Canon R7

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Distinctly Average Senior Member • Posts: 1,165
Re: Canon R7
1

MikeJ9116 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

PicPocket wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Sadly enough it fits the pattern perfectly. And maybe this time it isn't even crippling. Let's say the 32Mp sensor costs 300 euro less to produce than the 20Mp sensor of the R6. The R6 is 2500 euro now. Would you buy the R6 body with that 32Mp sensor for 2200 euro?

I mean, compared to the introduction price of the 7DmkII that's a stiff introduction price. To get at an introduction price of 1600 euro that production costs of the sensor should be 900 euro less than the full frame 20Mp sensor to get the same margin. That's a lot.

But that is not how it works. The margins are not same. A 1D and 7D never had same margin. Pricing isn't solely dependent on cost, but also on what people will pay and how they can maximize profitability balancing margins with volumr. Then there is ecosystem. Canon should rather have an ecosystem where users can fulfill all their needs within that ecosystem, then to constantly look to other vendors for options. Unlike the forum here, Canon isn't going to argue with their consumers on why it's ok to not have an APS C. People who need it will find it if the competition provides it and that's a loss which is worse than selling at slightly smaller margin

Besides, the $300 / $900 are just convenient numbers to support an argument. We don't know what Canon can do. Both may be right even if we guess it wrong. There is no basis

The area difference between FF and APS-C sensors guarantees the latter will have an appreciably lower unit cost up to the point of manufacturing a processed wafer. The area of a FF sensor is 864 square mm where the APS-C is just 330 square mm. A Google search indicates an 8" silicon wafer yields 24 FF sensors and 80 APS-C sensors. This is a more than a 3:1 yield ratio. The defect rate is less for a given wafer as the yield rises. So up to the point of a finished wafer containing sensors and factoring in defect losses, a FF sensor costs over 3X that of an APS-C sensor.

3x unknown is unknow. What we do know though is production costs of sensors have come down since the beginning of aps-c. 3x a little is still a a little. A ratio isn't telling the whole story. The problem in this discussion: we don't have data about production costs of sensor.

The cost savings of APS-C over FF are probably limited to the cost of producing a silicon wafer containing finished sensors since the processing costs once the sensors are separated are likely close to the same for FF and APS-C sensors (unless further processing can take advantage of sensor size also). The unknown is how much of the overall cost is taken up by the manufacturing and processing of the wafers to contain the sensors before separation occurs. Then another consideration is recouping R&D costs. Newer sensors have a much higher R&D price per unit than an older sensor like the one in the RP.

Good points.

Maybe there is someone reading this that has a much higher level of knowledge than the 99.9% of us here that can chime in regarding image sensor production costs.

We do know the actual retail price of the 90D. An R7 might need a bit tougher body, 2 card slots, and more processing power, but still this might be more of an indication what the R7 would need to cost to be beneficial enough for Canon, beside the fact I don't have a clue what volumes Canon would sell and what Canon would need to sell to make it beneficial.

If I had to guess, the price difference between the R6 and 90D sensors are around $200 at most and maybe as little as $50-$100. Between the R5 and 90D it might go up to twice that due to R&D recuperation. I am fairly sure that the lower cost to produce APS-C becomes more important as camera price lowers. I would wager that Canon is making very little money on the RP due to sensor markup while they are making decent money on the 90D and M6/2 due to sensor markup. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon barely makes money on the RP because they needed a low cost option to draw in more people to the R system. If APS-C does come to the R system it will be interesting to see what the price point will be for the the RP and/or its replacement.

I would say it would be more than just the sensor size differential. If the R7 was 32mp for example, then compared to the R5 that pixel density is quite significant. The extra pixels require ales processing power and therefore less heat. What would be more significant cost wise would be the amount of fast memory required to keep a decent buffer. That kind of memory is not cheap. Now if you instead wanted a full frame camera with the same pixel density then that would be about 80mp. Then the above costs would be very significantly higher. I am sure there will be other things to take into consideration that I have missed.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MAC
MAC
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow