate, but I do believe in f/8! And while your at it, don't be afraid to vote Libertarian, for REAL freedom!

 

[spt_gb]

You think that there are no costs to a sensor beyond materials and fabrication of the silicon? More fool you. The sensor is only a part of the cost of a DSLR for sure, but if you accept the numbers you are talking about then as I keep saying Nikon wouldn't still be sat on the fence saying that MAYBE they'll make a FF camera, they'd have one one the market.

I fully expect Canon to (1) make a profit and (2) extract as much money out of each camera line as they can, but if it were a simple and comparatively cheap thing to do then the FF market would not consist only Canon cameras (and before anyone starts, the Kodak attempt failed because it was a poor camera, not because it was FF).

It was demonstrated a while back that the cost that Canon incurs to
make a FF sensor is around $350 and the cost to make a
corresponding APS-c sensor was in the $50 range.

You need not take it upon yourself to "defend" Canon and their
pricing policies. They are a business answerable to their
shareholders. Currently there is no competition in the FF arena
and once competition arrives, I guarantee that the FF camera prices
will take a magical dip. The wonders that competition can do !

of microlenses, CFA, packaging, optical filter, plus R&D costs
(don't forget that the R&D for the sensor has to be paid for over a
much smaller production run)?
Last time I looked it costs about $400 in raw materials to build a
motorcar. Those manufacturers are ripping us all of when they
charge $8K plus.

 

[Kendunn]

If you shop around a bit and get a $150 lens (70-300) you can get a 5D for damn near $2000 with the $600 in double rebates. I have seen them for around $2750 plus rebate. I think they are killing people with the 1ds. I mean it is the same body as the 1D, and charging and extra $3500 for the chip. Obviously, that chip does not cost nearly that much. Its maybe a $4500 camera. But hey, when you are the only game in town.....

 

[Anil Koshy]

You think that there are no costs to a sensor beyond materials and
fabrication of the silicon? More fool you. The sensor is only a
part of the cost of a DSLR for sure, but if you accept the numbers
you are talking about then as I keep saying Nikon wouldn't still be
sat on the fence saying that MAYBE they'll make a FF camera, they'd
have one one the market.

You forgot one point. Nikon does not make their own sensors. They source it from Sony, who will charge a significant premium (150%??) on top of their cost, for the sensors sold to Nikon.

When it is an APS-C sensor, that 150% margin will translate into an additional $75, since the base cost of the APS-C sensor is $50. Thus the entire cost that Nikon incurs for an APS-C sensor sourced from Sony, is $125 ($50 + $75).

But with a FF sensor, that additional 150% will jump into an additional $575, which will take the FF sensor cost alone to $925 ($575 + $350).

That premium will eat heavily into Nikon's margins and hence they will not be able to cost effectively sell a FF sensored camera, when compared to Canon or Sony. Their "sitting on the fence" is a smart move, to put it mildly.

The company other than Canon, who would be coming out with a FF camera is almost certainly Sony, who would not have to pay a huge premium over cost, for their sensor sourcing, since they make their own sensors.

 

[spt_gb]

Go look up LBCAST if you doubt me.

Secondly why the heck do you think that Sony add such a big margin above cost? They need to pay for packaging, R&D etc. and still leave some profit. The only advantage that Canon have is that the profit made on the sensor goes to them rather than an external company. This certainly isn't in the order of 150% per chip.

 

[Andrew dB]

Go look up LBCAST if you doubt me.
Secondly why the heck do you think that Sony add such a big margin
above cost? They need to pay for packaging, R&D etc. and still
leave some profit. The only advantage that Canon have is that the
profit made on the sensor goes to them rather than an external
company. This certainly isn't in the order of 150% per chip.

Wasn't LBCAST Nikon designed rather than Nikon built? I might be wrong but I thought Nikon were not in the position of having their own microchip plant.

 

[Anil Koshy]

You use pretty strong language to make your points. I ignored the "fool" statement a couple of posts above, since I thought that was a slip in the midst of animatedly trying to establish a point. Translation: tone down, since I really don't appreciate statements stronger than they need to be.

I expect the real margins to be in the 250-300% range for dSLR chips and since there are only a couple of players in town who sell those chips and have the facilities to fabricate them on a mass scale, those margins are par for the course. The margins on the p&s CCDs are more in line with what you stated, since the margins on those cameras are also proportionately slim. I believe there was a blimp that Sony did fabricate some prototype FF chips for Nikon but the chip pricing was what forced Nikon to adopt its current crop-only strategy. Things might change once Sony enters the FF game full-tilt, since that could result in reasonable economies of scale, like Canon has. The 150% margin stated earlier was an understatement, simply to illustrate that Nikon's not entering the FF party was not out of choice but out of hard necessity. Also, Canon does not sell their CMOS dSLR chips (APS or otherwise) to anyone else, which removes one potential high-end supplier out of the mix, and they are able to price in their chip margins into the end-product - the camera.

About LBCAST, who knows why Nikon decided not to progress beyond the sub-5MP range for those ? Either way, they are fabricated differently from a CCD or a CMOS and even Nikon seems to have moved away from serious development of LBCAST.

Secondly why the heck do you think that Sony add such a big margin
above cost?

 

[Fluorite]

...then you will see competition in the marketplace and retail prices will then better reflect the manufacturing costs.

Also, there's little incentive for Canon to be cost efficient (in manufacturing) with FF sensors because of no competition in the market.

I look forward to the day when Sony make FF sensors and sell them to Nikon, Pentax and Sony's own camera division. Then we will see some hot products on the market.
--
fluorite

 

[spt_gb]

You use pretty strong language to make your points. I ignored the
"fool" statement a couple of posts above, since I thought that was
a slip in the midst of animatedly trying to establish a point.

Heck is strong language? My, you did have a sheltered upbringing didn't you. You also seem to be unable to recognise idiomatic English that dates back to Shakespeare. "More fool you" in context can be translated as "your position has less merit than my own". Do at least try to keep up.

I expect the real margins to be in the 250-300% range for dSLR
chips

Here's the problem. You are making numbers up as you go along, with no basis on fact, and trying to offer them as proof of your position. If they turn out not to make your case then invent some new ones.

Oddly enough Sony are not the only silicon fab house that can make these chips (they're actually quite low tech in silicon foundry terms). Nikon or whoever can and still negotiate a price based on quantity purchased to drive the price down, but much of the unit price reduction they'll get is simply the amortisation of the R&D costs over more units.
...

About LBCAST, who knows why Nikon decided not to progress beyond
the sub-5MP range for those ?

Mostly because it didn't work very well? That's the normally accepted reason.

 

[Daniel Payne]

Nikon has publicly stated they have no plans for a FF.

Sony has given no indication of creating such a mamoth FF chip.

You can always dream.
--
Daniel Payne
http://www.danieljpayne.com/

 

[spt_gb]

The quote from Nikon was ""We have been exploring the possibility of commercializing a 35mm full-size sensor, but it's not clear at this moment if we go for it." That's "maybe", not "no plans".

Nikon has publicly stated they have no plans for a FF.

Sony has given no indication of creating such a mamoth FF chip.

You can always dream.
--
Daniel Payne
http://www.danieljpayne.com/

 

[malcolm82]

mamoth? come on, 36x24mm is tiny.

 

[Skip M]

I'm waiting for Canon to come out with a 1 series with a 36x48mm chip to compete with Hassy...at $8000 vs. over $20,000.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm

 

[malcolm82]

Im looking forward to the time when there is a completely new technology that makes 60x45mm sensors cheap. They dont make lcd displays on microchip fabs either and there are many different types of display technologies being developed so its clear that a completely new sensortechnology will also be developed.
Does anyone have some knowledge about what they are working on?