15D anybody?

[bobn2]

Nothing has gone over my head - I just disagree that you can call something free because you have already made money with it.

No-one said 'free. The point is standardly you only need to pay for something once, that is that standard model of ownership in a capitalist society. If you have owned a fab line for five years and you accountants amortised the investment over five years then thereafter you don't have to account that capital cost against the goods the plant produces, only running costs. Thus in accountancy terms a unit made on that line will appear cheaper than one made on a newer line? Why then don't they make everything on the older line? The answer is simple, the older line may not be capable of making a competitive product for its original market. If it can be turned to a new market, then it can make money. This happens very often in the semiconductor industry.

I also disagree that you can manufacture large sensors without significantly increased costs.

No-one suggested that you can. My suggestion was that if the sensor was produced on an old line, and capital costs reduced, then it may be possible to make the projected $1500 price realistic. Again, let's take a worked example. x-vision found that the foundry cost of a fully processed 8" wafer is $779. My rough sum, based on industry figures comes to a materials and labour cost of about $200. So, lets be generous and say that there is a $500 cost of a wafer down to amortised plant cost and the foundry's margin. Maybe $300 of that is the amortised plant cost. So, if we eliminate the capital costs, we reduce the cost of a chip by 40%. Now, what is the FF premium at sales price? we can see perhaps from the D300 and D700, pretty similar cameras apart from the FF sensor, with a list price difference of $1000. 60% of $1000 is $600, so if we take a $900 APS-C camera (like a 60D) and add this sensor we might expect to be able to sell it for $1500. In the end, it adds up, provided that the amortised plant costs taken out - remember I have left the sensor suppliers profit margin and materials costs in there.

I will say that I was perhaps snippy in my earlier response - and did not intend to do that - apologies for that. Whichever one of us is correct will be seen only in the future - if Sony (and hopefully Canon) come out with a FF camera with specs like the 60D for $1500 then we all win.

The $1500 comes from Nikon rumours concerning the D600. I don't think a $1500 Sony FF camera would force Canon's hand, it will not sell particularly well (they already tried a $2000 one, and that didn't), but a $1500 Nikon one will - the only problem is how long the lumbering behemoth takes to move itself. NR has a remarkable record of off- the wall predictions that turn out right, like the 36MP of the D800 for instance. The straightforward 'obvious' rumour would have been the same MP as the D4. Now the straightforward 'obvious' rumour would be $2000 or even $2500 for the D600.
--
Bob

 

[bobn2]

As I have stated before I think 1500 is too low. I think they are going to aim it directly at the 7D.

I'd expect 1699 or 1799 we should start a pot on this to see who guesses the closest.

My final guess is $1,699

I agree, I think it will sell at the same price as the 7DII, whatever that is - or that will be the aim. It could be that Canon will drop the 7DII price a bit, as a response to the D7000. It's also quite possible that they will miss, like they did with the 5DIII and D800.
--
Bob

 

[plugin]

Nothing has gone over my head - I just disagree that you can call something free because you have already made money with it.

No-one said 'free. The point is standardly you only need to pay for something once, that is that standard model of ownership in a capitalist society. If you have owned a fab line for five years and you accountants amortised the investment over five years then thereafter you don't have to account that capital cost against the goods the plant produces, only running costs. Thus in accountancy terms a unit made on that line will appear cheaper than one made on a newer line? Why then don't they make everything on the older line? The answer is simple, the older line may not be capable of making a competitive product for its original market. If it can be turned to a new market, then it can make money. This happens very often in the semiconductor industry.

But if you take the amortized plant cost out, you have to factor in what else that plant could do - it could be sold, retooled, or otherwise used for profitable use. That affects the return that Canon would calculate by offering such a product.

I also disagree that you can manufacture large sensors without significantly increased costs.

No-one suggested that you can. My suggestion was that if the sensor was produced on an old line, and capital costs reduced, then it may be possible to make the projected $1500 price realistic. Again, let's take a worked example. x-vision found that the foundry cost of a fully processed 8" wafer is $779. My rough sum, based on industry figures comes to a materials and labour cost of about $200. So, lets be generous and say that there is a $500 cost of a wafer down to amortised plant cost and the foundry's margin. Maybe $300 of that is the amortised plant cost. So, if we eliminate the capital costs, we reduce the cost of a chip by 40%. Now, what is the FF premium at sales price? we can see perhaps from the D300 and D700, pretty similar cameras apart from the FF sensor, with a list price difference of $1000. 60% of $1000 is $600, so if we take a $900 APS-C camera (like a 60D) and add this sensor we might expect to be able to sell it for $1500. In the end, it adds up, provided that the amortised plant costs taken out - remember I have left the sensor suppliers profit margin and materials costs in there.

Again - we disagree on how much you can take out. In my opinion there is still a huge cost to the fab plant - even if it is old. And a FF sensor is a very large chip.

I will say that I was perhaps snippy in my earlier response - and did not intend to do that - apologies for that. Whichever one of us is correct will be seen only in the future - if Sony (and hopefully Canon) come out with a FF camera with specs like the 60D for $1500 then we all win.

The $1500 comes from Nikon rumours concerning the D600. I don't think a $1500 Sony FF camera would force Canon's hand, it will not sell particularly well (they already tried a $2000 one, and that didn't), but a $1500 Nikon one will - the only problem is how long the lumbering behemoth takes to move itself. NR has a remarkable record of off- the wall predictions that turn out right, like the 36MP of the D800 for instance. The straightforward 'obvious' rumour would have been the same MP as the D4. Now the straightforward 'obvious' rumour would be $2000 or even $2500 for the D600.

Big difference there - 2000-2500 is definitely more reasonable in my estimation. Again - we shall see what happens.

--
Bob

 

[bobn2]

Nothing has gone over my head - I just disagree that you can call something free because you have already made money with it.

No-one said 'free. The point is standardly you only need to pay for something once, that is that standard model of ownership in a capitalist society. If you have owned a fab line for five years and you accountants amortised the investment over five years then thereafter you don't have to account that capital cost against the goods the plant produces, only running costs. Thus in accountancy terms a unit made on that line will appear cheaper than one made on a newer line? Why then don't they make everything on the older line? The answer is simple, the older line may not be capable of making a competitive product for its original market. If it can be turned to a new market, then it can make money. This happens very often in the semiconductor industry.

But if you take the amortized plant cost out, you have to factor in what else that plant could do - it could be sold, retooled, or otherwise used for profitable use. That affects the return that Canon would calculate by offering such a product.

Well, to take your points in order -

• sold - have you seen the state of the semiconductor industry these days? There is oversupply, especially years old plant way off the state of the art for most things. Unlikely to return a great deal of value at least not for a good while.
• retooled - which takes a load of investment. This would matter if there was a real estate squeeze, but if there is a good market for profitable FF chips at a price this plant could produce, that would be a good option.
• otherwise used for profitable use - that is exactly what we are talking about, is it not? Take an obsolescent plant and use it to make a profit making the things that it can do.

I also disagree that you can manufacture large sensors without significantly increased costs.

No-one suggested that you can. My suggestion was that if the sensor was produced on an old line, and capital costs reduced, then it may be possible to make the projected $1500 price realistic. Again, let's take a worked example. x-vision found that the foundry cost of a fully processed 8" wafer is $779. My rough sum, based on industry figures comes to a materials and labour cost of about $200. So, lets be generous and say that there is a $500 cost of a wafer down to amortised plant cost and the foundry's margin. Maybe $300 of that is the amortised plant cost. So, if we eliminate the capital costs, we reduce the cost of a chip by 40%. Now, what is the FF premium at sales price? we can see perhaps from the D300 and D700, pretty similar cameras apart from the FF sensor, with a list price difference of $1000. 60% of $1000 is $600, so if we take a $900 APS-C camera (like a 60D) and add this sensor we might expect to be able to sell it for $1500. In the end, it adds up, provided that the amortised plant costs taken out - remember I have left the sensor suppliers profit margin and materials costs in there.

Again - we disagree on how much you can take out. In my opinion there is still a huge cost to the fab plant - even if it is old. And a FF sensor is a very large chip.

But, if the cost has been amortised there is no more capital cost to pay , can you not see that? Once a thing is paid for, it is paid for. And I know an FF chip is a very big chip. That is rather the point, if you make a big chip with big pixels you can make a decent performing chip on old lines. And old lines will tend to have very good yields which will mitigate the size of the chip in any case. And in any case a sensor chip doesn't need to be perfect, but I've said all that, several times.

I will say that I was perhaps snippy in my earlier response - and did not intend to do that - apologies for that. Whichever one of us is correct will be seen only in the future - if Sony (and hopefully Canon) come out with a FF camera with specs like the 60D for $1500 then we all win.

The $1500 comes from Nikon rumours concerning the D600. I don't think a $1500 Sony FF camera would force Canon's hand, it will not sell particularly well (they already tried a $2000 one, and that didn't), but a $1500 Nikon one will - the only problem is how long the lumbering behemoth takes to move itself. NR has a remarkable record of off- the wall predictions that turn out right, like the 36MP of the D800 for instance. The straightforward 'obvious' rumour would have been the same MP as the D4. Now the straightforward 'obvious' rumour would be $2000 or even $2500 for the D600.

Big difference there - 2000-2500 is definitely more reasonable in my estimation. Again - we shall see what happens.

That's what I mean, the fact that they have gone for the unreasonable figure makes the rumour more believable, because if it had just been made up, they would likely have gone for the obvious figure.

--
Bob

 

[x-vision]

Big difference there - 2000-2500 is definitely more reasonable in my estimation. Again - we shall see what happens.

That's what I mean, the fact that they have gone for the unreasonable figure makes the rumour more believable, because if it had just been made up, they would likely have gone for the obvious figure.

That's a valid point. And yes, it's feasible to make a $1500 FF DSLR.

I'm also betting on $1999, though. Not arguing here, just sharing my opinion .

 

[plugin]

Nothing has gone over my head - I just disagree that you can call something free because you have already made money with it.

No-one said 'free. The point is standardly you only need to pay for something once, that is that standard model of ownership in a capitalist society. If you have owned a fab line for five years and you accountants amortised the investment over five years then thereafter you don't have to account that capital cost against the goods the plant produces, only running costs. Thus in accountancy terms a unit made on that line will appear cheaper than one made on a newer line? Why then don't they make everything on the older line? The answer is simple, the older line may not be capable of making a competitive product for its original market. If it can be turned to a new market, then it can make money. This happens very often in the semiconductor industry.

But if you take the amortized plant cost out, you have to factor in what else that plant could do - it could be sold, retooled, or otherwise used for profitable use. That affects the return that Canon would calculate by offering such a product.

Well, to take your points in order -

• sold - have you seen the state of the semiconductor industry these days? There is oversupply, especially years old plant way off the state of the art for most things. Unlikely to return a great deal of value at least not for a good while.
• retooled - which takes a load of investment. This would matter if there was a real estate squeeze, but if there is a good market for profitable FF chips at a price this plant could produce, that would be a good option.
• otherwise used for profitable use - that is exactly what we are talking about, is it not? Take an obsolescent plant and use it to make a profit making the things that it can do.

I also disagree that you can manufacture large sensors without significantly increased costs.

No-one suggested that you can. My suggestion was that if the sensor was produced on an old line, and capital costs reduced, then it may be possible to make the projected $1500 price realistic. Again, let's take a worked example. x-vision found that the foundry cost of a fully processed 8" wafer is $779. My rough sum, based on industry figures comes to a materials and labour cost of about $200. So, lets be generous and say that there is a $500 cost of a wafer down to amortised plant cost and the foundry's margin. Maybe $300 of that is the amortised plant cost. So, if we eliminate the capital costs, we reduce the cost of a chip by 40%. Now, what is the FF premium at sales price? we can see perhaps from the D300 and D700, pretty similar cameras apart from the FF sensor, with a list price difference of $1000. 60% of $1000 is $600, so if we take a $900 APS-C camera (like a 60D) and add this sensor we might expect to be able to sell it for $1500. In the end, it adds up, provided that the amortised plant costs taken out - remember I have left the sensor suppliers profit margin and materials costs in there.

Again - we disagree on how much you can take out. In my opinion there is still a huge cost to the fab plant - even if it is old. And a FF sensor is a very large chip.

But, if the cost has been amortised there is no more capital cost to pay , can you not see that? Once a thing is paid for, it is paid for. And I know an FF chip is a very big chip. That is rather the point, if you make a big chip with big pixels you can make a decent performing chip on old lines. And old lines will tend to have very good yields which will mitigate the size of the chip in any case. And in any case a sensor chip doesn't need to be perfect, but I've said all that, several times.

I will say that I was perhaps snippy in my earlier response - and did not intend to do that - apologies for that. Whichever one of us is correct will be seen only in the future - if Sony (and hopefully Canon) come out with a FF camera with specs like the 60D for $1500 then we all win.

The $1500 comes from Nikon rumours concerning the D600. I don't think a $1500 Sony FF camera would force Canon's hand, it will not sell particularly well (they already tried a $2000 one, and that didn't), but a $1500 Nikon one will - the only problem is how long the lumbering behemoth takes to move itself. NR has a remarkable record of off- the wall predictions that turn out right, like the 36MP of the D800 for instance. The straightforward 'obvious' rumour would have been the same MP as the D4. Now the straightforward 'obvious' rumour would be $2000 or even $2500 for the D600.

Big difference there - 2000-2500 is definitely more reasonable in my estimation. Again - we shall see what happens.

That's what I mean, the fact that they have gone for the unreasonable figure makes the rumour more believable, because if it had just been made up, they would likely have gone for the obvious figure.

--
Bob

If Nikon (or Canon) releases a $1500 FF camera in the next year, I will agree that you were right, and I was wrong.

 

[bobn2]

Nothing has gone over my head - I just disagree that you can call something free because you have already made money with it.

No-one said 'free. The point is standardly you only need to pay for something once, that is that standard model of ownership in a capitalist society. If you have owned a fab line for five years and you accountants amortised the investment over five years then thereafter you don't have to account that capital cost against the goods the plant produces, only running costs. Thus in accountancy terms a unit made on that line will appear cheaper than one made on a newer line? Why then don't they make everything on the older line? The answer is simple, the older line may not be capable of making a competitive product for its original market. If it can be turned to a new market, then it can make money. This happens very often in the semiconductor industry.

But if you take the amortized plant cost out, you have to factor in what else that plant could do - it could be sold, retooled, or otherwise used for profitable use. That affects the return that Canon would calculate by offering such a product.

Well, to take your points in order -

• sold - have you seen the state of the semiconductor industry these days? There is oversupply, especially years old plant way off the state of the art for most things. Unlikely to return a great deal of value at least not for a good while.
• retooled - which takes a load of investment. This would matter if there was a real estate squeeze, but if there is a good market for profitable FF chips at a price this plant could produce, that would be a good option.
• otherwise used for profitable use - that is exactly what we are talking about, is it not? Take an obsolescent plant and use it to make a profit making the things that it can do.

I also disagree that you can manufacture large sensors without significantly increased costs.

No-one suggested that you can. My suggestion was that if the sensor was produced on an old line, and capital costs reduced, then it may be possible to make the projected $1500 price realistic. Again, let's take a worked example. x-vision found that the foundry cost of a fully processed 8" wafer is $779. My rough sum, based on industry figures comes to a materials and labour cost of about $200. So, lets be generous and say that there is a $500 cost of a wafer down to amortised plant cost and the foundry's margin. Maybe $300 of that is the amortised plant cost. So, if we eliminate the capital costs, we reduce the cost of a chip by 40%. Now, what is the FF premium at sales price? we can see perhaps from the D300 and D700, pretty similar cameras apart from the FF sensor, with a list price difference of $1000. 60% of $1000 is $600, so if we take a $900 APS-C camera (like a 60D) and add this sensor we might expect to be able to sell it for $1500. In the end, it adds up, provided that the amortised plant costs taken out - remember I have left the sensor suppliers profit margin and materials costs in there.

Again - we disagree on how much you can take out. In my opinion there is still a huge cost to the fab plant - even if it is old. And a FF sensor is a very large chip.

But, if the cost has been amortised there is no more capital cost to pay , can you not see that? Once a thing is paid for, it is paid for. And I know an FF chip is a very big chip. That is rather the point, if you make a big chip with big pixels you can make a decent performing chip on old lines. And old lines will tend to have very good yields which will mitigate the size of the chip in any case. And in any case a sensor chip doesn't need to be perfect, but I've said all that, several times.

I will say that I was perhaps snippy in my earlier response - and did not intend to do that - apologies for that. Whichever one of us is correct will be seen only in the future - if Sony (and hopefully Canon) come out with a FF camera with specs like the 60D for $1500 then we all win.

The $1500 comes from Nikon rumours concerning the D600. I don't think a $1500 Sony FF camera would force Canon's hand, it will not sell particularly well (they already tried a $2000 one, and that didn't), but a $1500 Nikon one will - the only problem is how long the lumbering behemoth takes to move itself. NR has a remarkable record of off- the wall predictions that turn out right, like the 36MP of the D800 for instance. The straightforward 'obvious' rumour would have been the same MP as the D4. Now the straightforward 'obvious' rumour would be $2000 or even $2500 for the D600.

Big difference there - 2000-2500 is definitely more reasonable in my estimation. Again - we shall see what happens.

That's what I mean, the fact that they have gone for the unreasonable figure makes the rumour more believable, because if it had just been made up, they would likely have gone for the obvious figure.

--
Bob

If Nikon (or Canon) releases a $1500 FF camera in the next year, I will agree that you were right, and I was wrong.

On the other hand, if they don't it doesn't show that I was wrong, just that they decided to take more profit.
--
Bob

 

[plugin]

If Nikon (or Canon) releases a $1500 FF camera in the next year, I will agree that you were right, and I was wrong.

On the other hand, if they don't it doesn't show that I was wrong, just that they decided to take more profit.
--
Bob

LOL - Don't worry - I never asked or expected anything.

 

[Silvex]

And Sony does not sell them at or below cost, wouldn't that imply (if the rumor proves generally accurate), that if Nikon can make a profitable $1500 FF camera, Canon could as well?

Just sayin'.

 

[ultimitsu]

if D600 uses old fab line and sells for 2500, it might as well not exist, because it wouldnt sell well.

to say 1500 is too cheap for D600 so it cant be is the same as saying $3000 is too cheap for D800 so it cant be, but it does exist. same goes to the canalise theory.

D800 came out as a shocker, best sensor for a really low price. there is no reason to believe nikon cant or wont do it again with D600, not the best sensor but a really low price.

 

[VisualNectarPhotography]

The rumor site has said 1500 as a base price to create a stir. It wont be less than 1,699 when it comes out.

And as stated before I look forward to this when it comes out as it will foce canon to respond. And when canon responds it will be better because they can see what is out there and add more useful features and improve upon what unhappy people have stated on forums like this.

Simple right?

Also

If you dont think that canon has already started drawing up a response to this then your nuts, its one of Canon's goals to stay competitive and be on top. They will produce a great product, it might take some time. Have faith
--

Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.

 

[Silvex]

The rumor site has said 1500 as a base price to create a stir. It wont be less than 1,699 when it comes out.

So do you believe the website is intentionally misrepresenting the price to create traffic? Or just spurious information?

 

[VisualNectarPhotography]

The rumor site has said 1500 as a base price to create a stir. It wont be less than 1,699 when it comes out.

So do you believe the website is intentionally misrepresenting the price to create traffic? Or just spurious information?

no, if you read the post it states word for word
"•The price of the D600 is rumored to be very low - maybe as low as $1500"

they are doing exactly what I stated, trying to create a stir. Dont be shocked when its 1799

--

Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.

 

[bobn2]

they are doing exactly what I stated, trying to create a stir. Dont be shocked when its 1799

Even 1799 will create a stir, it will be the same as the book price for the 7DII

--
Bob

 

[Silvex]

The rumor site has said 1500 as a base price to create a stir. It wont be less than 1,699 when it comes out.

So do you believe the website is intentionally misrepresenting the price to create traffic? Or just spurious information?

no, if you read the post it states word for word
"•The price of the D600 is rumored to be very low - maybe as low as $1500"

they are doing exactly what I stated, trying to create a stir. Dont be shocked when its 1799

For me, any shock or surprise is inversely proportional to the price. If Nikon comes out with a FF slightly below the 5DII price range, I wouldn't consider it "entry-level" or "very low" pricing. However, a $1500 FF pushes into crop sensor territory. That to me, would "create a stir" at Canon.

But if the website is just fabricating the price out of whole cloth to create traffic it wouldn't be shocking. So, I was wondering if you thought that's what's happening in this case or if they were just given specious information. I don't know much about this site's reputation or reliability, and thought perhaps you do.

 

[VisualNectarPhotography]

The site and in particular this guy is very good at his predictions. Although I am very sceptical about the price.
--

Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.

 

[Silvex]

The site and in particular this guy is very good at his predictions. Although I am very sceptical about the price.

I guess that's why I'm asking the question. If this guy really is 99% accurate it would seem there is a reputation at stake, and therefore, would not simply make up a low price to generate hits. After all, the sensor size and the price are the crux of this rumor. If he blows that, getting everything else right, doesn't really matter.

So, I'm left wondering: if the price is bogus could his source have fed him a red herring? Why?

 

[VisualNectarPhotography]

True,

But he did say maybe as low as 1500 and that is easily dismissed if it isn’t spot on. Nor do I think people would chastise the site if they got all the specs right but missed the price point by $200-400. IMO that’s small beans for such a powerful package.

I believe the source told him in a very casual manor that Nikon is looking to tap into the $1500 camera market with this body. Which currently has only APS-C’s in it, and most of those who are willing to spend 1500 on a dslr wouldn’t mind dropping another 200-400 to get a FF camera that has killer specs if it exist. It would be the king of the $1500-2000 dollar market.

--

Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.