Cost of DSLR components (info for us all)

[duncan74]

Or write to their press office and explain you are a teenager doing a school design / business studies project and want their help as the internet site you went on toget them to do it for you seems to have failed after 2 days......

 

[roliaz]

Once again, some "nimrod" will prove that they, "know the cost of everything and the value of nothing".

 

[wight1979]

Sorry OT, but what a waste of time

 

[ceoyoyo]

He blasts me for pointing out that chips aren't necessarily "cheap" by pointing out that they can cost anywhere from 5 cents to $10,000 and warning that there are just too many assumptions in what he wants to do, then he comes out with that statement.

I think this guy's a plant. I'm not sure for whom, maybe the companies who make disposable digital cameras.

--
Robb

 

[Progress Lover]

Oh silly me. I forget that every single member of those families (yes every single one) is a pro photographer that is reading this thread right now.

Go to bbc.co.uk and search until you find the stories. I don't think there's any chance of offending the families and to assume it is crazy.

Next you'll be worrying about offending me! Lol.

Hypocrisy based on insanity. However, it's good to know we have a champion to protect everyone from humour. Thanks for looking out for me (erm, us. Erm your own fragile sensibilities).

Now if you want to make sure that nothing ever written on this forum could ever possibly offend anyone then start by looking at your own posts including your insult to me. Then go back over the millions of previous posts in case someone sees one and freaks out.

Just because you can't hear mention of a topical issue to that area doesn't mean everyone is so freaked out. Besides, whatshisname from Sufflok just couldn't resist getting involved with absolutely no useful input and deserved a touch of on the mark sarcasm.

Do you think he went out at all never mind achieved any quality original images? He was just being facetious and I did the same. But of course you had to wade in to make all things right with a personal insult. Genius.

When you are embarked upon some totally futile reverse engineering
cost analyis based upon zero knowledge, little information and no
business understanding you really should expect people to point out
the futility of the exercise.

I am glad to see you care more about your petty project than the
families of the murder victims.

You are a sad individual

What are you shooting in Suffolk anyway? Tractors? Grey skies,
brown water and reeds? Murdered hookers (topical in that area in
case anyone's wondering)? Or are has the pace picked up there
recently? Maybe it's time for the farmer's show?! YEAH!

Anyway, show us what you came up with on your outing in beautiful
Suffolk. Nothing like a nice plowed field to get the heart racing.
Lol.

--
==============================
Tom Drake
Suffolk UK
'The man who has never made a mistake has never made anything'

--
Keep photography wild.

--
~ Being over-exposed can get you arrested ~

--
Keep photography wild.

 

[Progress Lover]

I didn't think that Canon's fin stats were that detailed (because someone said so around here).

However, I have not looked for myself and that is somewhat naive.

I'll get onto google, but just in case you have a particular source that offers detailed info, could you post a link?

Thanks

pavi1 wrote:
Gives you a good starting point.
--



Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning

--
Keep photography wild.

 

[Progress Lover]

There is already a lot of potentially insightful information on this thread that makes it worthwhile even if the aim is not achieved.

Discussion is rarely a waste of time and most of the useful information one gets on these forums imho comes as an aside to something that may otherwise seem pointless.

Can you add anything a little more informative? Negative comments are the only things that are a waste of time as they dilute the content with something that is genuinely a waste of time.

I appreciate that forums are addictive and people often can't resist posting one word here and there just so they've said something and can feel part of it all, but why not make those words progress the discussion.

You could at least have tried to google one of the components and added a link to some useful info...

Sorry OT, but what a waste of time

--
Keep photography wild.

 

[Robert 55]

33 to 53 [including this post]
these are hard numbers, though I may be off one or two in either direction

 

[Progress Lover]

Well if you read the thread you would know the answer to that now wouldn't you.

Sorry if you don't like the notion that the sensor didn't cost as much as you'd like. Boo hoo. Boo hoo hoo.

Sensor replacement including return postage and labour costs $200 (source post on this forum from user that had it done). Now several posters on this thread have said that you can usually say that the part cost 1/5th of the price to the customer. That alone would make it $40 tops (because this particular equation involved postage too...)

Now also consider the cost of a wafer, (also discussed on this thread) and the number of sensors you get from it and at what yield (also discussed on this thread) and you will see that it is pretty darned cheap.

$1500 8" wafer makes 60 APS-C sensors at 85 % yield at $25 each. Now add some for r&d (averaged accross millions of chips) and some for the AA filter (sheet of glass) and circuitry. $40 is not a bad guess for now. Have you a better one and a good reason for it?

This $40 could be an underestimate (as you allege with no evidence), but could just as well be an overestimate. It is increasingly likely as time passes to be the latter...

Now I have never stated it as fact and indeed I make a point at every opportunity (like this one you presented) of pointing out that this is an attempt to cost a DSLR which needs people with experience in pertinent areas to throw more light on it and link to their sources and/or state the reasoning behind their assertions so we can be more accurate and learn something in the process.

As you've piped up, I guess you must have some relevant data to provide to help us get a better idea of the cost of one or more of these components?

You must have forgotten to post the link, mention your estimate, or state your reasoning for the guess.

I think that you just want to believe that your DSLR has a million buck chip in it and don't like the idea that you paid $1.nk for a load of cheap components.

Whatever you do, don't think about your car, your tv, your computer etc etc. You'll flip when you realise!

Clearly none of the chips in the 30D costs over $40 and in reality
it's probably closer to $15.

On what basis do you arrogantly assume you KNOW that "none of the
chips in the 30D costs over $40?.. it would surprise me not at all
for the sensor to be $80-$100..

--
~ Being over-exposed can get you arrested ~

--
Keep photography wild.

 

[Progress Lover]

I'm a photographer trying to understand the costs of producing a DSLR and put that information into the public domain so others can use it for whatever purpose they wish. Be it just to further their understanding, or for purposes of discussion.

Have you anything that could help? Perhaps you could attempt to back up your apparent assertion chips in the 30D might cost $10k each with some kind of data? Might be a tall order.

Likewise if you think any of the main components costs 5cents I would also be interested to know the source and/or reasoning behind the assertion.

If not, there are other threads you can post irrelevancies on.

The purpose of this thread is not to find out what you thing the possible range of chip prices is for any product in the world. It is to get a reasonable guess at the components that make a DSLR (30D as an example).

Now if you don't have any information on that subject, why waste your time?

He blasts me for pointing out that chips aren't necessarily "cheap" by pointing out that they can cost anywhere from 5 cents to $10,000 and warning that there are just too many assumptions in what he wants to do, then he comes out with that statement.

I think this guy's a plant. I'm not sure for whom, maybe the
companies who make disposable digital cameras.

--
Robb

--
Keep photography wild.

 

[Progress Lover]

...doesn't like deeper knowledge anything?

Why?

You don't have to read any new info but why not allow others to get it?
I guess you oppose freedom of information as being too dangerous and disruptive?

If not, why not help get more information into the public domain for all to use? Failing actually to help, why not just let others get on with the hard work?

Wouldn't you be vaguely interested in passing to know the component costs? If not, what attracted you to this thread?

Either you read the title, or you just wanted to join in with what others were talking about...

Well congrats on the most useful and intelligent comment so far.

Now can you add any information on component costs?

BTW. Your statistical analysis is complete nonsense as the OP's posts will ALWAYS be outnumbered whether people agree or not....

Also, do you really think that I ever thought it would be easy to get this information put together? Why do you think it doesn't exist already?

It's not because it's useless. It's because there are plenty of people that wouldn't like such info to be in the public domain. Not sure why you'd rather help them than help your fellow photographers put together info that will be useful for any of the great many discussions on these forums that revolve around apparent component costs.

33 to 53 [including this post]
these are hard numbers, though I may be off one or two in either
direction

--
Keep photography wild.

 

[Grey Area]

I pity you.........

 

[David Hull]

Yep... I bet it was one of those Huge Altera FPGA's. I have used a couple of those that sell for around $5k. Amazing what you can do with them though.

 

[thecameraguy]

I was in the semiconductor business for 15 years, in engineering, marketing and general management so excuse me if i just have a little credibility gap with your useless assumptions... you are killing me with this stuff, really..lol.

You are right though...you should continue with your plan..i am sure you can sell the results to Nikon, after all, they dont know how much canon makes a 30D for either...

--
~ Being over-exposed can get you arrested ~

 

[thecameraguy]

product costs are part of the crown jewels of any company as it represents major competitive dynamite..companies therefore go to great lengths in their accounting practices to make sure this "information" remains hidden and such "information" simply does not make it into the public domain.

so lets not get carried away and say that what you are attempting to collect is actually "information".. you are making a spreadsheet based entirely upon unfounded assumptions based upon a total lack of knowledge to produce a $$$ number that has a confidence factor of, umm zero.

You have a nice day
--
~ Being over-exposed can get you arrested ~

 

[pavi1]

( http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/16988/000114554905001055/k00921e20vf.htm )

However, I have not looked for myself and that is somewhat naive.

I'll get onto google, but just in case you have a particular source
that offers detailed info, could you post a link?

Thanks

pavi1 wrote:
Gives you a good starting point.
--



Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning

--
Keep photography wild.

--



Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning

 

[MitchAlsup]

I doubt that they are using 12 inch, but that is pretty much my
point -- nobody knows, so this exercise has limited value. There
was a white paper from Canon a while back that had some of that
information. I don't have the link handy.

You can get a rough idea of how many sensors come off a wafer from
as follows: A=PI*(D/2)^2, divide that by the area of the APS-C and
deduct a bit for the loss on the corners of the reticule.

For 12" wafers and APS-C sized dies, figure 70% of the wafer area has potentially useable dies. My calculation comes up with 130 dies.

Then
there is the yield -- I don't know what that might be for sensors
of this type.

Let us be generous, here, and figure 50% yield (including all of the dies saved by redundancy features, and stuck-at cells that are programmed out in DIGIC). Say 65 dies, or $15/working die.

And then there is the cost of the testers. I suspect Canon has the number of test insertions down to 2 insertions per produced die (3 if burn in is used). A $10 million tester with a life of 5 years and a throughput of 300K dies per year, is adding only 1/3rd to 1/2 of the cost of the die (itself) to the cost of the working die! Maybe a little less, but not much.

In order to use this die, it must be mounted in a package, and because it is a light sensitive device, the front of the die has to be protected with a glass (or more typically quartz) top that is hermetically sealed often with anti-reflective coating on both sides. I have a quote for such a package in the $100 range in quantities of 100K units. So, there is every possibility that the package to put the sensor in costs more than the sensor itself! By up to 7X more!

For normal IC's we try to get in the 90's. If we
end up much lower than that we have what we call product engineers
who go to work looking for the root cause of the yield hit and a
solution.

Processor companies like Intel and AMD introduce processors into the market as yeilds rise above 20% and like to hit 90% by end of life.

Incidentally, the mask cost for a 12 inch 90 nm part is $1 million
-- yep, that is Million with a big M.

While my last chip mask set cost $1.5 million; it contained 11 layers of metalization and was bump attached to its package. I suspect that the sensor mask set is only 1/2 of this number of layers due to the 3 (or 4) layer metalization. Thus I would figure $0.75 million. I consider this in GOOD agreement with your figure.

So, we have a $1 million dollar mask set and maybe $20 million dollars of designer+process-engineer time to amortize over way less than 1 million sensors.

Now, somebody has to actually pay for the FAB. Small 12" fabs cost in the just under 1 Billion (with a big B). ANd while this FAB is written down over several generations of sensors (say 8-10 years), it is written down at way less than 1 billion sensors! In all actuality, it is those pesky little P&S cameras that are paying for the FAB, allowing the big (relatively speaking) sensors we love in dSLRs.

So the designers time, the mask set, and the cost of the fab itself are way bigger than the marginal cost of the sensor itself.

So each time you FU%K up,
cha-ching, TSMC gets another cool million.

This depends upon what kind of FU%K up you performed. A 2 layer change only costs $200K! This is one reason to spend as much time in verification as in design itself (it is simply less expensive).

If you want to make money in the silicon business, get into package manufacturing! and stay far away from the testing side of the business.

Summarizing, that $15 working die on an uncut silicon wafer, becomes a $100+ part by the time you can plug it into a camera assembly.
--
Mitch

 

[Robert 55]

You take yourself far too seriously. Several posters have pointed out to you that your collection of guessed or just plain made-up data will not lead to usefull information.

My pseudo statistics actually are a lot firmer than anything you have collected so far. They show not much, but I think you will not find many middle length threads in which the OP filled more than a third of the posts like yours do here

Progress Lover wrote:
snip

Well congrats on the most useful and intelligent comment so far.

Thx
more snip

33 to 53 [including this post]
these are hard numbers, though I may be off one or two in either
direction

 

[Progress Lover]

Interesting.

Well they're from 2004 so there must be at least one more recent set and another about to be announced, also they're not quite as detailed as is really necessary, but a few things are of potential interest.

The 'cost of advertising' is 3.2% of sales.
At b&h the price of a 30D body only is $1120 right now.

If that holds true accross the board then on a DSLR we are talking about $36 on each camera body is the marketing cost.

Margin is 15.7% of sales and if that holds true then $176 is the profit on said camera. As outlined below this will be an underestimate.

R&D is 7.9% of sales so $89 TOTAL accross the board for that on a per unit basis.

5% of sales is depreciation of equipment so $56.

So there's 763 bucks left to be accounted for.

This statement:

"Presently, the analog copying machines and conventional film camera segments of the market are mature, with anticipated declining industry revenues as the market transitions to digital technology. Some of Canon’s new digital products replace or compete with its traditional analog products. Changes in the mix of products from analog to digital, and the pace of that change as well as competitive developments could cause actual results to vary from those expected. The recent trend of rapid digitalization has lowered entry barriers in the digital camera segment, resulting in the entry of new competitors, such as electronics manufacturers, and an overall increase in the number of competitors to Canon’s business. As a result, Canon may not be able to maintain its position as an industry leader in many of its business categories. Although Canon believes that it has successfully kept pace with this trend toward digitalization, it may not be able to compete successfully in the future if it does not continue to invest in research and development activities, implement cost-cutting measures and introduce attractive and high value-added products to the market on a continuous basis. In addition, the unexpected emergence of strong competitors through mergers and acquisitions or the formation of business alliances may change the competitive environment of the businesses in which Canon engages, thereby affecting Canon’s future results of operations."

This makes it clear that the margins on the DSLR are (or were in 2004/5)actually a lot higher than Canon's average product margin... That means more of the cost of a DSLR is margin and that in turn leaves less still for all those 'expensive' (lol) components...

Now we need to know the dealer's cut. Can anyone enlighten us?

I'll also revise all this info when Canon's accounts for 2006 are available.

This next statement is also interesting:

"As part of the overall digitization of the consumer electronics market, the analog video camcorder is being rapidly replaced by the digital video camcorder. At the same time, new digital standards that compete with the MiniDV standard that Canon has adopted, such as DVD (Digital Versatile Drive), SD (Secure Digital) memory card, HDD (Hard Disk Drive), and new recording format such as HDV, have appeared. If these competing standards gain wide acceptance in the market, sales of Canon’s products using the MiniDV standard may decline."

It shows that when Canon adopts a certain tech it does not wish for competing technologies to become established regardless of their relative merits (clearly HDD camcorders are a handy tech and offer advantages over mini-DV (which I still use BTW)).
This may have a parallel in IS systems...

I'd like to know why Canon couldn't be flexible and just adopt the other tech too?! HDD camcorders and in-body IS would be very welcome.

There is hope as they did manage to swallow their pride and get
DVD tech in their camcorders...

And here's why Photokina and/or August announcements are favoured:

"Canon generally experiences seasonal trends in the sale of its consumer- oriented products such as cameras and printers, especially in the U.S. and European markets. Canon’s sales in second half of the year tends to be higher than that of in first half of the year. Product sales may be impacted by such seasonal purchasing patterns, making planning and inventory management difficult and future financial results less predictable."

I recommend everyone have a read of those accounts. V Interesting.

Canon state here:

"Per unit production costs are highest when a new product is introduced, and if such new products are not successful or if Canon fails to achieve cost reductions over time, Canon’s gross profits may be adversely affected.

The unit cost of Canon’s products has historically been the highest when they are newly introduced into production and have at times had a negative impact on its gross profit, operating results and cash flow. Cost reductions and enhancements typically come over time through:

• engineering improvements;
• economies of scale;
• improvements in manufacturing processes; and
• improved serviceability of products.

Initial shipments of Canon’s new products adversely affect its profit or cash flow, and if sales of such new products are not successful, Canon may be unable thereafter to improve its gross profit, operating results and cash flow."

This supports my assertion that products do indeed get more profitable later in life as costs go down. A good reason for delaying new products. After all, whilst you delay them you can still improve manufacturing techniques and component costs will still fall...

Canon also acknowledge that the high price of oil has an ever greater impact on their competitiveness internationally. Another reason to ditch the SUVs. You'll might save on your gear as well as on gas whilst saving the planet in the process!

Too late for Suffolk though. Lol.

( http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/16988/000114554905001055/k00921e20vf.htm )

 

[David Hull]

Good analysis, with a lot more detail than I added (I left out the "Thank god we can fix it in metal" detail ). I was assuming an all layer change. I agree that someone has to pay for the FAB, my outfit is fab-less so we use TSMC or UMC but still someone has to pay for that -- it is built into the wafer price somehow. We used to own our own FAB but the cost is just astronomical these days. What technology was that 1.5M mask set in? My 1.0M assumption was for 90nm/12inch which I doubt is what Canon is using for sensors -- but I have no way of knowing for sure.