When will we have a full frame body below $1,000?

[sylvestrerato]

Hi,

The title says it all. 

Cheers

[Chuck Alaimo]

i'll be that guy that chimes in with---

It's already here!  It's called the original 5d, or as many call it the 5dc.  I see them used now for $500-900 all the time.

[tron]

i'' be that guy that chimes in with---

It's already here!  It's called the original 5d, or as many call it the 5dc.  I see them used now for $500-900 all the time.

I guess OP means new not used.

[Chuck Alaimo]

i guess that too, but, until APS-C sensors are phased out, FF will be at a premium. 

[Halfrack]

Never

Chip costs for the sensor won't allow for pricing to be that low and everyone making a markup.  Compromises made to the 6D at the $2k price point seem to piss everyone off, so to think of a $1k price, it wouldn't even be a p&s type.  Refurb on sale gets a 5d2 down to 1,400-1,500 range, but that's about as low at it will go.

[Buyi]

whats the motivation for camera makers if u make a good ff below 1.000? different formats makes a difference so u get what u pay for really

[Dylan777]

Same time next year, 6D

[tron]

When Yongnuo start making DSLRs

[ScottyP]

Never

Chip costs for the sensor won't allow for pricing to be that low and everyone making a markup.  Compromises made to the 6D at the $2k price point seem to piss everyone off, so to think of a $1k price, it wouldn't even be a p&s type.  Refurb on sale gets a 5d2 down to 1,400-1,500 range, but that's about as low at it will go.

I don't believe that the FF sensors cost dramatically more to make than 1.6 crop sensors.  They use the difference to allow them to sell cameras at a lower price point to 95% of the people buying cameras without undercutting the prices on their own FF models. 

It may cost a lot to develop new sensor models, but I really don't think FF sensors cost a whole lot more money to crank out than a crop sensor, and I don't think either one really cost as much per unit to fab as people imagine.  Chip fab facilities in Taiwan, etc., just crank these things out like saltine crackers.  There should be no reason camera sensor production economics should be dramatically different from all the other chips and things we are surrounded with.  The difference is in the huge markup they are allowed due to very little competition.  High-end camera sensors have not become commoditized like most other microelectronics.     

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I don't believe that the FF sensors cost dramatically more to make than 1.6 crop sensors.  They use the difference to allow them to sell cameras at a lower price point to 95% of the people buying cameras without undercutting the prices on their own FF models. 

Costs to make a FF sensor have certainly dropped dramatically over the years, but the basic concept driving the price to 20X the cost of APS-C has not changed.  DSLR sensors are not made from run of the mill silicone wafers as some seem to think.
 
http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Full-Frame_CMOS_White_Paper.pdf
 
 

[Danielle]

2nd hand full frame camera's. As people have said the 5D classic. I wouldn't buy it personally, but its there and cheap. Even 1Ds mark ii's are nearly there, much more tempting I'd suggest.

The question is that are they better than the current crop sensors? No, not necessarily at all... possibly far behind.

You know what Im sick of? People seeing crop sensors as second rate. THEY'RE NOT necessarily *points to the 7D*. Most people don't need to spend a massive bucket load of cash on a Full Frame vs a crop sensor, they won't get the real benefit anyway.

Get off your high horses. Skill will matter a million times more than any fancy piece of overpriced tech. 'Oh, full frame is better at high iso' ... really? Thats it? Oh, that's right ... reach? NO... don't care, doesn't matter.

[Rat]

I don't believe that the FF sensors cost dramatically more to make than 1.6 crop sensors.

I do believe that. Exponential error rates truly are a bitch. But although an aps-c sensor can be manufactured for a couple of dozens of dollars tops, an FF sensor doesn't need to cost more than a few hundred dollars. You'd think that a $700 Rebel with a FF sensor slapped on would fit the bill.

However, stuff like the shutter, the mirror mechanism and the pentaprism needs to be a lot bigger too, and that isn't exactly cheap either. Now you can save money on most of those (say: pentamirror instead of prism) but that would chip away at the quality of both camera and images. And quality is exactly the reason to choose FF over crop. It would make no sense to produce an extremely cheap FF camera, unless of course the market for gear whores becomes substantially bigger than that for actual photographers. I may be naive, but I don't think that's the case yet.

By the way: every few decades prices double because of inflation, so a sub-$1000-camera will be less likely every year. If it is to happen, it'll need to happen in the very near future - say less than five years. Unless Sony starts making 450mm sensor wafers with excellent yields real soon, and I don't see that happening. And I don't see Canon invest in that sort of tech anytime soon at all.

All in all, my guess is never, but you may get lucky between 2015 and 2020

[spinworkxroy]

That day will come...
And the day mobile phones become FF will also come..just a matter of time i believe...

[pwp]

Available right now...pre-owned on eBay.
Nothing wrong with a well looked after, low-mileage 5D or 5DII.

But new? It will happen. Probably not 2013, 2014 or even 2015. If you have a budget limit of $1k and have a definite need for FF, it's a pre-owned body for you.
 
-PW

[bvukich]

I don't believe that the FF sensors cost dramatically more to make than 1.6 crop sensors.  They use the difference to allow them to sell cameras at a lower price point to 95% of the people buying cameras without undercutting the prices on their own FF models. 

You would believe wrong then.

A FF sensor has approximately 2.6x the surface area, so they only get about 1/3 as many on a wafer.
Because of the increased surface area there is an increased risk of flaws, but not a 2.6x increase, a 6.9x increase. (actually 6.9x (square of the difference) sounds a little high, so don't quote me on that.  I do know it's not linear though.)
There is also the reduced volumes vs. APS-C, especially taking into account for the 18MP sensor that has made it into seemingly half the APS-C bearing line.

Add those all together, and you get massive cost increases.

As to your second point (unquoted for brevity)...

Even an APS-C sensor is larger (up to 2x) than the latest 6 & 8 core Intel processors.  Have you priced out an 8 core Xeon lately?  They start north of $1k in bulk.  And even the newest 10 core E7 processors are almost half the size of a FF sensor, and they start at about $2500.

Sensor vs. CPU isn't an entirely fair comparison though.  Processors are several orders of magnitude more complicated, and expensive to fab.  They're also more sensitive to flaws.

So I guess my takeaway point is...  Things are more complicated than you think.