Canon says: more EF-S lenses

Started Oct 6, 2004 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Peter Kwok
Peter Kwok Senior Member • Posts: 2,290
FF sensor costs ~$3000

bds231 wrote:

I don't think it always will. Peter is very correct that
miniaturization plays a major role, but transistors also simply
tend to get cheaper over time. And as plants become better at
manufacturing sensors, the price can plummet. Remember, that's one
of the main resons the 300D came out at half the price of the 10D
-- same sensor, but Canon made "manufacturing refinements" or
whatever they called them. Whatever they did, it clearly resulted
in a higher yield, presumably for a lower production cost.

The reason transistors get cheaper is that they are smaller. I agree that Canon can make the 1.6x sensors at a lower cost because of refinements and higher volume. But they also cut cost in other areas to keep the DRebel inexpensive. They may also cut their profit margin and try to make it up in volume.

To go back to what Peter said:

The megapixel war will cease for two reasons. One, the physics of
optics puts a limit on lens resolution. Two, consumers will see
megapixel as another marketing ploy.

Yes, people like us will figure it out. But consumers will not.
I'm not about to sit here and do the math, but I would bet that
some of the 7MP ultracompacts that just came out are already
hitting that lens resolution limit, and I can guarantee they'll
still sell better than their 6MP cousins. Consumers want one easy
statistic: Horsepower for cars, megahertz for computers, and
megapixels for cameras.

I did not say that the Megapixel war has stopped. I said that it will stop, just like the megahertz war in PC’s. Consumers will know that they don’t need more mega-whatever to keep up with the Jones.

New cameras are sold not as upgrades, but as 2nd or 3rd units.

Are you serious? You think the average consumer has 2 or 3
digicams lying about? I'm sure that's true of most people on these
forums, but I can't think of one person I know who is not heavily
interested in photography who has more than one camera (and in
fact, the majority has zero).

I did not say the average consumer already has 2 or 3 digicams. I meant to say that new cameras are being marketed not as one per household, but rather one per person. Your children may want their own digicams. This is the new growth area.

Step back, think of how much you're invested in photography, think
of how much you use your camera(s), think about the general
aversion to things with buttons most laypeople possess, and then,
if you can in good conscience say you still believe this statement
to be correct, tell me off.

Back to the original question of FF sensor. Look at the price difference between the 1Dmk2 and 1Dsmk2. It is $3500 now, but will probably level off to $3000. These 2 bodies have nearly identical mechanical and optical components. Aside from the sensors, their electronics probably cost about the same.

Almost 3 years ago, I said on this forum that FF sensor would always be costly. People accused me of being outdated. At that time, you could fit 6 Pentium 4 CPUs on the same area of silicon as a FF sensor. In the mean time, Intel has shrunk its CPU and lowered the cost. You cannot do that to a FF sensor. We all (myself included) want affordable FF DSLRs, but this is wishful thinking.


mfurman wrote:

I think that I understand electronics but I cannot accept that the
sensor itself would cost $5000 regardless of the yield ratio.


-- hide signature --
 Peter Kwok's gear list:Peter Kwok's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS 5DS Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Tamron SP 45mm F1.8 Di VC USD +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow