Source? That doesn't seem to be the case at all, at least looking at the current offerings. The X-H2 is rumored to launch at $2,000, only a $500 retail difference (indicating probably a cost differential of $100 or so, unless Fujifilm want to eat their margins on their flagship APS camera, which seems quite unlikely). The OM-1 launched at $2,100, barely a $300 premium over the E-M1.3 (and that's not even accounting for inflation). Even if we assume that a 35mm imager is 10 times more expensive, that would indicate a cost differential of $1,000, and that number is probably waaay overblown, because you certainly don't need 10x as much DRAM to put on the chip, for starters. And sales volumes are quite small for all the involved models, so, economies of scale are out of the question as a factor.A stacked sensor in the R6 doesn't make sense so soon. Stacked sensors are incredibly expensive and I am not expecting them in anything but the flagships for another couple of generations at least. Now if it is a new model with a stacked crop sensor, that I could see. As it stands a stacked full frame sensor is at least 10x more expensive.
No, Canon, Nikon and Sony can charge as much as they like for their top-end cameras because they market will bear those prices. The actual cost of the devices weighs very little into that, and the R&D costs can be spread out by employing the tech in more bodies.
Upvote
0