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

[pdirestajr]

Buy a film body. Full frame with an interchangeable sensor. It's pretty awesome and has been around for a little while, so they have had time to work out all the bugs!

But to answer the OP's original question. It's hard to say since they are marketed as top end consumer cameras and "professional" cameras. There is no REAL reason "Full Frame" has to be considered a high-end / pro format. My EOS Rebel G is all plastic (even the mount) with 3 AF points... and IT'S FULL FRAME! Does that mean I could have considered myself a pro when I got it from Santa as a kid?

Basically FF will have to be the standard sensor in entry-level cameras first to be marketed <1K.

Also, ask the average tourist walking around with a Rebel what size sensor is in their camera, or what the "crop factor" is, and you'll most likely get a blank look. They don't care.

[weekendshooter]

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.

Absolutely right. I've done work in nanofabrication and the plain fact is that big chips are extraordinarily difficult and expensive to make. Many of the advancements made in fabrication technology in recent years have aimed to reduce the minimum feature size, enabling smaller, more power-efficient chips. This sort of move is irrelevant to sensor fab, as sensors have a fixed overall size and thus are very expensive to make regardless of how advanced the fab process is.

Imagine building something where your initial investment (building the fab) is in the billions of dollars, then for every time your process messes up a single step (out of dozens) you have to toss out a wafer of 10 or more full frame sensors. These things are extremely hard to get right, and prices won't go way down by a significant margin anytime soon unless someone decides it's worth it to sell full frame cameras at a loss.

That could be a nice venture, considering how much full frame lenses cost! Nikon already sells its lowest crop body (think canon T3) as a kit only, so I can see Canon doing this and selling a barebones full frame body with a mandatory 24-70/4 IS kit. I'm sure $1500 for that lens is leaving plenty of profit margin 

[gmrza]

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

Consider the following initial list prices (source dpreview.com):

• EOS D30: US $2990
• EOS D60: US $2199
• EOS 10D: US $1999
• EOS 20D: US $1599
• EOS 30D: US $1399
• EOS 40D: US $1299
• EOS 50D: US $1299
• EOS 60D: US $1099 (possibly not a real comparison)

Canon has kept release prices of enthusiast level APS-C bodies above the $1000 barrier.  Although, if one were to adjust for inflation, we would be below the 2000 value of $1000.

I suspect, subject to market forces, Canon will probably try to keep full frame bodies above $1500 (at launch).  Given the trajectory shown above, that may take another 2 generations to reach, however.

You also need to consider where Canon is pitching the xx0D range - which have now settled at listing just below $900 at launch.  That makes a sub $1000 full frame body seem unlikely to me, unless APS-C starts to fall away, which seems unlikely to me.

[weekendshooter]

Canon has kept release prices of enthusiast level APS-C bodies above the $1000 barrier.  Although, if one were to adjust for inflation, we would be below the 2000 value of $1000.

I suspect, subject to market forces, Canon will probably try to keep full frame bodies above $1500 (at launch).  Given the trajectory shown above, that may take another 2 generations to reach, however.

You also need to consider where Canon is pitching the xx0D range - which have now settled at listing just below $900 at launch.  That makes a sub $1000 full frame body seem unlikely to me, unless APS-C starts to fall away, which seems unlikely to me.

APS-C will always have a place in Canon's lineup, as they have proven that a 1.6x crop sensor is useful for many types of photography. APS-C sensors are the sweet spot for the manufacturer price-wise; they can charge $1000 for a 60D-type camera where the sensor costs a couple hundred dollars, compared to a 6D that's going for $2000 with a $1500 sensor. As things are now, Canikon can't charge significantly less than $2k for a full-frame body without either making it out of silly putty or taking a significant loss on every camera sold.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Canon has kept release prices of enthusiast level APS-C bodies above the $1000 barrier.  Although, if one were to adjust for inflation, we would be below the 2000 value of $1000.

I suspect, subject to market forces, Canon will probably try to keep full frame bodies above $1500 (at launch).  Given the trajectory shown above, that may take another 2 generations to reach, however.

You also need to consider where Canon is pitching the xx0D range - which have now settled at listing just below $900 at launch.  That makes a sub $1000 full frame body seem unlikely to me, unless APS-C starts to fall away, which seems unlikely to me.

APS-C will always have a place in Canon's lineup, as they have proven that a 1.6x crop sensor is useful for many types of photography. APS-C sensors are the sweet spot for the manufacturer price-wise; they can charge $1000 for a 60D-type camera where the sensor costs a couple hundred dollars, compared to a 6D that's going for $2000 with a $1500 sensor. As things are now, Canikon can't charge significantly less than $2k for a full-frame body without either making it out of silly putty or taking a significant loss on every camera sold.

Although I am in agreement that a FF sensor is more expensive, it certainly does not cost Canon  $1500.  Their cost to manufacture the 6D is going to be less than that.  The selling price of a body is probably at least 3 - 4X the cost to manufacturer it.  Adversising, freight, maintaining warehouses, returns and the cost of servicing cameras are huge expenses.  And, then, there is the dealer profit and the rebate program.  It likely costs $300 to give a buyer a $200 rebate, for example.
My guess as to the price for a FF sensor for the 6D is about $350-$450 max.  The APS-C sensors likely now cost $20 to make.

[ScottyP]

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.

You quote the retail price of Intel CPU's, which misses my point.  Whatever the retail, you know it doesn't cost Intel anything like that much to produce.  Even if you can really translate surface area directly into fab cost (cost per square centimeter), and the surface area is 2.6 times greater, and even if the 0.05% dud rate is really multiplied by 6.9x or whatever number you toss at it, I still am not convinced that the actual cost to make it is that great.  2.6 times what?? 

[weekendshooter]

Canon has kept release prices of enthusiast level APS-C bodies above the $1000 barrier.  Although, if one were to adjust for inflation, we would be below the 2000 value of $1000.

I suspect, subject to market forces, Canon will probably try to keep full frame bodies above $1500 (at launch).  Given the trajectory shown above, that may take another 2 generations to reach, however.

You also need to consider where Canon is pitching the xx0D range - which have now settled at listing just below $900 at launch.  That makes a sub $1000 full frame body seem unlikely to me, unless APS-C starts to fall away, which seems unlikely to me.

APS-C will always have a place in Canon's lineup, as they have proven that a 1.6x crop sensor is useful for many types of photography. APS-C sensors are the sweet spot for the manufacturer price-wise; they can charge $1000 for a 60D-type camera where the sensor costs a couple hundred dollars, compared to a 6D that's going for $2000 with a $1500 sensor. As things are now, Canikon can't charge significantly less than $2k for a full-frame body without either making it out of silly putty or taking a significant loss on every camera sold.

Although I am in agreement that a FF sensor is more expensive, it certainly does not cost Canon  $1500.  Their cost to manufacture the 6D is going to be less than that.  The selling price of a body is probably at least 3 - 4X the cost to manufacturer it.  Adversising, freight, maintaining warehouses, returns and the cost of servicing cameras are huge expenses.  And, then, there is the dealer profit and the rebate program.  It likely costs $300 to give a buyer a $200 rebate, for example.
My guess as to the price for a FF sensor for the 6D is about $350-$450 max.  The APS-C sensors likely now cost $20 to make.

You're quite misinformed if you think sensors are that cheap. Think $1k for full frame and $100-200 for APS-C. Again, it's REALLY HARD to make huge chips with no imperfections. A single dust speck or mistimed/mismeasured fabrication step is much more expensive for a full frame process where only a few chips fit on a wafer than on APS-C, which fit many more. Every possible cost is squared and then some when building big chips.

[weekendshooter]

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.

You quote the retail price of Intel CPU's, which misses my point.  Whatever the retail, you know it doesn't cost Intel anything like that much to produce.  Even if you can really translate surface area directly into fab cost (cost per square centimeter), and the surface area is 2.6 times greater, and even if the 0.05% dud rate is really multiplied by 6.9x or whatever number you toss at it, I still am not convinced that the actual cost to make it is that great.  2.6 times what??

The dud rate is WAY higher than that, considering it's not intel making these, or any other company with state of the art fab, for that matter. Just did a quick check and Intel's Ivy Bridge processors are about 5-8 times smaller than a full frame sensor, so square that and then add cost due to a less optimized process and let me know how much you think that costs. These things are NOT cheap, despite how much we want them to be. Until we agree to accept a smaller sensor, they won't be cheap.

[ishdakuteb]

Hi,

The title says it all. 

Cheers

my answer is based on the title and here it is:  "now and they are all on craigslist.  you are asking for full frame, but did not ask for new or old version of them though" 

[EchoLocation]

You're quite misinformed if you think sensors are that cheap. Think $1k for full frame and $100-200 for APS-C. Again, it's REALLY HARD to make huge chips with no imperfections. A single dust speck or mistimed/mismeasured fabrication step is much more expensive for a full frame process where only a few chips fit on a wafer than on APS-C, which fit many more. Every possible cost is squared and then some when building big chips.

FF sensors definitely are not 1000 dollars each....
If they were, the 6D would be 3000 dollars minimum, not overpriced at 2100.
I have read VERY conflicting articles on it, but at this point, I don't even think they are evn $500 each as seems to be the most quoted price online...
The last article I read made it seem like they more about $100 each to produce....
I haven't read an article yet that I fully trust in terms of the actual price of the sensor, but somehow, I know that they are not $1000.
If anyone has a link to an article that more clearly and absolutely gives the cost of manufacturing sensors i'd be quite interested to read it.

[ScottyP]

You're quite misinformed if you think sensors are that cheap. Think $1k for full frame and $100-200 for APS-C. Again, it's REALLY HARD to make huge chips with no imperfections. A single dust speck or mistimed/mismeasured fabrication step is much more expensive for a full frame process where only a few chips fit on a wafer than on APS-C, which fit many more. Every possible cost is squared and then some when building big chips.

FF sensors definitely are not 1000 dollars each....
If they were, the 6D would be 3000 dollars minimum, not overpriced at 2100.
I have read VERY conflicting articles on it, but at this point, I don't even think they are evn $500 each as seems to be the most quoted price online...
The last article I read made it seem like they more about $100 each to produce....
I haven't read an article yet that I fully trust in terms of the actual price of the sensor, but somehow, I know that they are not $1000.
If anyone has a link to an article that more clearly and absolutely gives the cost of manufacturing sensors i'd be quite interested to read it.

EXACTLY.  If they sell a 6D for $2100 (and then lower it to retail for $1,700 6 months after release) then how in the world could the sensors cost $1,000.00??  Canon has to make a profit, plus the retailer has to make a profit, plus the REST of the camera has to cost something to make and to assemble too, right??  Also all the marketing and advertizing Canon does in all the magazines, TV, etc., is not free either. 
It might be gratifying (if you own a FF body) to think that a crop sensor could be made for $20 bucks but a FF must cost 50 TIMES that much, but that is nonsense.  And you know the crop sensor can't cost more than $25 to $50 bucks tops, or else how could the T3i I bought 1 year ago at its peak have cost $630.00 body-only, and still the retailer made money, Canon made money, and on top of that, they managed to wrap a whole camera around that sensor, all with change left over?

[ishdakuteb]

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

like i believe i can fly. i believe i can touch the sky...

[dirtcastle]

Yup. The 5D is that camera. You sacrifice AF and ISO. But something's gotta give.

What you get in return for that sacrifice is full lens potential, given the necessary lighting conditions.

[iso79]

If you can't afford it, don't buy it. If you really want it, save up for it.

[hendrik-sg]

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

Its mor likely that a FF (or crop) camera gets a smart phone integrated than vice versa... just simply because people would call a smart phone with a Ff lens attached a camera and not a phone.... thats optics and not speculation on manufacturing costs