Cost of DSLR components (info for us all)

[thecameraguy]

Don't forget your contribution was also to bump the thread.

yes..its better than reaching for the cartoon section

Nice work.

I don't think you've read the whole thing either as there are
several v useful bits of info on here. Trouble is that they're
buried amongst comments like yours.

this is absolutely true.. there are a lot of sensible posts here, buried within a mush of your wild speculation on costs.

We now know that component costs are a small part of the shelf
price and therefore significant component enhancements need make
next to no difference to the shelf price of a camera.

Yes, you know that the sum of th parts is less than the cost of the whole...and that is all you know.. but it is unsound business thinking to believe r&d costs are zero and the entire business model is based upon the bill of materials

We have links to Canon's financial statements that show exactly
what their margin and costs are on key areas of the photo business.
We have statements from Canon on exactly how the photo business is
affected my economic and market trends.

yes "key areas" is it... canon will never allow gross margin details by product to be available... so in fact they could be losing money on the 30D and you would never know.... ( i dont think they are..but my point is valid)

We have useful info about sensor fab techniques and costs.

THIS IS WHERE YOU ARE SO WRONG IT IS LAUGHABLE.

Several poster colleagues in the semiconductor industry have give ballpark figures for TSMC.. but now listen really closely...

For a device to be able to be made at tsmc the individual components (cells) must be available in a library. If this was so, then anyone could make the same type of sensors as canon..and they dont.

The semiconductor process used by canon on their in house fab will be a custom recipe. The costs of such a custom recipe in R&D and unit cost cannot be guessed with any degree of accuracy.

Oh yes. We have a lot of time-wasting from those with nothing
better to do that can't find another thread to read and don't have
the willpower to keep it buttoned even if it means bumping the
thread they claim they don't like one bit.

entertainment is not a waste of time

One piece of info is notable for its absence. The dealer's cut.
This forum is read by some individuals that work for photo
retailers and/or people with previous insider experience. However
none has been able to explain the dealer's cut on DSLR products.
Perhaps those same people are also the ones that claim the thread
is useless.

Fact of the matter is that the result of this thread, however vague
it may (or may not) be*, is that users can move away from the
notion that improvements can't be made to DSLRs because of the cost
of the components.

You really simply just dont get it do you?.. the SDC (standard direct cost ..parts cost to you) may only go up by $10, but if the associated engineering costs are $10's of millions then the FFC (full factory costs) leap by a huge amount, gross margin suffers and losses occur....

A Simplistically puerile statement that "to go to 45pt AF will only increase the cost of the camera by $5" is just that simplistic and peurile and bears zero correlation to the business/technical/marketing process.

sigh.....

150? are we there yet?

That is absolutely not the case.

Even if my numbers are way off logic points to the same thing.

Let's face it, even if I hadn't used Canon's own fin stats to put
together this guess, a guess can still be accurate even when it's
not based on the kind of solid info this one was...

this still isnt based on solid info,but yes a guess can be 100% accurate. its the degree of confidence that is the problem with guesses.

Now some may not see why this is of any use to anyone. And
certainly the idea that cameras could be improved for next to
nothing in the public domain will probably give the manufacturer's
marketing team a headache when it comes to justifying a new model
at the same price with only a larger LCD. Especially in light of
Canon's figures that state firstly that they made 27% margin on
cameras in Q4 2006 and also their clear assertion that the longer a
product is around, the more margin they make on it.

From that, you can see that as the 30D is in fact a 20D, Canon will
be raking it bigtime on that camera three years after the 20D's
release.

In other words, there is a lot of room for improvement in the next
xxD in features and also price. I'm sure most people realise
and/or agree with that anyway and won't be impressed by another
30D-style firmware update with a fraction of an inch on the LCD
especially in light of all the extra features the competition have
made available in less expensive bodies.
In cam IS. Seals. Auto ISO. More x-type AF sensors........

Also as it is certain that component costs are a small fraction of
the shelf price of a DSLR, and there are a lot of components (to
spread that small cost amongst) , a vastly improved AF system will
be most welcome.

Meaning each component other than the sensor costs next to
nothing on average.

This is great news for consumers (as we now know why the next xxD
will be such a big improvement). Because it can be, it surely will
be. Won't it?

Many thanks to the useful contributors to this thread that have
allowed this conclusion to be reached.
Even if the dealers and employees want to play it down!

The forums are reaching new lows. My contribution is helping this
reach 150.
--
Aaron Thomson

--
Keep photography wild.

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

 

[Robert 55]

You seem to think repeating your data will make them true. This is
not so

--
Keep photography wild.

 

[Robert 55]

If someone were to post that the moon is made of blue cheese and what white balance should be used, the really constructive reply is that the moon is not made of cheese.

 

[Don_D]

Progress Lover,

I admire your ambition, but I'm sorry, you are in way over your head. (like a certain president I know of, but that's another story).

Yes, there are a few tidbits of useful information here, but imho there are way too many assumptions, missing hidden costs, and misconceptions about the whole process to draw any useful new conclusions at all from this thread.
Please don't try to draw them as you are compounding the problem.
I give you an A for effort, but a D for useful results.

Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond

 

[Progress Lover]

You seem to think repeating your data will make them true. This is
not so

--
Keep photography wild.

--
Keep photography wild.

 

[Progress Lover]

Most of the shelf price of a DSLR IS comprised of component costs?!

Please explain the logic behind this 'constructive' falsehood. Lol.

I'm sure that conclusion is arrived at in a far more intelligent way from far better information... Not.

If someone were to post that the moon is made of blue cheese and
what white balance should be used, the really constructive reply is
that the moon is not made of cheese.

--
Keep photography wild.

 

[Progress Lover]

Progress Lover,
I admire your ambition, but I'm sorry, you are in way over your
head. (like a certain president I know of, but that's another
story).

Yes, there are a few tidbits of useful information here, but imho
there are way too many assumptions, missing hidden costs, and
misconceptions about the whole process to draw any useful new
conclusions at all from this thread.

You state that as fact. Please can you elaborate and explain what these misconceptions are and steer us in the right direction with the correct info and links to the source?

At the moment your assertion has even less substance than the points it seeks to dismiss.

Please don't try to draw them as you are compounding the problem.
I give you an A for effort, but a D for useful results.

Well until you explain what you believe these assumptions are and/or why you think they are inaccurate then I'll have to give you a D for effort and an F for useful info.

Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond

--
Keep photography wild.

 

[Robert 55]

You seem to think repeating your data will make them true. This is
not so

--
Keep photography wild.

--
Keep photography wild.

 

[Progress Lover]

its better than reaching for the cartoon section

I don't think you've read the whole thing either as there are
several v useful bits of info on here.

this is absolutely true.. there are a lot of sensible posts here.

We now know that component costs are a small part of the shelf
price and therefore significant component enhancements need make
next to no difference to the shelf price of a camera.

Yes, you know that the sum of th parts is less than the cost of the
whole...and that is all you know.. but it is unsound business
thinking to believe r&d costs are zero and the entire business
model is based upon the bill of materials

R&D costs are included from Canon's financial statements. You clearly haven't been reading and are just objectionable. If you think the costs are off, please explain why and come up with something to make them more accurate!

We have links to Canon's fin stats that show
what their margin and costs are on the photo business.
We have stats from Canon on how the photo business is
affected my economic and market trends.

yes "key areas" is it... canon will never allow gross margin
details by product to be available... so in fact they could be
losing money on the 30D and you would never know.... ( i dont
think they are..but my point is valid)

Yes but you CAN draw (correct) conclusions from the statements. If their margin is 27% on cameras (fact) on ave and their statement that more margin is made on products the longer they are in the marketplace (fact unless you think they're lying), then the 30D is likely OVER 27% in margin alone. Perfectly logical.

Do you have anything to suggest otherwise? Remember, this theory happens to fit perfectly with the other methods suggested on this thread for guessing costs of products.

We have useful info about sensor fab techniques and costs.

THIS IS WHERE YOU ARE SO WRONG...

Several posters have give
ballpark figures for TSMC.. but now listen...

For a device to be able to be made at tsmc the individual
components (cells) must be available in a library. If this was so,
then anyone could make the same type of sensors as canon..and they
dont.

Well I think you'll find that other manufacturers (notably Sony) do now make CMOS sensors.

The semiconductor process used by canon on their in house fab will
be a custom recipe. The costs of such a custom recipe in R&D and
unit cost cannot be guessed with any degree of accuracy.

That may be the case. It doesn't matter though. Canon state their R&D costs on their fin stats so there is no possibility that they are vastly higher then the figures used - especially on a non-cutting edge product like the 30D which uses the same components as the 20D.

It is reasonable to deduce from Canon's figs on R&D that as a %age of sales price the r&d costs of a product will on average be the same proportionally as R&D is to total sales on the fin stats.

It may or may not be perfectly accurate for any given product, but it's certainly an excellent ballpark figure and unless you have any kind of evidence at all for your assumption then it is an infinitely better figure than any you (don't) suggest.

Oh yes. We have a lot of time-wasting from those with nothing
better to do that can't find another thread to read and don't have
the willpower to keep it buttoned even if it means bumping the
thread they claim they don't like one bit.

entertainment is not a waste of time

So you enjoyed the thread? Great! Stop whining then.

One piece of info is notable for its absence. The dealer's cut.
This forum is read by some individuals that work for photo
retailers and/or people with previous insider experience. However
none has been able to explain the dealer's cut on DSLR products.
Perhaps those same people are also the ones that claim the thread
is useless.
Fact of the matter is that the result of this thread, however vague
it may (or may not) be*, is that users can move away from the
notion that improvements can't be made to DSLRs because of thecost
of the components.

You dont get it do you?.. the SDC (standard
direct cost ..parts cost to you) may only go up by $10, but if the
associated engineering costs are $10's of millions then the FFC
(full factory costs) leap by a huge amount, gross margin suffers
and losses occur....

Now you're clutching at straws. If Canon were making a loss on the 30D... Say no more. They aren't. They're making over 27%... That means over $300 to play with for component costs at the same price point.

IF I'm off in any way, they why don't you put us right?! You have no idea at all whether I'm on the money (npi) or not, but you want to disagree for some reason without any basis. Do you work for Canon or a dealer?

A puerile statement that "to go to 45pt AF will only
increase the cost of the camera by $5"

I didn't say that. But IT WILL increase the cost of components by V little relative to the shelf price. 2%?

Let's face it, even if I hadn't used Canon's own fin stats to put
together this guess, a guess can still be accurate even when it's
not based on the kind of solid info this one was...

this still isnt based on solid info,but yes a guess can be 100%
accurate. its the degree of confidence that is the problem with
guesses.

Well make your own guess and back it up with your own evidence. We'll see if it gets more confidence. At the moment your own guesses and assumptions based on nothing are hardly crushing my points.
--
Keep photography wild.

 

[Progress Lover]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=22665080

There's the conclusion.

Links in post below it.

Thanks all. G'night.
--
Keep photography wild.

 

[thecameraguy]

thank you for the entertainment..

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