Full Frame Question

[nickleback]

Too many assumptions for the right answer to emerge.

Simplify!
Imagine, IF YOU HAD THE POWER TO MAKE ONE, a digital Rebel ($699
street) . ADD an extra $350 -$400 for the additional cost of the FF
CMOS sensor. Make that sensor a 6-8MP.

NOW for near $1K you have the FF digital REBEL Body and you cream
every other camera on the market for the consumer market,
notwithstanding differering personal preferences for a specific brand.

...with no profit in it. That's wholesale for the sensor, direct to the consumer. I'm pretty sure the manufacturer, distributer and retailer all want to make something off this. At that price, there's no margin.

They'd be creamed by the 99% of DSLR users who are fine with APS-C, and can buy one for $600. They'll skip the camera. And they'll be creamed again by the 1% that does want FF, because they could have sold the camera for $2k and actually had some profit in it, but instead sold it at $1k and lost their shirts.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[Peter Nelson]

Well let's just wait and see. A FF DSLR will sell very well especially if it's affordable. The only way to make it affordable is to limit the mp.

Too many assumptions for the right answer to emerge.

Simplify!
Imagine, IF YOU HAD THE POWER TO MAKE ONE, a digital Rebel ($699
street) . ADD an extra $350 -$400 for the additional cost of the FF
CMOS sensor. Make that sensor a 6-8MP.

NOW for near $1K you have the FF digital REBEL Body and you cream
every other camera on the market for the consumer market,
notwithstanding differering personal preferences for a specific brand.

...with no profit in it. That's wholesale for the sensor, direct to
the consumer. I'm pretty sure the manufacturer, distributer and
retailer all want to make something off this. At that price, there's
no margin.

They'd be creamed by the 99% of DSLR users who are fine with APS-C,
and can buy one for $600. They'll skip the camera. And they'll be
creamed again by the 1% that does want FF, because they could have
sold the camera for $2k and actually had some profit in it, but
instead sold it at $1k and lost their shirts.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

--
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[nickleback]

Well let's just wait and see. A FF DSLR will sell very well
especially if it's affordable. The only way to make it affordable is
to limit the mp.

You can buy 10mp APS-C DSLRs for $600 (take your pick -- Canon 400D, Nikon D40x, Sony A100). Very few people will step back to 6mp for more money. And furthermore, it doesn't cost any more to produce a 6, 8, 10, 12 mp sensor.

So by asking for 6mp, you are inflicting the camera with the full cost of a 35mm sensor, but severely limiting its already limited market appeal, making it even more expensive.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[T3]

Well let's just wait and see. A FF DSLR will sell very well
especially if it's affordable. The only way to make it affordable is
to limit the mp.

It's been discussed before...limiting megapixels isn't going to make FF sensors more affordable. It's the sheer size of the FF sensor that makes it so much more expensive than APS sensors. If you make the sensor smaller in size, you're going to lower it's cost. But if you just make the sensor smaller in pixel count, that's probably not going to have very much effect on it's cost. In other words, the road to affordable FF is not lower resolution. Take a look at APS DSLR histories. The Canon D30 had 3.3mp, and started at $3300. The D60 had 6mp, and started at $2200. The 10D had 6mp and started at $1500. The 20D had 8mp and started at $1500. The 40D has 10mp and started at $1300. And you have other 10mp DSLRs below (well below) the $1K mark. Resolution has been going up, prices have been coming down. The road to more affordable APS cameras has not been "to limit the mp". The road to more affordable FF cameras has to be better manufacturing techniques and efficiencies, just like it has been in the APS segment. However, you're simply never going to have the same efficiencies of production for FF sensors as you do for APS sensors because, even with perfect yields, you still get a lot fewer FF sensors from a silicon wafer than you do with APS. And when you add in the much higher defect rate (which is inherent to the much larger size and surface area of the FF sensor), FF sensors end up being much more expensive than APS sensors, regardless of the mp.

 

[T3]

Well I am betting on a nice FF 6mp coming soon. Perhaps they will rip
us off and charge over $1,000, but perhaps not.

Even if they did come out with a 6mp FF sensor, and they put it into a 40D body, it would still cost a few hundred dollars MORE than an APS 40D, not a few hundred dollars LESS than the APS 40D. That's because it's the size (dimensions) of the sensor that makes it cost more. So don't hold your breath for a $1K FF DSLR...at any resolution...any time soon. Your best hope is a $2K FF DSLR. And the price drop won't come from lower megapixels. It'll come from improvements in manufacturing and efficiencies, recoupment of development costs, increases in production capacities, etc.

 

[*isteve]

Did you actually read the review? The noise difference at high ISO between the D2X and IDS mk2 was not that significant even at ISO1600.

If the high ISO advantage was anything like as singificant as you claim, it would be a major advantage, but frankly its usually overstated.

And thanks, I dont need a lecture on the significance of it. If you want to shoot at high ISO go ahead, but its not worth the extra cost to me.

As far as I am concerned, with lenses
I can afford at least, FF is just a camerea junies wet dream but has
few real world advantages, at least at ISO below 800.

"Few real world advantages"? ISO/noise may be a "few" advantage, but
it's certainly not insignificant in the "real world". I think the
main real world "disadvantage" of the D2X was that you had to stay
below ISO 800. Real world advantage is being able to use any ISO you
want, without severely compromising image quality. While FF may not
allow you to use "any ISO you want", it certainly allows you to use a
much broader (higher) ISO range than comparable-resolution crop
sensors, while maintaining much better image quality across that
broader (higher) ISO range. That means less noise, higher shutter
speeds, less subject blur, sharper images, fewer shooting
limitations, less reliance on flash, etc., etc. And to most of us,
those a very significant "real world" advantages.

--
Steve
Pixel peepers miss the big picture.
http://www.pbase.com/steve_jacob

 

[john p vansteenberg]

Too many assumptions for the right answer to emerge.

Simplify!
Imagine, IF YOU HAD THE POWER TO MAKE ONE, a digital Rebel ($699
street) . ADD an extra $350 -$400 for the additional cost of the FF
CMOS sensor. Make that sensor a 6-8MP.

NOW for near $1K you have the FF digital REBEL Body and you cream
every other camera on the market for the consumer market,
notwithstanding differering personal preferences for a specific brand.

...with no profit in it. That's wholesale for the sensor, direct to
the consumer. I'm pretty sure the manufacturer, distributer and
retailer all want to make something off this. At that price, there's
no margin.

They'd be creamed by the 99% of DSLR users who are fine with APS-C,
and can buy one for $600. They'll skip the camera. And they'll be
creamed again by the 1% that does want FF, because they could have
sold the camera for $2k and actually had some profit in it, but
instead sold it at $1k and lost their shirts.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

Sorry, but I disagree. At $699, the Rebel body already has the cost of the APS-C, the other body componants, AND THE FULL OVERHEAD AND DESIRED FULL PROFIT FOR THE MFG, THE RETAILER in the price. Adding the $350-$400 for the other half of the FF sensor (WHICH WOULD BE THE ONLY NEW COST) is NOT AT the OEM price, BUT WITH FULL MARGIN INCLUDED. While not really on topic and not trying to divert the thread, I know you are seriously overestimating the cost of the CMOS sensor now that production and design has matured.

You cannot think that a camera that costs dealers about $600 and included all that advertising and overhead ann import customs tax cost any more than about $300 to make in Japan, especially in todays automated mfg environement FOB the vactory and that price has factory overhead built in.

As to the stepping back of quality, again I totally disgree. Only those people that believe that image quality is directly related to megapixel count would think so.

Then if you consider the output size of 95% of the market being at or below 8x10, you might realize that a 6-8 MP FF with 12 bit dynamic range COULD out image a 12-20 MB 10-12 bit sensor in perceptual quality for the market's purposes (and even a 4 MB would look fine for most end product).

Why? the signal to noise ratio would be vastly better in the FF with lower pixel count and the perception of tonal values would be better. In other words, the colors and sharpness would look better.

Even if it was only the same, a huge percentage of consumers would opt for the then fashionable FF option.
--
Van

 

[nickleback]

Sorry, but I disagree. At $699, the Rebel body already has the cost
of the APS-C, the other body componants, AND THE FULL OVERHEAD AND
DESIRED FULL PROFIT FOR THE MFG, THE RETAILER in the price.

Precisely.

Adding
the $350-$400 for the other half of the FF sensor (WHICH WOULD BE THE
ONLY NEW COST) is NOT AT the OEM price, BUT WITH FULL MARGIN
INCLUDED.

Got a reference?

While not really on topic and not trying to divert the
thread, I know you are seriously overestimating the cost of the CMOS
sensor now that production and design has matured.

Actually this is on topic.

You cannot think that a camera that costs dealers about $600 and
included all that advertising and overhead ann import customs tax
cost any more than about $300 to make in Japan

Probably no more than $200. I figure the sensor is about $50 of that figure.

As to the stepping back of quality, again I totally disgree. Only
those people that believe that image quality is directly related to
megapixel count would think so.

I didn't say stepping back in quality, I said stepping back in megapixels. Whether you like it or not, megapixels sell. Stepping back to 6mp will harm sales and drive prices up, not down.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[T3]

Did you actually read the review? The noise difference at high ISO
between the D2X and IDS mk2 was not that significant even at ISO1600.

Ask most D2X users and they'll tell you that, while the D2X is a great camera, one of its weaknesses is high ISO performance. That's why they're going gaga over the new FF D3!!! It has MUCH better high ISO performance.

If the high ISO advantage was anything like as singificant as you
claim, it would be a major advantage, but frankly its usually
overstated.

It is significant. Like I said, just look at how excited Nikon users are over the FF D3, which allows them to get excellent image quality even at very high ISO. Basically, that means high ISO isn't the restrictive ceiling that it used to be, which means more freedom to shoot what you want, when you want, and still get a good shutter speed and good quality.

If, at any time, you find yourself saying, "Oh, I don't want to have to crank up the ISO because it'll cause my image quality to deteriorate" and so you either stop shooting, or turn on a flash that ruins ambient lighting, or try to get by with a slower shutter speed, those are all compromises caused by poor high ISO performance. But when you can crank up the ISO with confidence, you have much more shooting freedom and flexibility.

 

[Peter Nelson]

A 6mp FF DSLR would be a marketing move. I don't know how I can say this in any other way to make it more clear.

What I and you and everybody will get is in fact a Full Frame DSLR at 6mp for under $1,000.

Now we can all go ahead and buy one and have our EOS lenses work at their designed focal length. We could really shot wide angle again. I already have the 1Ds Mark II. But a nice low mp FF consumer camera sounds so nice to me.

The 6mp starting point is neccessary because then for the next cycle they can now sell an improved version, the 8mp FF model and the price will be less. This will really sell a lot of cameras. Then of course for the next cycle the feature set will go up. Then in the next cycle or the one after that the mp count will go to 10mp. The price will be the same.

They will not sell higher than 10 mp FF DSLR's for under $1,000.

All the above is controlled by the market. They cannot sell consumer FF DSLR's that can compete with the Pro Line.

So now you see we will have many lines to choose from. The 1.6 crop will stay, as will the 1.3 Pro Line as will the new FF consumer line and semi pro line of FF dslr's (5D and it's replacements), and of course the high mp pro line.

Money is the reason they are in a business.
--
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[Clint Sanders]

A 6mp FF DSLR would be a marketing move. I don't know how I can say
this in any other way to make it more clear.

What I and you and everybody will get is in fact a Full Frame DSLR at
6mp for under $1,000.

Why would they bother with a hard to sell 6MP FF sensor, when a sellable 12 MP on up sensor will cost the same?

The MP isn't what makes the FF sensor expensive.

 

[T3]

Cutting down the number of pixels isn't going to result in the massive cost savings that you think it will. I think the cost savings would be minimal. In other words, a 6mp version of the 5D would probably barely cost any less to make than the 12mp version! But people would expect to PAY much less. Which means that they would have to sell it for a lot less, which would give it an extremely narrow profit margin, assuming that they would make any profit on it at all. A $1K FF DSLR is a pipe-dream for now. They best you can hope for is to wait for the 5D to gradually lessen in price...maybe to $2K, at best. But to expect a $1K FF DSLR, based on the false premise that 6mp would allow such a steep savings, is erroneous.

A 6mp FF DSLR would be a marketing move. I don't know how I can say
this in any other way to make it more clear.

What I and you and everybody will get is in fact a Full Frame DSLR at
6mp for under $1,000.

Now we can all go ahead and buy one and have our EOS lenses work at
their designed focal length. We could really shot wide angle again. I
already have the 1Ds Mark II. But a nice low mp FF consumer camera
sounds so nice to me.

The 6mp starting point is neccessary because then for the next cycle
they can now sell an improved version, the 8mp FF model and the price
will be less. This will really sell a lot of cameras. Then of course
for the next cycle the feature set will go up. Then in the next cycle
or the one after that the mp count will go to 10mp. The price will be
the same.

They will not sell higher than 10 mp FF DSLR's for under $1,000.

All the above is controlled by the market. They cannot sell consumer
FF DSLR's that can compete with the Pro Line.

So now you see we will have many lines to choose from. The 1.6 crop
will stay, as will the 1.3 Pro Line as will the new FF consumer line
and semi pro line of FF dslr's (5D and it's replacements), and of
course the high mp pro line.

Money is the reason they are in a business.
--
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[austinphotog]

A 6mp FF DSLR would be a marketing move. I don't know how I can say
this in any other way to make it more clear.

What I and you and everybody will get is in fact a Full Frame DSLR at
6mp for under $1,000.

Why would they bother with a hard to sell 6MP FF sensor, when a
sellable 12 MP on up sensor will cost the same?

The MP isn't what makes the FF sensor expensive.

Isn't it obvious? If they produce a camera that sells, or only create small quantities, there is no way they will dump the excess inventory at a loss for $1000.

I'm not sure how many angels can dance on the end of a pin, but I can tell you that a 6mp ff camera will cost more to manufacture than a 40D or D300. There is little incentive for canon or nikon to sell something that costs them more for less money. If they don't do it, I'm not sure who is likely to get the volume up.

Costs can come down, but except at the highest isos a de-featured 6mp ff isn't likely to have IQ that is as good as a 10 or 12 mp APS-C camera.

On the costs side the sensors currently are rumored to cost 10x as much. So if we estimate APS-C cost at $30-$200 then FF will be $300-$2000. The 6mp varient would likely be at the top end of the range because of low volume. If technology such as defect detection is used to scan wafers before they are processed and layed out around defects, yield might increase high enough so that FF will only cost 4x of APS. At that point there may be $200 sensors (cost to manufacture) and at a 3x mark up on the value chain these may only be $500 more. The question then would be who will canabilize there aps-c market to sell FF.

 

[john p vansteenberg]

Sorry, but I disagree. At $699, the Rebel body already has the cost
of the APS-C, the other body componants, AND THE FULL OVERHEAD AND
DESIRED FULL PROFIT FOR THE MFG, THE RETAILER in the price.

Precisely.

"Accord!"

Adding
the $350-$400 for the other half of the FF sensor (WHICH WOULD BE THE
ONLY NEW COST) is NOT AT the OEM price, BUT WITH FULL MARGIN
INCLUDED.

Got a reference?

Several from personal experiece. The nature of CMOS manufacturing is less expensive than CCD which often confuses people. This $350-400 figure, which seems to be higher than your own value (below) of sensors will include the added cost of the breakage. So, if your $50 APS-C price is correct, double that for FF would be $100 and double that for breakage brings you to about $200. I allowed for a little more, just to be safe, and I think your price is too low for the APS, thus the $350-$400 range.

While not really on topic and not trying to divert the
thread, I know you are seriously overestimating the cost of the CMOS
sensor now that production and design has matured.

Actually this is on topic.

Thank you, but I did not want this to become just a "cost of sensor" discussion, which is where so many of the posts go wrong. Sensors are only one part of the camera and/or marketing strategy. Then many can see only one model to compare the discussion against. That is short sighted. Everybody wants to look at the D30 or D40 wich again has a more complex feature set, more expensive shell and if that is the comparison, much of what Canon COULD do is ignored.

You cannot think that a camera that costs dealers about $600 and
includes all that advertising and overhead and import customs tax, etc.
cost any more than about $300 to make in Japan

Probably no more than $200. I figure the sensor is about $50 of that
figure.

I though going to this figure would create an irrational backlash, but I agree with you in fact. I DO put it at less for the body and more for the sensor, though. I believe the sensor cost about twice your estimate even in APS size. Consider though that Canon owns the FAB, the owns the designs, and their production is huge making the cost to ammortize design and engineering very low per unit. My guess is that they make about 1-1.5MM Rebels and Rebel Xs per year, worldwide.

As to the stepping back of quality, again I totally disgree. Only
those people that believe that image quality is directly related to
megapixel count would think so.

I didn't say stepping back in quality, I said stepping back in
megapixels. Whether you like it or not, megapixels sell. Stepping
back to 6mp will harm sales and drive prices up, not down.

Good, sorry to mis paraphrase you.

I do not agree. I am very well aware of how focused people have been on MP count, even when it got to the point of the ridiculous. Hence, the "only those people...." comment. In part, the resulting herd mentality WILL work both ways I agree. But, I can promise you (again from personal experience) that a good 6MP FF sensor will produce much better tonal quality than a 20MP FF. The blacks will be blacker, the shadow seperation will be better, the highlight noise will be less, all because of the improved s/n ratio.

That will be the selling argument and discussion, (come back here and watch for it in the future) about how wrong all of the MP gurus were for the last 8-10 years. In the end, people with average eyesight making the vast majority of images only up to 8x10 will actually SEE a difference in favor of the 6MP FF over the 20 MP FF at the sizes they produce.

The differentiation in IQ between the two generalized sensors will come as the enlargment size is incresed above the average customers production needs, somewhere around 16x20 perhaps.

Think of it like MTF, linear sharpness and contrast sharpness combine to form perceived sharpness.

The extra linear sharpness (resolution maping) of the high MP sensor adds value as a certain size is surpassed and there is still native resolution to spare. Below tht, the contrast in tones of the lower MP sensor rules, At some point, the contrast of the lower MP is reduced by enlargement; then somewhere a crossover point is reached. To the eye, output below that size will favor the lower MP and output above that point will favor the higher MP sensor (all other things being equal).

It seems we are closer to agreement than we each might think. And Civil! Excellant!

--
Van

 

[nickleback]

A 6mp FF DSLR would be a marketing move.

Correct, but you forgot an adjective. A 6mp FF DSLR would be a suicidal marketing move.

What I and you and everybody will get is in fact a Full Frame DSLR at
6mp for under $1,000.

But nobody but you wants a 6mp FF DSLR. A 12mp or 16mp DSLR would be less expensive than a 6mp DSLR, because 12mp or 16mp would attract more buyers.

The 6mp starting point is neccessary because then for the next cycle
they can now sell an improved version, the 8mp FF model and the price
will be less.

If you were selling in 2002 you would be correct. But this is 2007, 10mp is the bottom end. You've got to step up if you want buyers, not down.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[nickleback]

Sorry, but I disagree. At $699, the Rebel body already has the cost
of the APS-C, the other body componants, AND THE FULL OVERHEAD AND
DESIRED FULL PROFIT FOR THE MFG, THE RETAILER in the price.

Precisely.

"Accord!"

Great, we agree on something!

Adding
the $350-$400 for the other half of the FF sensor (WHICH WOULD BE THE
ONLY NEW COST) is NOT AT the OEM price, BUT WITH FULL MARGIN
INCLUDED.

Got a reference?

Several from personal experiece. The nature of CMOS manufacturing is
less expensive than CCD which often confuses people. This $350-400
figure, which seems to be higher than your own value (below) of
sensors will include the added cost of the breakage. So, if your $50
APS-C price is correct, double that for FF would be $100 and double
that for breakage brings you to about $200. I allowed for a little
more, just to be safe, and I think your price is too low for the APS,
thus the $350-$400 range.

Please lets not confuse cost to build vs retail. I wrote that the APS-C sensor costs about $50. That's out of the $200 or so the entire camera costs to make. Retail is typically about 3x manufacturing cost, so you get a $600 camera at retail.

Now try this with a 35mm sensor. You've got a doubling because of size, but a more than doubling because of defects. How much more than double? Depends on the average defects per wafer. Go back to the demo I posted a link to to see this in action. I'd guess ballpark 4 to 5 times. That puts the FF sensor at 8 to 10 times the cost of APS-C, or about $400 to $500, production cost. Add that to a $150 body and you've got a $550 to $650 DSLR. But that's not retail. Remember, multiply by 3. You are now at $1650 to $1950.

Not much lower than a 5D, which uses a slightly higher spec body (basically a 20D/30D), which accounts for a $500 or so price difference.

Thank you, but I did not want this to become just a "cost of sensor"
discussion, which is where so many of the posts go wrong. Sensors are
only one part of the camera and/or marketing strategy.

For 35mm sensors, they are a significant part of the cost.

Everybody wants to look at the D30 or D40 wich again has a
more complex feature set, more expensive shell and if that is the
comparison, much of what Canon COULD do is ignored.

30D or 40D...

Yes, if Canon did a Rebel FF, they could probably knock $500 off retail, compared to a 5D. That assumes that the camera would sell well, which isn't entirely clear.

The difference between the 400D and the 40D is huge. Roughly $500.

The difference between your proposed rebel FF and the 5D is small. Roughly $500.

How can this be true? Percentages and price sensitivity.

The 40D is almost double the price of a 400D. Let's say 80% more. The 5D would be around 25% more than a Rebel FF.

Also, the market it a pyramid. Almost everybody is willing to spend $200 on a camera. A large subset of those are willing to spend $500. Once you hit $1000 with cameras you've lost 90% of your potential customers. At around $2k (rebel FF) vs $2.5k (5D), the customers who are still with you aren't as price sensitive. Personally I think more would go for a 5D.

Probably no more than $200. I figure the sensor is about $50 of that
figure.

I though going to this figure would create an irrational backlash,
but I agree with you in fact. I DO put it at less for the body and
more for the sensor, though. I believe the sensor cost about twice
your estimate even in APS size.

I'm sure newer APS-C sensors probably cost around $200, and older ones around $50. Maybe $100 is a fair estimate. But if it is, that's worse for 35mm, as this is cost, not retail.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[Peter Nelson]

Hi Clint,

If they can string out the mp increases then they can sell more cameras over a longer perriod of time.

Believe me the lure of FF DSLR is strong. People will not care if it's 6mp as long as they can afford to buy one.

A 6mp FF DSLR would be a marketing move. I don't know how I can say
this in any other way to make it more clear.

What I and you and everybody will get is in fact a Full Frame DSLR at
6mp for under $1,000.

Why would they bother with a hard to sell 6MP FF sensor, when a
sellable 12 MP on up sensor will cost the same?

The MP isn't what makes the FF sensor expensive.

--
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[Peter Nelson]

You missed my point entirely. Nowhere do I say cutting down on the mp will be a cost savings forthe mfr's!

What I said the first consumer FF dslr will start at 6mp for marketing reasons. Then the next generation they can up the mp to 8mp, then after that provide some increased features, then after that go to 10mp FF. They can stop there since it's a consumer FF dslr.

The 12mp 5D is more of a prosumer FF dslr.. Because it has 12mp. Get it? The 5D price and it's sibling prosumer FF dslr's will always be above the consumwer level in pricing and in MP count.

1 Series FF will always cost the most and be the highest MP and with the best 1 Series Body and feature set.

A 6mp FF DSLR would be a marketing move. I don't know how I can say
this in any other way to make it more clear.

What I and you and everybody will get is in fact a Full Frame DSLR at
6mp for under $1,000.

Now we can all go ahead and buy one and have our EOS lenses work at
their designed focal length. We could really shot wide angle again. I
already have the 1Ds Mark II. But a nice low mp FF consumer camera
sounds so nice to me.

The 6mp starting point is neccessary because then for the next cycle
they can now sell an improved version, the 8mp FF model and the price
will be less. This will really sell a lot of cameras. Then of course
for the next cycle the feature set will go up. Then in the next cycle
or the one after that the mp count will go to 10mp. The price will be
the same.

They will not sell higher than 10 mp FF DSLR's for under $1,000.

All the above is controlled by the market. They cannot sell consumer
FF DSLR's that can compete with the Pro Line.

So now you see we will have many lines to choose from. The 1.6 crop
will stay, as will the 1.3 Pro Line as will the new FF consumer line
and semi pro line of FF dslr's (5D and it's replacements), and of
course the high mp pro line.

Money is the reason they are in a business.
--
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

--
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[Peter Nelson]

A 6mp FF DSLR would be a marketing move.

Correct, but you forgot an adjective. A 6mp FF DSLR would be a
suicidal marketing move.

What I and you and everybody will get is in fact a Full Frame DSLR at
6mp for under $1,000.

But nobody but you wants a 6mp FF DSLR. A 12mp or 16mp DSLR would be
less expensive than a 6mp DSLR, because 12mp or 16mp would attract
more buyers.

The 6mp starting point is neccessary because then for the next cycle
they can now sell an improved version, the 8mp FF model and the price
will be less.

If you were selling in 2002 you would be correct. But this is 2007,
10mp is the bottom end. You've got to step up if you want buyers,
not down.

FF DSLR is a new market for the consumer level, they will indeed start at the bottom end and lowest mp count. 6mp then 8mp, then better features and lastly 10mp FF consumer cameas. This is marketing, I don't understand why so many of you are missing the marketing strategy that has already been laid out by Canon.

12mp is pro sumer level.

My 1Ds Mark II is pro level and FF Canon dslr's started at 11mp and are now 16.7mp and it's replacement is 21.1mp is set to arrive.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

--
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes

 

[Peter Nelson]

Sorry, but I disagree. At $699, the Rebel body already has the cost
of the APS-C, the other body componants, AND THE FULL OVERHEAD AND
DESIRED FULL PROFIT FOR THE MFG, THE RETAILER in the price.

Precisely.

"Accord!"

Great, we agree on something!

Adding
the $350-$400 for the other half of the FF sensor (WHICH WOULD BE THE
ONLY NEW COST) is NOT AT the OEM price, BUT WITH FULL MARGIN
INCLUDED.

Got a reference?

Several from personal experiece. The nature of CMOS manufacturing is
less expensive than CCD which often confuses people. This $350-400
figure, which seems to be higher than your own value (below) of
sensors will include the added cost of the breakage. So, if your $50
APS-C price is correct, double that for FF would be $100 and double
that for breakage brings you to about $200. I allowed for a little
more, just to be safe, and I think your price is too low for the APS,
thus the $350-$400 range.

Please lets not confuse cost to build vs retail. I wrote that the
APS-C sensor costs about $50. That's out of the $200 or so the
entire camera costs to make. Retail is typically about 3x
manufacturing cost, so you get a $600 camera at retail.

Now try this with a 35mm sensor. You've got a doubling because of
size, but a more than doubling because of defects. How much more
than double? Depends on the average defects per wafer. Go back to
the demo I posted a link to to see this in action. I'd guess
ballpark 4 to 5 times. That puts the FF sensor at 8 to 10 times the
cost of APS-C, or about $400 to $500, production cost. Add that to a
$150 body and you've got a $550 to $650 DSLR. But that's not retail.
Remember, multiply by 3. You are now at $1650 to $1950.

Not much lower than a 5D, which uses a slightly higher spec body
(basically a 20D/30D), which accounts for a $500 or so price
difference.

Thank you, but I did not want this to become just a "cost of sensor"
discussion, which is where so many of the posts go wrong. Sensors are
only one part of the camera and/or marketing strategy.

For 35mm sensors, they are a significant part of the cost.

Everybody wants to look at the D30 or D40 wich again has a
more complex feature set, more expensive shell and if that is the
comparison, much of what Canon COULD do is ignored.

30D or 40D...

Yes, if Canon did a Rebel FF, they could probably knock $500 off
retail, compared to a 5D. That assumes that the camera would sell
well, which isn't entirely clear.

The difference between the 400D and the 40D is huge. Roughly $500.

The difference between your proposed rebel FF and the 5D is small.
Roughly $500.

How can this be true? Percentages and price sensitivity.

The 40D is almost double the price of a 400D. Let's say 80% more.
The 5D would be around 25% more than a Rebel FF.

Also, the market it a pyramid. Almost everybody is willing to spend
$200 on a camera. A large subset of those are willing to spend $500.
Once you hit $1000 with cameras you've lost 90% of your potential
customers. At around $2k (rebel FF) vs $2.5k (5D), the customers who
are still with you aren't as price sensitive. Personally I think
more would go for a 5D.

That's the reson why a consumer FF dslr will sart at 6mp, read your own words.
"A large subset of those are willing to spend $500".
That will be the introductory Canon 6mp FF DSLR's price.

Probably no more than $200. I figure the sensor is about $50 of that
figure.

I though going to this figure would create an irrational backlash,
but I agree with you in fact. I DO put it at less for the body and
more for the sensor, though. I believe the sensor cost about twice
your estimate even in APS size.

I'm sure newer APS-C sensors probably cost around $200, and older
ones around $50. Maybe $100 is a fair estimate. But if it is,
that's worse for 35mm, as this is cost, not retail.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

--
visit my web site http://www.flickr.com/photos/artist_eyes/
Remember to click on 'All Sizes' for better viewing.
Artist Eyes