Reading mode: Light Dark

Why are FF SLRs so brutally expensive ?

Go to last post
M

mermaidkiller

Senior Member
Messages
1,541
Solutions
5
Reaction score
469
Location
European Union
A new FF SLR is not available for under $2000, while 'crop sensor' SLRs are way cheaper.
E.g. a 5D2 costs $2000 while a 7d $1200 costs.

Why ?

Are FF sensors so expensive to manufacture ?

--
Canon EOS 40
Tamron 18-250 f/3.5-6.3
Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6
Canon EF 85 f/1.8
Canon EF 50 f/2.5 Macro
-------
Canon Powershot S100
 
It's basic product segmentation: Honda Accord is larger and more expensive than Honda Civic. Same for FF cameras vs crop cameras ;).
 
I asked this question long ago. people offered lots of theories for justification, but nothing sounded convincing. I cant imagine canon has not improvement its sensor yield rate over the last 7 years since 5D1.

I think what it comes down to is that there are only 3 companies that makes full frame 135 sensors at reasonable price, Sony, Nikon (using someone else's fab), canon. players like Olympus and panasonic cant do it, players like pentax and phaseone cant do it cheap enough.

Sony wants to make them cheaper but it lacks the performance and lens selection that Canon and Nikon has, that is why even at 2000 USD A850 still couldn't match 5D2's sales. so canon and nikon are in a monopoly of sub-4000 USD FF DSLR market, they have no reason to low the price any lower.
 
mermaidkiller said:
Are FF sensors so expensive to manufacture ?
Click to expand...
Yes. It is said a 35mm image sensor is 8 to 10 times more expensive to manufacture, because of size, than an aps-c. It's also said an aps-c image sensor costs about $50 to $75 to make. Multiply that by 10 and you get $500 to $750. There's also then a bigger mirror and OVF which add cost.
 
Sensors cost more as previous posts state, alongside that FF bodies are made to higher standards. The only canon crop made to the same standard is the 7D, which in reality is under priced for what you get, because Canon have priced it for volume of sales. Deciding the get the return of investment this way, lots of smaller bits if profit, rather than fewer sales with a greater return. If Canon or Nikon thought they could make a FF and get the volume they would price accordingly. Sony have tried this and have not succeeded as yet.
 
FF sensors are more expensive to make - they are 2.5+ times as large, with lower yields, etc. But they are also in the high-end bodes which have more sophisticated/expensive everything.

Ferrari could probably pop the 458 engine into something like a Hyundai Genesis, using Hyundai-quality brakes, suspension, etc, and answer the question "Why are Ferrari's so expensive" - selling one for under $100K. But they don't. And they won't. You're also not going to se the most sophisticated sensors in a plastic body with Rebel-quality AF, etc..

That's just how the market is segmented. Yes, some American car companies can sell huge motors in primordial, live rear axles, plastic interior cars. But look how many they sell. And look how many auto models/segments there are. DSLR manufacturers simply can't devote limited R&D dollars on a niche hybrid like that.
 
If yield rates for sensors at a given die size are anything like those for microprocessor components, the improvements over time are not huge. In fact, real improvements in yields from microprocessor manufacturing have primarily come from using incrementally larger wafers. Using very large wafers may not be all that practical in the manufacture of larger sensors (not to mention the incredible costs for retooling or building new factories to support it).

Unlike microprocessors, where a given design can shrink incrementally in size every couple of years, sensors are a fixed size. So the only way to reduce costs is to improve yields. As I stated, those improvements likely come very slowly. Therefore the cost of manufacturing a FF sensor will be unlikely to drop very quickly at all.

So, anyone expecting vast reductions in pricing for such an expensive component are probably kidding themselves. Working within an oligopoly helps keep pricing more stable, but that most definitely is not the only factor keeping FF pricing fairly high as you implied.
ultimitsu said:
I asked this question long ago. people offered lots of theories for justification, but nothing sounded convincing. I cant imagine canon has not improvement its sensor yield rate over the last 7 years since 5D1.

I think what it comes down to is that there are only 3 companies that makes full frame 135 sensors at reasonable price, Sony, Nikon (using someone else's fab), canon. players like Olympus and panasonic cant do it, players like pentax and phaseone cant do it cheap enough.

Sony wants to make them cheaper but it lacks the performance and lens selection that Canon and Nikon has, that is why even at 2000 USD A850 still couldn't match 5D2's sales. so canon and nikon are in a monopoly of sub-4000 USD FF DSLR market, they have no reason to low the price any lower.
Click to expand...
 
Another thing to consider is that Canon(and Nikon) continuing to push 2 sensor sizes at us means they can sell an entire other line of lenses & cameras. And profit big time from it. After all, for them it's really all about maximum money. And the Japanese have proven very slick at this game, spoon feeding the consumer better features. They get the max they can out of the previous before moving on. Maybe initially they thought once the cost of FF sensors can be brought down a bit they'd put us back to the 35mm size we're accustomed to. But they realized the profits possible w/two lines vs one, so on they go. Now they have two loyal fan bases, which I'm willing to bet they predicted in advance.

Yeah, sure the FF sensor is still today a bit more expensive than the crop but they'll never fool me to believe they couldn't easily sell a very capable 7D quality DSLR body w/FF for under $2000 & still make a nice profit. Greed prevents it, & we go without. For now. Sad but true. Look where they went with the new 5DIII. A great camera it seems, but look where the price went!

I mean, think about it. Remember when the first digital cameras came out, for YEARS they pushed on us a smaller sensor that screwed up the equiv focal of all our EF lenses. Instead of trying real hard from the getgo to work on a sensor of 35mm size & get Q better & price down like they've done all kinds of other technical achievements. And get us back in the format we're used to. I waited long as I could for them to do this, before going digital with a 350D. It just started to hit home they'll never place priority on servicing the customer best while making a nice profit, they just put maximum profit first & foremost.

Don't get me wrong I actually like the pulling power of my 7D's crop sensor for my shooting style, even if it destroyed what I bought my 28-70/2.8L for. But I think the sad fact is it could be quite a while longer if ever before they'll make a FF truly accessible, they simply like the maximum money by having the 2 separate sizes too much. Much of what I'm iterating may be speculative, but I doubt it's far from the truth!

Mark
 
Oh, heavens, where to start... [sigh]. I love the way some people love to attribute corporate greed as the primary reason why they can't get the product THEY want and the price THEY want. You might believe that the economics prevent FF from getting low enough in price to hit your own personal sweet spot, but pray tell other than gut feel, exactly how much do you (or anyone else outside of Canon/Nikon/etc.) really know about the cost structure of FF cameras? It's so convenient to attribute greed as the motivator for this. Yet, if there truly were a robust (and reasonably profitable) market for FF at those price points and cost structure, why wouldn't Canon go there? Has it occurred to you that while you might lust for FF, many (maybe even most) photographers really could care less? Or, perhaps they even see some benefits to crop and like the idea of having a low/medium/high end family of crop cameras. Digital is a whole other domain from film and because film was a 35mm format does not dictate that the mainstream/volume format for digital MUST gravitate to the exact same size. Seems like Canon's EF lenses are functioning and sell very well with both formats.

Lots of people are questioning Canon's decision to introduce the 5DMk3 at such a high price point. And, that's not unreasonable. Market dynamics may well force that price down if Canon doesn't get the volume they need to sustain the product line. Meanwhile, FF (particularly new gen FF cameras) remains a fairly costly proposition. That might not align with your own particular desires and needs, but it doesn't at all even suggest that this is all attributable to greed as opposed to a combination of volume/demand and product cost realities.

Making money is the foundation of business (here and in Japan) -- it's not a sin. And once again, simply because you're not getting the exact product you want doesn't mean that Canon is guilt of being overly greedy. If you truly believe they are making obscene profits on their cameras, please share your proof rather than simply making empty accusations.
katman68 said:
Another thing to consider is that Canon(and Nikon) continuing to push 2 sensor sizes at us means they can sell an entire other line of lenses & cameras. And profit big time from it. After all, for them it's really all about maximum money. And the Japanese have proven very slick at this game, spoon feeding the consumer better features. They get the max they can out of the previous before moving on. Maybe initially they thought once the cost of FF sensors can be brought down a bit they'd put us back to the 35mm size we're accustomed to. But they realized the profits possible w/two lines vs one, so on they go. Now they have two loyal fan bases, which I'm willing to bet they predicted in advance.

Yeah, sure the FF sensor is still today a bit more expensive than the crop but they'll never fool me to believe they couldn't easily sell a very capable 7D quality DSLR body w/FF for under $2000 & still make a nice profit. Greed prevents it, & we go without. For now. Sad but true. Look where they went with the new 5DIII. A great camera it seems, but look where the price went!

I mean, think about it. Remember when the first digital cameras came out, for YEARS they pushed on us a smaller sensor that screwed up the equiv focal of all our EF lenses. Instead of trying real hard from the getgo to work on a sensor of 35mm size & get Q better & price down like they've done all kinds of other technical achievements. And get us back in the format we're used to. I waited long as I could for them to do this, before going digital with a 350D. It just started to hit home they'll never place priority on servicing the customer best while making a nice profit, they just put maximum profit first & foremost.

Don't get me wrong I actually like the pulling power of my 7D's crop sensor for my shooting style, even if it destroyed what I bought my 28-70/2.8L for. But I think the sad fact is it could be quite a while longer if ever before they'll make a FF truly accessible, they simply like the maximum money by having the 2 separate sizes too much. Much of what I'm iterating may be speculative, but I doubt it's far from the truth!

Mark
Click to expand...
 
They're priced that way because the market will bear it.
mermaidkiller said:
A new FF SLR is not available for under $2000, while 'crop sensor' SLRs are way cheaper.
E.g. a 5D2 costs $2000 while a 7d $1200 costs.

Why ?

Are FF sensors so expensive to manufacture ?

--
Canon EOS 40
Tamron 18-250 f/3.5-6.3
Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6
Canon EF 85 f/1.8
Canon EF 50 f/2.5 Macro
-------
Canon Powershot S100
Click to expand...
 
RedFox88 wrote:
There's also then a bigger mirror and OVF which add cost.

That is not the issue. In the past all SLRs were FF, including the $300 entry level Canon AE-1.

But, indeed it is a market issue. Because of the price tag (and incompatibility of two lenses) I did not go 5Mk3 but yesterday I bought a 7d. Otherwise I had to replace my EF-S 15-85 and Sigma 10-20 by 24-105 4L and Sigma 12-24 (or Canon 16-35 2.8L) respectively at an extra cost of $1600 plus the $2000 difference in price tags for 7d and 5Mk3. I'd rather spend that money for e.g. 70-200 f/2.8L and still have a leftover.

That is the advantage of Nikon: the D800 (and other FF bodies) allow mounting of DX lenses at a cost of using only the center 16x24mm of the sensor. But at least it is possible. I hoped that the 5Mk3 would also allow this, but Canon missed a chance to make the 5Mk3 (and 1x) incompatible with APS-C.

Nikon has a counterpart of the 7d as well: the D300s (and D400 ?) a pro crop camera.

--
Canon EOS 40
Tamron 18-250 f/3.5-6.3
Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6
Canon EF 85 f/1.8
Canon EF 50 f/2.5 Macro
-------
Canon Powershot S100
 
Since the sensors are fairly expensive, it is going to be a quite expensive camera. So if you build one, you have to aim for semi-pro or pro consumers. That means fitting pro AF systems, great viewfinders, weather sealing and other things that add even more to the cost.

Once FF sensors drop into prices that allow "enthusiast" prices for the entire camera, they can build less advanced FF cameras.
 
The good news is the Nikon F5 which was a $2000 plus film camera is now under $500 used, gotta love technology.

FF is what the Pro film camera used to be at over $1,000. The non-FF cameras that most people use are not used to make a living shooting weddings or commercial use. Most of the cost is the physical construction of the camera (material) and the bells and whistles.

IMO if all you are making is small prints or just posting online/email its not necessary to spend the money unless you just have it and want it for the hobby and for the fun of it.

I sold all my DSLR gear and switched to micro four thirds because I was picking up a p&s more but still wanted a DSLR type system in a smaller form.
mermaidkiller said:
A new FF SLR is not available for under $2000, while 'crop sensor' SLRs are way cheaper.
E.g. a 5D2 costs $2000 while a 7d $1200 costs.

Why ?

Are FF sensors so expensive to manufacture ?

--
Canon EOS 40
Tamron 18-250 f/3.5-6.3
Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6
Canon EF 85 f/1.8
Canon EF 50 f/2.5 Macro
-------
Canon Powershot S100
Click to expand...
 
Well I am sure it cost more, but another reason why is because you answer your own question kind of. And that question is, why do you desire FF at all? You have plenty of crop sensor cameras to choose from? But your interest in FF at all, is why they can charge more. :-P
mermaidkiller said:
A new FF SLR is not available for under $2000, while 'crop sensor' SLRs are way cheaper.
E.g. a 5D2 costs $2000 while a 7d $1200 costs.

Why ?

Are FF sensors so expensive to manufacture ?

--
Canon EOS 40
Tamron 18-250 f/3.5-6.3
Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6
Canon EF 85 f/1.8
Canon EF 50 f/2.5 Macro
-------
Canon Powershot S100
Click to expand...
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.
 
ultimitsu said:
I asked this question long ago. people offered lots of theories for justification, but nothing sounded convincing. I cant imagine canon has not improvement its sensor yield rate over the last 7 years since 5D1.
Click to expand...
Asked the question? You flat-out stated that Canon can build a profitable $725 full frame camera in a Rebel body. It still makes me laugh.
ultimitsu said:
I think what it comes down to is that there are only 3 companies that makes full frame 135 sensors at reasonable price, Sony, Nikon (using someone else's fab), canon. players like Olympus and panasonic cant do it, players like pentax and phaseone cant do it cheap enough.

Sony wants to make them cheaper but it lacks the performance and lens selection that Canon and Nikon has, that is why even at 2000 USD A850 still couldn't match 5D2's sales. so canon and nikon are in a monopoly of sub-4000 USD FF DSLR market, they have no reason to low the price any lower.
Click to expand...
 
Excellent answer, Jerry! I can tell that you have some experience with the semi-conductor industry. I spent my career in the Semi-conductor industry, and you nailed it with your response here. I agree with you.
Jerry-astro said:
If yield rates for sensors at a given die size are anything like those for microprocessor components, the improvements over time are not huge. In fact, real improvements in yields from microprocessor manufacturing have primarily come from using incrementally larger wafers. Using very large wafers may not be all that practical in the manufacture of larger sensors (not to mention the incredible costs for retooling or building new factories to support it).

Unlike microprocessors, where a given design can shrink incrementally in size every couple of years, sensors are a fixed size. So the only way to reduce costs is to improve yields. As I stated, those improvements likely come very slowly. Therefore the cost of manufacturing a FF sensor will be unlikely to drop very quickly at all.

So, anyone expecting vast reductions in pricing for such an expensive component are probably kidding themselves. Working within an oligopoly helps keep pricing more stable, but that most definitely is not the only factor keeping FF pricing fairly high as you implied.
Click to expand...
--
kind regards
Dale
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top