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

[Rocky]

It is price vs feature again. Canon should be able to make a $1000 FF DSLR even now(plastic body, with minimum feature, Porro-Prism, NO AFMA, center point AF only, 2 FPS etc ). But, how many people would buy it?? On the other hand All Canon newer FF DSLRs are loaded with features and hence with a higher pricr.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Hard to say. 2 maybe 3 years perhaps at the rate we're going? Looking at the price of the still current 5DII and comparing that to the 6D I would think we're probably heading in that direction. A $1000 6D would probably sell to a lot of folks who would currently not considering upgrading their Rebels and 60Ds and stuff - and without added production cost really.
It's still too early but I see sensor size becoming the next marketing slogan for the market segment that is still looking at megapixels and ISO numbers.
The question is if there will be any actually usable mirrorless camera first or if it's a small(ish) SLR.

For around a 1000 bucks the 6D would make a really nice entry level camera or a decent backup camera for more invested folks. For 2K I don't see it making any sense in any market segment.

It's doubtfull that the 6d would make any kind of profit selling at or near 1K now. On paper it's very close to the 5d2, which after all this time still holds it's own in the market (retailing even now at $1800 new despite the fact that it is several years old now). Now, take the specs of the original 5d and put that in a small plastic body (rebel), make it SD card onlyand then you've potentially got a FF body at or around 1k. But, I really doubt that will happen as long as APS-C sensors are selling like hotcakes. And for the most part, those buying a sub $1000 body are either beginners (people who know a little bit about what the difference in crop vs FF is, but don't have the cash to justify spending a ton yet), casual users (who have no clue what the sensor even does, much less the size), ambitious P&S users upgrading (again, they most likely won't know the difference). So, until APS-C is phased out and everything is FF, I just don't see a 'new' FF body being available for 1K.

Oh, another way they could reduce costs is to run FF sensor lines that don't have as much quality control! Who wants that though??????

Do you folks have any sources for this talk about $1000 sensors?
Please explain to me how the 6D is $2100 and the D600 is at $2000 when the sensor alone is half of that price? I believe the 6D will be selling at $1700 in a matter of months. I've read that FF sensors cost $500 to manufacture a couple years ago, but I have never heard of them being $1000 to make.

For one --- Nikon is reaping the benefits from outsourcing their sensors to sony. Take all that R&D out of the equation and yeah, your cost to produce goes down. Another very valid point regarding nikons recent pricing --- they are making moves to gain market share - which means they very well may be making the trade off of less profit margin per body sold for quantity of bodies sold. Also, to correct ya, actual price of the d600 is $2100, it has a $100 rebate now which brings it down to $2000. Also, looking at the top sellers list from amazon --- it does really look like nikon made the d600 too nice! It does appear to be eating away at d800 sales! (the d800 had been in the top 20 since release, but, since the d600 came out it has slipped further and further back, down to 26th). The 6d is much less likely to eat away at mk3 sales, in fact, it may even sway people towards the mk3!

Will the price of all of these go down after release? Of course they will. But, it won't happen until the R&D/production costs are paid off. Retooling assembly lines to make new parts, all the time put into creating the tech -- once all that is paid off then the price can naturally go down. We keep throwing around #'s though like we're in canon's accounting dept, so I'll pretend too. Lets say for the first year (or make it more of a financial goal as opposed to time based. 6D, current cost to produce might actually be as high as $1500 (with all the added R&D, retooling costs, advertising, etc, etc). Lets say they need to sell 3 million of these at that price to pay off the production costs. Now we're left with actual cost to produce, which may be around 1k. It's probably not as cut and dry as that, there are other factors too. But I'd guess that this isn't too far off the case.

All that said - the mk3 the price will go down to around 3k around a year after release (this spring). Then the 6d will go down a bit by next november/december. And, by that time we'll have the new 7d to contend with and possibly a big MP body too, plus a slew of rebel updates. My guess is that we may see a natural price of $2700ish on the mk3 in 2014 , and the 6d may be down to around $1800 by then (the mk3 has more room to drop, I don't think we'll see the 6d go down to $1500 until it's closer to 6d2 time (a big q with that is product cycle. Most of the pro gear is on a 3 year cycle, but lower grade stuff is yearly. So how entry level is the 6d? Might next year bring a 6d2?)

 

[tron]

Now, I visualize a Canon executive reading this thread and thinking the following as a possible answer to the OP's question:

When hell freezes over ;D

 

[CharlieB]

There is a basic lack of understanding here... of how manufacturing works.

Two noted issues "sensor cost", and "Canon should be able to make X, Y, and Z"

These are irrelevant issues. They always have been irrelevant. They will continue to be irrelevant.

There is one thing, and only one thing, holding up (or down) the price of any product - and that is - the marketplace.

Canon could do sub-$1000 FF SLRs any time it wants to, and do it profitably. Because it can, does not mean it will, nor mean it should.

Its all about features/benefits vs selling price. What determines that? The marketplace (you and me). Anything is only worth what we are willing to fork out for it. If Canon's market research has missed the boat, price adjustments will follow... either up or down.

Its all about what the marketplace has to offer... in terms of consumer buying and in terms of competition.

And thats it.

Canon will offer a sub-$1000 FF SLR when the market conditions call for it.

 

[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.

The manufacturing cost of a 24x36mm sensor is many times higher than the APS
Replacing 5dmk2 sensor= cost of purchasing 8000 SEK = around 1200 USD three years ago

And the point is missed again.
1. The fact Canon charged you 1200 dollars to replace a sensor does not mean it costs common that much to make it. Actually it proves the opposite. Canon made a profit on that part plus labor cost too.
2. Maybe a FF sensor does cost Canon several times more to manufacture than a crop sensor costs canon to make. But so if the crop sensor only costs canon 25 bucks to make, then you are talking only a couple hundred or few hundred bucks.

 

[Hillsilly]

Canon could do sub-$1000 FF SLRs any time it wants to, and do it profitably. Because it can, does not mean it will, nor mean it should.

That's why I think that any lower priced FF camera will be a surprise entry from a low market share camera company. The big three (Canon, Sony and Nikon) already have FF entries. They're don't want to disturb their margins by introducing a low cost FF camera. They also won't want to cannibalise their higher end models. With the peer pressure on photographers to go full frame, they know that people will happily pay a high price if they feel it will lead to photograhy perfection.

But for Mamiya, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, Pentax, Ricoh, Casio etc who are all looking at increasing market shares (and in some cases just want to stay in business), getting into the FF market must look very tempting. And it will be hard for them to compete with the big three. The answer I keep coming back to is to introduce the camera at a low price and make your money on the lenses and on future higher specc'd camera model releases.

Without wanting to be too repetitive, the company I keep coming back to is Pentax. Their K-01 is retailing for $350. What the?? Surely they can just put a FF sensor in their and sell it in the low $1k range? It will have a K mount and would interest a lot of people. My alternative is Samsung, who are very ambitious right now and want to be seen as the world's leading tech company. Surely their camera division are under pressure to gain more profits and market share.

 

[ScottyP]

Canon could do sub-$1000 FF SLRs any time it wants to, and do it profitably. Because it can, does not mean it will, nor mean it should.

That's why I think that any lower priced FF camera will be a surprise entry from a low market share camera company. The big three (Canon, Sony and Nikon) already have FF entries. They're don't want to disturb their margins by introducing a low cost FF camera. They also won't want to cannibalise their higher end models. With the peer pressure on photographers to go full frame, they know that people will happily pay a high price if they feel it will lead to photograhy perfection.

But for Mamiya, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, Pentax, Ricoh, Casio etc who are all looking at increasing market shares (and in some cases just want to stay in business), getting into the FF market must look very tempting. And it will be hard for them to compete with the big three. The answer I keep coming back to is to introduce the camera at a low price and make your money on the lenses and on future higher specc'd camera model releases.

Without wanting to be too repetitive, the company I keep coming back to is Pentax. Their K-01 is retailing for $350. What the?? Surely they can just put a FF sensor in their and sell it in the low $1k range? It will have a K mount and would interest a lot of people. My alternative is Samsung, who are very ambitious right now and want to be seen as the world's leading tech company. Surely their camera division are under pressure to gain more profits and market share.

That makes a lot of sense. Good point.

 

[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.

The manufacturing cost of a 24x36mm sensor is many times higher than the APS
Replacing 5dmk2 sensor= cost of purchasing 8000 SEK = around 1200 USD three years ago

And the point is missed again.
1. The fact Canon charged you 1200 dollars to replace a sensor does not mean it costs common that much to make it. Actually it proves the opposite. Canon made a profit on that part plus labor cost too.
2. Maybe a FF sensor does cost Canon several times more to manufacture than a crop sensor costs canon to make. But so if the crop sensor only costs canon 25 bucks to make, then you are talking only a couple hundred or few hundred bucks.

@ScottyP Using your very flawed logic it only costs 10-15 bucks to manufacture an APS-C sensor. Mikael highlights the fact that it costs several times more to make a FF sensor (remember that the surface area of a FF sensor is nearly 2.5x bigger than an APS-C sensor).

In truth, you DO NOT KNOW how much it costs to make, only Canon Inc. does. Speculating about something you know absolutely nothing about is the folly of futility :

What is the most expensive component in a modern DSLR camera? I think most people would say; probably the sensor.

Again, using your fundamentally flawed logic, if a FF sensor costs just $25 more than an APS-C one, and Canon can manage to sell me a 7D for 1000 euros, but want 3600 euros for a new 5D, then Canon are making an EXTRA TWO-AND-A-HALF GRAND PROFIT on the 5D3 ???


Sometimes it is a good idea to go back and read what you've written. Then contextualize it. Look at the real world and put it into practice.

Maybe I didn't express that, or maybe you only skimmed what I wrote.
First, I said a crop sensor probably costs $25 bucks, not $15 bucks, for Canon to churn out. This could be $35 bucks, but no way more than $50 bucks BASED ON WHAT THEY SELL CROP CAMERAS FOR. The sensor does have an entire camera attached to it. Also, Canon makes a profit, and the retailer makes a profit. How much room do you see for all those other expenses plus all those other profits if they are selling the crop body for $500.00 or $600.00??
Secondly, I allowed for sake of argument that it really does cost 'several times more to make a FF sensor". Several means "four" in colloquial English. So, $25 x 4 = $100. $35 x 4 = $140. $50 x 4 = $200.
Thirdly, look at the 6D. Sells pre-order for $2100. You know it will be going for $1700 or $1800 in 6 months. You lose any and all credibility if you claim the FF sensor in that thing costs Canon more than few hundred to make, given the cost of all the other parts in the camera, plus labor, plus profit to Canon plus profit to the retailer, etc...

Yes, the sensor probably is the most expensive single part, but there are many many other parts in there too, and they all cost money also. The processor, the shutter, the motherboard, the LCD screen(s), the body, and hundreds more. Plus the cost to assemble all these parts into a camera. There is just so much you can reasonably claim the sensor alone costs Canon to manufacture.

 

[RS2021]

Much of the whining here that this can't happen anytime soon comes from those who paid a lot for their bodies and who wishfully defend the higher prices for longer periods of time cuz they paid a lot... I liken these sentiments to those who paid 700K for a house just before the crash of 2007/2008 and predicted, and wished that the price will never dip under ...oh lets say... 650K...then demured and whimpered as the prices slid lower and lower.

Wake up! All tech items with time come down in price. Competition and market saturation drives lower prices. And yes we will have an ~1000 body sooner than some of the very early replies suggest. Even 6D pricing is likely to slide and get closer to ~1500 after release. I will not be surprised at all if in 12 months 6D is at ~$1000...without a gasp from anyone. Afterall, about a week ago you could have scooped up a 5D IIIf or $2500!! and not even a year has gone by!!! (On that note, hi there "oh-my-god-I-wet-my-panties-such-a-great-camera-I-should-preorder-it-at-$3800-six-months-in-advance-and-tell-everyone-including-my-paper-boy" crowd). Are you telling me the prices are not going down on FF market whatever the MSRP is!?

I am not petty enough to hope or wish that the price on my 1DX will never go down because frankly it was not an expensive "trophy" toy one can crow about nor was it an "investment". If you want to invest, then buy gold, or if you absoutely must "invest" in camera gear, then lenses. In all likelyhood even the flagships in the next 3 years will move closer to the 5 to 4K mark as more FF bodies with more and more "must-have" features show up in the market.

So, yes, we will have a $1000 in a year or so... I don't think it will have the bells and whistles, but it will be here sooner than some predict. Chin up!

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Much of the whining here that this can't happen anytime soon comes from those who paid a lot for their bodies and who wishfully defend the higher prices for longer periods of time cuz they paid a lot... I liken these sentiments to those who paid 700K for a house just before the crash of 2007/2008 and predicted, and wished that the price will never dip under ...oh lets say... 650K...then demured and whimpered as the prices slid lower and lower.

Wake up! All tech items with time come down in price. Competition and market saturation drives lower prices. And yes we will have an ~1000 body sooner than some of the very early replies suggest. Even 6D pricing is likely to slide and get closer to ~1500 after release. I will not be surprised at all if in 12 months 6D is at ~$1000...without a gasp from anyone. Afterall, about a week ago you could have scooped up a 5D IIIf or $2500!! and not even a year has gone by!!! (On that note, hi there "oh-my-god-I-wet-my-panties-such-a-great-camera-I-should-preorder-it-at-$3800-six-months-in-advance-and-tell-everyone-including-my-paper-boy" crowd). Are you telling me the prices are not going down on FF market whatever the MSRP is!?

I am not petty enough to hope or wish that the price on my 1DX will never go down because frankly it was not an expensive "trophy" toy one can crow about nor was it an "investment". If you want to invest, then buy gold, or if you absoutely must "invest" in camera gear, then lenses. In all likelyhood even the flagships in the next 3 years will move closer to the 5 to 4K mark as more FF bodies with more and more "must-have" features show up in the market.

So, yes, we will have a $1000 in a year or so... I don't think it will have the bells and whistles, but it will be here sooner than some predict. Chin up!

I do believe the logic here is flawed and the time table is flawed too. The 6d is about to be ready to ship, but yet the 5d2 still retails at $1800 brand new. And how old is the 5d2 now? Yes, you may find some internet stores or grey market dealers that will sell for lower than MAP prices, but that's just a retailer offering a deal to move more product. Yes, if you bargain hunt you can find a mk3 in the 2500-3000 range. But it's official price from canon, and the price the vast majority of official dealers still have it at $3499! Rebate it by $200 and its $3299 ---

Not all tech 'comes down' in price! This is true for the all that matters is volume market. Could the big 3 cut costs? Have cheap low wage labor make the sensors? Yeah, they could, but then the whole pro DSLR market is a race to the bottom. Have fun with that! Others brought up the cars and this is a great example - did a quick littkle search and this is the result overt he past 70ish years:

Average Cost of New Car Cars
1930 $600.00
1940 $850.00
1950 $1,510.00
1960 $2,600.00
1970 $3,450.00
1980 $7,200.00
1990 $16,950.00
2008 $27,958

So much for advances in tech driving the cost down!

Not many here are willing to except that there is R&D that goes into making a new body, that costs money. On other threads many claim that for canon to create a new sensor that can match the EXMOR in DR it may cost them 1-2 billion. So tell me, if you are a CEO for a DSLR company considering whether or not to invest that kind of money in a seonsor, are you putting that sensor in a consumer grade plastic body retailing for $999? Or, are you taking pride in the advancement and putting it first in your flagship model for $7K?

I say it again ---- the only way we will see a new FF at or near $1K is if they hobble it way more than the 6D ---your putting the original 5d sensor in a cheap plastic body with a flimsy mirror, 3 fps, max ISO of 1600.

USED 5d classics are selling for for around $700---- Used!!!!!! This camera came was released in 2005!!!!!! And, the mk2 is still at $1800 new ---and canon is trying to clear out the inventory on that model so they can officially discontinue it! So yeah, I see no price drop like your talking on the 6d. Maybe a year from now it will retail at a cool $1999, maybe $1899 with rebate. The 6d won't be sub $1000 for another 4-5 years at least, unless they're going to follow the rebel way and update the 6d in a year. But, if they do that your still looking at the used market to snag it for $1000 or less.

Again, the only way I see a FF brand new body under a grand is when and if APS-C sensors are phased out. As long as there is that line in the sand there is no reason for a change in the market to take place like your suggesting.

 

[RS2021]

Not all tech 'comes down' in price! This is true for the all that matters is volume market. Could the big 3 cut costs? Have cheap low wage labor make the sensors? Yeah, they could, but then the whole pro DSLR market is a race to the bottom. Have fun with that! Others brought up the cars and this is a great example - did a quick littkle search and this is the result overt he past 70ish years:

Average Cost of New Car Cars
1930 $600.00
1940 $850.00
1950 $1,510.00
1960 $2,600.00
1970 $3,450.00
1980 $7,200.00
1990 $16,950.00
2008 $27,958

So much for advances in tech driving the cost down!

Your logic is laughable. It only works if you argue the dollar value has remained the same since 1936 and inflation was nil. You seem to selectively skirt the buying power of a dollar in 1936 and what the same dollar will buy now. Do you know what the anual salary of a person was in 1936? While you selectively presented average cost of the car in 1936, here is a more complete list that puts the "value of the dollar" then in perspective:

What Things Cost in 1936:
Car: $600
Gasoline: 19 cents/gal
House: $6,200
Bread: 8 cents/loaf
Milk: 48 cents/gal
Postage Stamp: 3 cents
Stock Market: 180
Average Annual Salary: $1,600

Good luck with that 19 cent a gallon gas. It is clear some of us slectively present data to win an argument. Still doesn't change the outcome of the election

 

[sandymandy]

I was thinking the same. Troll post? not sure...

House for 6200$ is really cool also...

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I was thinking the same. Troll post? not sure...

House for 6200$ is really cool also...

Is that directed at me?

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Not all tech 'comes down' in price! This is true for the all that matters is volume market. Could the big 3 cut costs? Have cheap low wage labor make the sensors? Yeah, they could, but then the whole pro DSLR market is a race to the bottom. Have fun with that! Others brought up the cars and this is a great example - did a quick littkle search and this is the result overt he past 70ish years:

Average Cost of New Car Cars
1930 $600.00
1940 $850.00
1950 $1,510.00
1960 $2,600.00
1970 $3,450.00
1980 $7,200.00
1990 $16,950.00
2008 $27,958

So much for advances in tech driving the cost down!

Your logic is laughable. It only works if you argue the dollar value has remained the same since 1936 and inflation was nil. You seem to selectively skirt the buying power of a dollar in 1936 and what the same dollar will buy now. Do you know what the anual salary of a person was in 1936? While you selectively presented average cost of the car in 1936, here is a more complete list that puts the "value of the dollar" then in perspective:

What Things Cost in 1936:
Car: $600
Gasoline: 19 cents/gal
House: $6,200
Bread: 8 cents/loaf
Milk: 48 cents/gal
Postage Stamp: 3 cents
Stock Market: 180
Average Annual Salary: $1,600

Good luck with that 19 cent a gallon gas. It is clear some of us slectively present data to win an argument. Still doesn't change the outcome of the election

Was that a scientific post? no, just a quick search based on the idea that all tech comes down in price.

Also, thanks for the selective quoting --- here's the rest of what i said minus the car stuff -

I do believe the logic here is flawed and the time table is flawed too. The 6d is about to be ready to ship, but yet the 5d2 still retails at $1800 brand new. And how old is the 5d2 now? Yes, you may find some internet stores or grey market dealers that will sell for lower than MAP prices, but that's just a retailer offering a deal to move more product. Yes, if you bargain hunt you can find a mk3 in the 2500-3000 range. But it's official price from canon, and the price the vast majority of official dealers still have it at $3499! Rebate it by $200 and its $3299 ---

Not all tech 'comes down' in price! This is true for the all that matters is volume market. Could the big 3 cut costs? Have cheap low wage labor make the sensors? Yeah, they could, but then the whole pro DSLR market is a race to the bottom. Have fun with that!

Not many here are willing to except that there is R&D that goes into making a new body, that costs money. On other threads many claim that for canon to create a new sensor that can match the EXMOR in DR it may cost them 1-2 billion. So tell me, if you are a CEO for a DSLR company considering whether or not to invest that kind of money in a seonsor, are you putting that sensor in a consumer grade plastic body retailing for $999? Or, are you taking pride in the advancement and putting it first in your flagship model for $7K?

I say it again ---- the only way we will see a new FF at or near $1K is if they hobble it way more than the 6D ---your putting the original 5d sensor in a cheap plastic body with a flimsy mirror, 3 fps, max ISO of 1600.

USED 5d classics are selling for for around $700---- Used!!!!!! This camera came was released in 2005!!!!!! And, the mk2 is still at $1800 new ---and canon is trying to clear out the inventory on that model so they can officially discontinue it! So yeah, I see no price drop like your talking on the 6d. Maybe a year from now it will retail at a cool $1999, maybe $1899 with rebate. The 6d won't be sub $1000 for another 4-5 years at least, unless they're going to follow the rebel way and update the 6d in a year. But, if they do that your still looking at the used market to snag it for $1000 or less.

Again, the only way I see a FF brand new body under a grand is when and if APS-C sensors are phased out. As long as there is that line in the sand there is no reason for a change in the market to take place like your suggesting.

 

[RS2021]

Not all tech 'comes down' in price! This is true for the all that matters is volume market. Could the big 3 cut costs? Have cheap low wage labor make the sensors? Yeah, they could, but then the whole pro DSLR market is a race to the bottom. Have fun with that! Others brought up the cars and this is a great example - did a quick littkle search and this is the result overt he past 70ish years:

Average Cost of New Car Cars
1930 $600.00
1940 $850.00
1950 $1,510.00
1960 $2,600.00
1970 $3,450.00
1980 $7,200.00
1990 $16,950.00
2008 $27,958

So much for advances in tech driving the cost down!

Your logic is laughable. It only works if you argue the dollar value has remained the same since 1936 and inflation was nil. You seem to selectively skirt the buying power of a dollar in 1936 and what the same dollar will buy now. Do you know what the anual salary of a person was in 1936? While you selectively presented average cost of the car in 1936, here is a more complete list that puts the "value of the dollar" then in perspective:

What Things Cost in 1936:
Car: $600
Gasoline: 19 cents/gal
House: $6,200
Bread: 8 cents/loaf
Milk: 48 cents/gal
Postage Stamp: 3 cents
Stock Market: 180
Average Annual Salary: $1,600

Good luck with that 19 cent a gallon gas. It is clear some of us slectively present data to win an argument. Still doesn't change the outcome of the election

Was that a scientific post? no, just a quick search based on the idea that all tech comes down in price.

Also, thanks for the selective quoting --- here's the rest of what i said minus the car stuff -

I do believe the logic here is flawed and the time table is flawed too. The 6d is about to be ready to ship, but yet the 5d2 still retails at $1800 brand new. And how old is the 5d2 now? Yes, you may find some internet stores or grey market dealers that will sell for lower than MAP prices, but that's just a retailer offering a deal to move more product. Yes, if you bargain hunt you can find a mk3 in the 2500-3000 range. But it's official price from canon, and the price the vast majority of official dealers still have it at $3499! Rebate it by $200 and its $3299 ---

Not all tech 'comes down' in price! This is true for the all that matters is volume market. Could the big 3 cut costs? Have cheap low wage labor make the sensors? Yeah, they could, but then the whole pro DSLR market is a race to the bottom. Have fun with that!

Not many here are willing to except that there is R&D that goes into making a new body, that costs money. On other threads many claim that for canon to create a new sensor that can match the EXMOR in DR it may cost them 1-2 billion. So tell me, if you are a CEO for a DSLR company considering whether or not to invest that kind of money in a seonsor, are you putting that sensor in a consumer grade plastic body retailing for $999? Or, are you taking pride in the advancement and putting it first in your flagship model for $7K?

I say it again ---- the only way we will see a new FF at or near $1K is if they hobble it way more than the 6D ---your putting the original 5d sensor in a cheap plastic body with a flimsy mirror, 3 fps, max ISO of 1600.

USED 5d classics are selling for for around $700---- Used!!!!!! This camera came was released in 2005!!!!!! And, the mk2 is still at $1800 new ---and canon is trying to clear out the inventory on that model so they can officially discontinue it! So yeah, I see no price drop like your talking on the 6d. Maybe a year from now it will retail at a cool $1999, maybe $1899 with rebate. The 6d won't be sub $1000 for another 4-5 years at least, unless they're going to follow the rebel way and update the 6d in a year. But, if they do that your still looking at the used market to snag it for $1000 or less.

Again, the only way I see a FF brand new body under a grand is when and if APS-C sensors are phased out. As long as there is that line in the sand there is no reason for a change in the market to take place like your suggesting.

Sorry, reposting word for word your original post does not win an argument. I don't have time to carry on a flame war here or type as much as you have and probably will. You win, yes FF will for ever cost tons and tons of money. Best.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

it's not a flame war (not calling you names, not being personal, just having a conversation I thought at least), I admit my car comparison there was off. Just a quick google search. Silly, shouldn't have done that. But my other points are valid - i reposted it because the selective quoting did totally ignored the valid points.

i would also take issue with the idea that a camera body is an investment (which you say no, buy gold that's an investment). If your business is photography then anything you buy for your business is an investment!

Will there be a sub $1000 brand new FF body? I hold to my points that the only way this happens is a) when APS-C is phased out and all SLR camera's are FF. Or, b) if one of the big 3 puts 8 year old tech in a cheap plastic body - a true rebel FF. Other than that, there is the used market.

And, in regards to the 6d - none of what we say means anything right now because it's an unknown! How good/bad is it? Maybe the IQ is better than the mk2? Maybe it is just as good as the mk3 in ISO performance. Maybe it isn't and the thing blows chunks. If the 6d ends up sucking the big fat one, then yeah the price will drop and canon will phase it right on out! But then again, if it sucks that bad, whose going to want it even at the bargain cost? and on the other hand, it may be a good and capable camera which enjoys a 2-3 life cycle! Who knows the answer to to that! None of us yet, but we'll have a better idea of where this body stands soon enough.

 

[CharlieB]

@CharlieB

Please could you enlighten us all and tell us precisely what it costs (the nearest $ will do, round-up the cents) Canon to make the 5D3 or 1DX?

You are the fountain of all wisdom

edit: using your screwed up logic Porsche could produce a Carerra Turbo for less than $10,000 but hey those mean Germans just won't do it...eh?

If you want to discuss things on the basis of manufacturing practices, and how market analysis derives the "suggested selling price", and how marketing derives the feature/benefit set (and the price point) and how engineering must then find a way to make it profitable, fine. If you want to be a sarcastic asinine twit, leave me alone.

 

[weekendshooter]

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.

The manufacturing cost of a 24x36mm sensor is many times higher than the APS
Replacing 5dmk2 sensor= cost of purchasing 8000 SEK = around 1200 USD three years ago

And the point is missed again.
1. The fact Canon charged you 1200 dollars to replace a sensor does not mean it costs common that much to make it. Actually it proves the opposite. Canon made a profit on that part plus labor cost too.
2. Maybe a FF sensor does cost Canon several times more to manufacture than a crop sensor costs canon to make. But so if the crop sensor only costs canon 25 bucks to make, then you are talking only a couple hundred or few hundred bucks.

OH sorry, I should explain , that was the in-house price, what Canon Service Center paid for the replacement sensor.
How much the customer was charged I do not know, service time, and VAT
A 24x36 sensor cost much more than you think to manufacture than a APS and all assembling is not in-house
it is up to four- to seven times more expensive to produce a 24x36 sensor, depending on the technology. Other things like mirror mechanism, prism house etc. will also be much more expensive.

oh crap, I actually agree with Mikael on something??? time to go jump off a bridge, see you later guys.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Hi,

The title says it all.

Cheers

Already discussed ad nauseam: Large hunks of chips are disproportionately expensive, companies need to keep a margin of profit, there is a camera to wrap around that large chip- all true and relevant.
But I ask: why and for whom? Considering good lenses that take advantage of new sensor techs are becoming so expensive, who will buy cheap FFs just because they are so darned cheap? Like somebody mentioned, causal shooters don't care about FF (indeed, not many even know what it is and shoot pretty nice pics all the same).
Like all electronics equipment, I am sure cameras will become crazy cheap some day. Maybe companies will even sell them at a loss to tie customers to their more expensive lens collections (not sure that's not happening even now). Lenses won't become cheap though. Unless someone invents some artificial UD glass and the like that costs pennies to make AND doesn't care about patents!

 

[sandymandy]

I still agree that all tech cost comes down with time. The more common something is the less pricy it will be OR there will be cheap alternatives at least. Just think of the first computers lol they were so ridiculously expensive!! Today u will find a processor thats as fast as a 100.000$ computer in a mobile fone.
You can also get a cheap car. Or a cheap camera. Imho there are more cheaop alternatives nowadays to get good photo results than were available at the beginning of the 35mm film era.
I guess its something like at the dentist. The actual material cost isnt so high but its other factors that can icnrease the price a lot.

p.s.

please FF camera for under 1k$ w/o video mode, wifi or such Reduce it to just what we need. Aperture, shutter speed, iso.
Uhh sounds like Leica....lol