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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
#21
bvukich said:
ScottyP said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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??
 
Upvote 0
#22
Mt Spokane Photography said:
weekendshooter said:
gmrza said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Upvote 0
#23
ScottyP said:
bvukich said:
ScottyP said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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??
Click to expand...

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.
 
Upvote 0
#25
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Upvote 0
#26
EchoLocation said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Upvote 0
#30
spinworkxroy said:
That day will come...
And the day mobile phones become FF will also come..just a matter of time i believe...
Click to expand...

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
 
Upvote 0
#31
My guess is it won't be a straight progression of the current d600 and 6D to lower prices. The 6D/d600 future generations will likely cost about the same (i.e. about $1700-2000), and just offer better specs in terms of build quality, AF, burst, ect. A new class will have to come in with lower specs and build (aside from the sensor), and more "auto" features.

When will this happen? My thought is not for a long time. It'll be at least 2-3 years before the d600 and 6D get refreshed, and they won't want to undercut those with cheaper cameras for at least a year after that. When they do, it'll be about $1500. Wait another 1-3 years, and sales will start pushing them close to $1000. This of course assumes any of the big three wants to go in this direction, they may try to keep full frame in the realm of serious enthusiasts with deeper pockets able to buy full frame lenses.

So overall I'd expect at least 4-7 years before we see a sub $1000 full frame. However this could change with EVIL cameras stealing the show. If enough competitive pressure comes from those markets to erode sales in the DSLR market, we may see a push to claim higher image quality on full frame DSLRs a lot sooner.
 
Upvote 0
#32
Assuming you don't accept used and refurbished cameras into the equation, then the reality is that the cheapest full-frame we have now is $14-1500, and that is a several years old model that stayed relevant because it had original features that nobody really topped at that price range. The cheapest, newest iteration is $2100. So, you've got to drop 50% on that body...quite a ways to go.

Heck, the entry-level APS-C cameras retail at $999...can't imagine we'll see another cheap full-frame in production long enough to cross that thresh-hold; the 6D would have to last as long as the 5DII, and I don't see that
 
Upvote 0
#35
ScottyP said:
EchoLocation said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

Because your T3i has a comparatively tiny sensor, in terms of area and ability to pack multiple chips onto a single wafer. Yes, full frame sensors really do cost many MANY times more to make than crop. Here's a link that has a nice picture illustrating what I'm trying to get across. You can ignore the actual numbers since they're his assumptions anyway, but the logic he used to get there is sound: http://www.naturescapes.net/092006/ej0906.htm

Again, full-frame sensors are, especially by modern standards, ENORMOUS chips that nobody really wants to fab because it's extraordinarily difficult to get good yield numbers when a few defects on an entire wafer mean that you have to throw out a large percentage of the total chips on that wafer. A reasonable estimate of 1-3 defects per wafer could theoretically result in a much lower yield of full-frame chips than crop sensors.

This is also the reason that you don't see many 16:10 computer monitors these days; the manufacturers realized that they can pass off 16:9 just as easily while fitting more panels onto a single plate of glass. The gains seem small but are in fact enormous when you consider the scale of manufacturing and the decreased impact of fabrication defects that results from having more units per wafer/plate/etc.
 
Upvote 0
#37
shutterwideshut said:
tron said:
DB said:
When Yongnuo start making DSLRs ::)
Click to expand...
;D ;D
Click to expand...

LMAO ;D ;D ;D
Click to expand...

Kidding aside, maybe a Samyang-Yongnuo collaboration on camera, body and accessories is very good for photography as a whole. A sub $1000 FF with a kit lens and external flash kit won't be far-off. Samyang lens technology isn't that far-off. If they have full access to the wiring technology between body and lenses, I think they can easily build the AF module. What's left is Yongnuo's capability of producing capable bodies. I just hope they'll also have a great after-sales support. Even if they produce a camera system that's behind by 2-3 years in technology, if they offer it at a very cheap price (1/3 the price of Canikon/Sony), there will be no shortage of takers among the entry, enthusiasts and who knows, the professional level photographers.
 
Upvote 0
#38
I wouldn't be shocked if we saw a $1000-$1500 FF mirorrless camera within the next two years. I see the 6D and 600D as game changers. Suddenly, we have reasonably specc'd FF cameras being released with $2k price tags.

For typical camera users, I see the current bread and butter models as follows:

M4/3 - Olympus EPL5 - $599
APS-C - Sony Nex 5R - $648
APS-C - Canon T4i - $799
FF - Canon 6D - $2,000
FF - Nikon D600 - $2,000

I know my logic can be countered in a number of ways, but if I was a camera company exec, I'd be thinking that there's a big hole between $800 and $2000. What would get the camera community excited? A cheap FF camera. I'd then work backwards, basing everything upon a final sale price of $1250 - $1500. Ultimately, I end up with a very simple mirrorless camera with an EVF and a FF sensor. I end up with a Nex 5, but with a FF sensor and a $600-$800 premium. (And going by most of the comments above, an $800 price increase isn't unreaslistic to cover the price of a full frame sensor).

Over its lifespan, this camera will decrease in value. Come end of life, you will see run out specials below $1,000. Maybe in 4 years time.

The big question is, will it be a Canon? Sadly, I think not. As a betting person, I'm liking the odds on Pentax who have a lot of legacy FF lenses and users to satisfy.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Canon EOS R8 V to be the Full-Frame V Series Camera?
Replies
25
Views
5K
jam05
J
Canon Rumors
The Canon EOS R6 Mark III is Canon’s Next Full-Frame Release
Replies
239
Views
28K
pulseimages
pulseimages
P
R1 Overheating issues
Replies
28
Views
7K
OldDudePhotog
O
Canon Rumors
Canon Looking to add a new Full Frame Kit Zoom?
Replies
4
Views
1K
EricN
EricN
Canon Rumors
Will We Finally See Third-Party Autofocus for Full-Frame RF?
Replies
88
Views
14K
Loswr
L
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu