When will these people get it? Telephotos can't shrink

[RichA]

Telephotos of specific speeds cannot be shrunk like wide angle lenses
and normal primes just because a sensor is smaller.

A 300mm f2.8 needs a lens at least 110mm across and it needs multiple
elements because aspherics are not used on large elements yet.
Whether the sensor is 4/3rds or FF, the lens is going to be that big.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=40554613

[R. Mark Clayton]

"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:16765d62-4d66-4963...@k40g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

Can't be shrunk!?! Oh yes they can and have been. Both the Minolta Vectis
/ RD 3000 and the Minolta and Pentax 110's had telephoto lenses and they
were smaller for the same magnification. Whilst the overall size needs to
be larger than short focal length / prime lenses (to fulfil the sensor size
X the magnification / f ratio) they do NOT need to be as large as on a full
frame 35mm lens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_110_Zoom_SLR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pentax_Auto_110_70mm_lens.jpg ~= 140mm
for 35mm body

conversely even a basic lens on a larger format (e.g. 6X7) is humungous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tele_tak_300_63_ft.jpg

it is only f6.3 and even at this size needs the tripod to support the lens
rather than the camera.

[Darrell Larose]

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "RichA"<rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:16765d62-4d66-4963...@k40g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>> Telephotos of specific speeds cannot be shrunk like wide angle lenses
>> and normal primes just because a sensor is smaller.
>>
>> A 300mm f2.8 needs a lens at least 110mm across and it needs multiple
>> elements because aspherics are not used on large elements yet.
>> Whether the sensor is 4/3rds or FF, the lens is going to be that big.
>>

That is a law of physics, mathematically it has to be 300/2.8=107.14mm
but to do optical corrections. 110mm is right. A 300mm f:2.8 will be
big, no matter what people think.

>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=40554613
>>
>
> Can't be shrunk!?! Oh yes they can and have been. Both the Minolta
Vectis
> / RD 3000 and the Minolta and Pentax 110's had telephoto lenses and they
> were smaller for the same magnification. Whilst the overall size
needs to
> be larger than short focal length / prime lenses (to fulfil the
sensor size
> X the magnification / f ratio) they do NOT need to be as large as on
a full
> frame 35mm lens.
>

Yes but the Vectis would still need a huge 300mm f:2.8, to be a 300mm
f:2.8. If you wanted the equivalent in image magnification, then a
300/2.8 on FF (24x36mm) can be obtained with a 200mm f:2.8
(200/2.8=71.4mm) or rounded to a 72mm diameter. So it would be smaller
and lighter. But to have a similar DOF and Bokeh a 200mm f:2 is closer.

A 300/2.8 and a 200/2.0 are more or less the same size and weight. Canon
examples:

200/2.8
Filter Size 72mm
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight 3.3" x 5.4", 1.7 lbs. / 83.2 x 136.2mm, 765g

200/2.0
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight 5.0 in. x 8.2 in./ 128mm x 208mm (maximum
lens length); 5.6 lbs./2,520g


300/2.8
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight 5.0" x 9.9", 5.6 lbs. / 128.0 x 252.0mm,
2550g (lens only)

So going from the 300/2.8 FF, to a 200/2.8 you'll get a lens that weighs
in at 65% less.

Pentax 110 is moot, as they didn't have a lens that long. Their biggest
lens was the 70 mm f/2.8.






--
Darrell Larose
_____________________________________________
web: http://DarrellLarose.ca
blog: http://DarrellLarose.wordpress.com
_____________________________________________

[Rich]

"R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:ca2dndorCf7LyajS...@bt.com:

Equivalency has nothing repeat, nothing to do with the physics of lenses.
A 300mm lens in order to have an f-ratio of f2.8 NEEDS a front element or
"clear aperture" of at least 110mm.

[bugbear]

Rich wrote:

>>
>>
>
> Equivalency has nothing repeat, nothing to do with the physics of lenses.

And everything to do with how we use lenses.

BugBear

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:qb2dncfIUJG4lavS...@giganews.com...

Yes yes, if it is literally the same focal length then it will be the same
size, however the point is that to get the same MAGNIFICATION on a smaller
format you only need a smaller lens. Look at all those D lenses that will
only fill an APS-C sensor. They are lighter and smaller, but if you use
them in full frame then the area outside the sensor area has aberrations at
best or nothing at all.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenses_for_SLR_and_DSLR_cameras

[Trevor]

"R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xcKdnVz4loVTxKfS...@bt.com...

> Yes yes, if it is literally the same focal length then it will be the same
> size, however the point is that to get the same MAGNIFICATION on a smaller
> format you only need a smaller lens. Look at all those D lenses that will
> only fill an APS-C sensor. They are lighter and smaller, but if you use
> them in full frame then the area outside the sensor area has aberrations
> at best or nothing at all.

Which of course ignores the fact that you can simply crop a FF camera image
(same *actual* focal length lens) to achieve results similar to the smaller
sensor image. So a 100mm lens on a FF camera with 2:1 crop, is exactly the
same as a 100mm lens on a 4/3 camera. Except the FF camera gives you the
choice of 100mm field of view, 200mm field of view, or anything in between,
with similar levels of performance to the 200mm equiv. only 4/3 camera.
The argument by proponents of smaller sensor camera's that their lenses are
smaller is simply "smoke and mirrors" or we'd all be using phone camera's
with "telephoto" lenses :-)

Trevor.

[RichA]

Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
36mp FF, more or less. So a Panasonic G3 and a 200mm lens would match
the resolution (sensor differences aside) of a Nikon D800 with a 300mm
lens for a specific object. A 200mm f2.8 lens is considerably smaller
than a 300mm f2.8 lens with the same speed. But it's NOT a 300mm lens
and there are the usual arguments about f2.8 not being worth as much
on a small sensor as a large, so noise control isn't comparable.
In fact, a 200mm lens at f2.0 is almost as heavy as a 300mm f2.8 lens,
it's just shorter. Even then, you won't be able to match the FF
quality with a m4/3rds camera, not with only 1 stop of lens speed
advantage.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote in message
news:jhfgr0$bv6$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

That depends - 35mm cameras were limited by the grain size and sensitivity
of the films loaded in them. Indeed when David Bailley started using 35mm
SLR's professionally ~fifty years ago, he was criticised because the images
would be too grainy to print at full page size.

With digital sensors the same resolution can be extract from a smaller image
(within the laws of physics obviously), so the camera can be smaller and
still capture the subject at the same magnification / field of view.

Obviously less light will enter a smaller lens so for low light work you
might still want a bigger lens and bigger sensor, however with cameras now
boasting thousands of ASA (against a typically few hundred for film) this
will seldom be an issue.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:d82bb0b5-f24a-4628...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

If it has the same number of pixels it will. You might have to compensate
for the lower light gathering by increasing the exposure time!

[DanP]

So, will a 300mm f/8 do it for you? Must use a tripod and forget about shooting birds in flight or kids running around.


DanP

[nospam]

In article <AuqdnT7Agb59mKDS...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton

<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
> pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
> 36mp FF, more or less.

4/3rds has a 2x crop factor, so a 200mm lens is equivalent to 400mm on
full frame.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:160220121825503191%nos...@nospam.invalid...

Sorry picked this up from the previous poster and was looking at the number
of pixels.

What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a smaller
image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ŁŁŁŁ for one with a full frame
sensor (as opposed to ŁŁŁ) - ten times as much for approx twice the area is
a rip off.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Not sure what you mean by "D" rated. In the Nikon line, for example,
the D700 isn't even twice the price of the D300s, and that's where the
jump from APS-C to full-frame takes place (they're reasonably similar
otherwise).

And the full-frame sensor costs a LOT more than the APS-C one;
semiconductor yields go down drastically as size increases.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[nospam]

In article <ylfkhayp...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet

<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> >>> Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
> >>> pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
> >>> 36mp FF, more or less.
> >>
> >> 4/3rds has a 2x crop factor, so a 200mm lens is equivalent to 400mm on
> >> full frame.
> >
> > Sorry picked this up from the previous poster and was looking at the number
> > of pixels.
> >
> > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a smaller
> > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ŁŁŁŁ for one with a full frame
> > sensor (as opposed to ŁŁŁ) - ten times as much for approx twice the area is
> > a rip off.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.

crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Thanks.

And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
2x (slightly less), nowhere near 10x.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:ylfklio1...@dd-b.net...

> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>
>> In article <ylfkhayp...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
>> <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >>> Yes, a 200mm lens on an 16 megapixel m4/3 camera provides as much
>>> >>> pixel coverage per given object area (linearly) as a 300mm lens on a
>>> >>> 36mp FF, more or less.
>>> >>
>>> >> 4/3rds has a 2x crop factor, so a 200mm lens is equivalent to 400mm
>>> >> on
>>> >> full frame.
>>> >
>>> > Sorry picked this up from the previous poster and was looking at the
>>> > number
>>> > of pixels.
>>> >
>>> > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a
>>> > smaller
>>> > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ŁŁŁŁ for one with a full frame
>>> > sensor (as opposed to ŁŁŁ) - ten times as much for approx twice the
>>> > area is
>>> > a rip off.
>>>
>>> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.
>>
>> crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.

Comes with cheaper lenses that can't be used with full frame (vice versa
works - as long as the rear of the lens does not hit the mirror).

>
> Thanks.
>
> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
> 2x (slightly less), nowhere near 10x.
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)

Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
Canon 330 1700
Nikon 430 1840
Sony 290 1850

so four to five times really but definitely ŁŁŁŁ for FF and ŁŁŁ for APS
size.

[Trevor]

"R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:SJydnbsGsI4AmKDS...@bt.com...

>> Which of course ignores the fact that you can simply crop a FF camera
>> image (same *actual* focal length lens) to achieve results similar to the
>> smaller sensor image. So a 100mm lens on a FF camera with 2:1 crop, is
>> exactly the same as a 100mm lens on a 4/3 camera. Except the FF camera
>> gives you the choice of 100mm field of view, 200mm field of view, or
>> anything in between, with similar levels of performance to the 200mm
>> equiv. only 4/3 camera.
>> The argument by proponents of smaller sensor camera's that their lenses
>> are smaller is simply "smoke and mirrors" or we'd all be using phone
>> camera's with "telephoto" lenses :-)
>

> That depends - 35mm cameras were limited by the grain size and sensitivity
> of the films loaded in them. Indeed when David Bailley started using 35mm
> SLR's professionally ~fifty years ago, he was criticised because the
> images would be too grainy to print at full page size.

The same goes for comparing a FF film SLR and a half frame film SLR. Lets at
least stick with like for like OK?

> With digital sensors the same resolution can be extract from a smaller
> image (within the laws of physics obviously), so the camera can be smaller
> and still capture the subject at the same magnification / field of view.

For same sensor technology you can have twice the resolution for same noise,
using a sensor twice the size. So yes you can make a camera and sensor
smaller (your choice) but a 100mm lens is still a 100mm lens, whether you
crop before or after the photo is taken.

>
> Obviously less light will enter a smaller lens

Not obvious at all unless the aperture is smaller as well as the focal
length.

>so for low light work you might still want a bigger lens and bigger sensor,
>however with cameras now boasting thousands of ASA (against a typically few
>hundred for film) this will seldom be an issue.

Right, IF you want a smaller camera, with smaller sensor, the choice is
there. Many people are happy with phone camera's these days. (I'm not)
However there is no magic pudding, fixed cropping in the camera is no
different from cropping afterwards from a strictly quality point of view.
And a 100mm lens is still a 100mm lens. That was my point.

Trevor.

[nospam]

In article <D7-dnVEH-IcQZaPS...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton

<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> >>> > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a smaller
> >>> > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ŁŁŁŁ for one with a full frame
> >>> > sensor (as opposed to ŁŁŁ) - ten times as much for approx twice the
> >>> > area is
> >>> > a rip off.
> >>>
> >>> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.
> >>
> >> crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.
>
> Comes with cheaper lenses that can't be used with full frame (vice versa
> works - as long as the rear of the lens does not hit the mirror).

wrong. some dx lenses are budget while others are very expensive. many
dx lenses are outstanding. some dx lenses will cover a full frame at
some focal lengths, or you just set the full frame camera to dx mode.

> > And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
> > D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
> > about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
> > difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
> > 2x (slightly less), nowhere near 10x.
>

> It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)
>
> Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
> Canon 330 1700
> Nikon 430 1840
> Sony 290 1850
>
> so four to five times really but definitely ŁŁŁŁ for FF and ŁŁŁ for APS
> size.

bogus comparison.

the cheapest slrs are cheap not just because of a smaller sensor
(that's obviously part of it), but because they lack many other
features in the higher end full frame bodies.

for example, the cheapest full frame nikon has a 51 point autofocus and
internal focus motor, while the cheapest crop sensor nikon has an 11
point autofocus and no internal motor. there are many other differences
between those two, *all* of which contribute to the price difference.

[Trevor]

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:ylfklio1...@dd-b.net...

> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
> 2x

Right, FAR more than just the sensor price difference. They simply prefer to
keep the "pro" models expensive and exclusive, and thus higher profit
margins!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:D7-dnVEH-IcQZaPS...@bt.com...

>
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
> news:ylfklio1...@dd-b.net...
>>

>> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
>> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
>> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
>> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
>> 2x (slightly less), nowhere near 10x.
>> --
>> David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
>
>
> It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)
>
> Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
> Canon 330 1700
> Nikon 430 1840
> Sony 290 1850
>
> so four to five times really but definitely ŁŁŁŁ for FF and ŁŁŁ for APS
> size.

But the market for a FF camera with the lowest levels of focussing speed,
continuous shooting speed, metal used for chasis, lack of weather sealing,
and every other feature the FF camera's have that the very cheapest APS
SLR's don't have, would be very limited indeed. At least David is comparing
camera's that are fairly similar. You might as well compare the cost of a FF
DSLR with a P&S in your example! :-)
However even twice the camera price is rather more than the actual sensor
price difference by 4 to 5 times at least!!

Trevor.

[Chris Malcolm]

Doesn't the price of any camera depend on two quantities, firstly the
development and setting up production line costs, which are fixed,
secondly the marginal cost of producing one more camera off the line?
In which case the price will vary a lot depending on how many they can
sell. This is epecially the case for sensors, quite apart from yeild
differences once the production line is running.

--
Chris Malcolm

[R. Mark Clayton]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:170220122022340993%nos...@nospam.invalid...

> In article <D7-dnVEH-IcQZaPS...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
> <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a
>> >>> > smaller
>> >>> > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ŁŁŁŁ for one with a full
>> >>> > frame
>> >>> > sensor (as opposed to ŁŁŁ) - ten times as much for approx twice the
>> >>> > area is
>> >>> > a rip off.
>> >>>
>> >>> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.
>> >>
>> >> crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.
>>
>> Comes with cheaper lenses that can't be used with full frame (vice versa
>> works - as long as the rear of the lens does not hit the mirror).
>
> wrong. some dx lenses are budget while others are very expensive. many
> dx lenses are outstanding. some dx lenses will cover a full frame at
> some focal lengths, or you just set the full frame camera to dx mode.

You get [serious] vignetting* or even just black.

>
>> > And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
>> > D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
>> > about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
>> > difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
>> > 2x (slightly less), nowhere near 10x.
>>
>> It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)
>>
>> Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
>> Canon 330 1700
>> Nikon 430 1840
>> Sony 290 1850
>>
>> so four to five times really but definitely ŁŁŁŁ for FF and ŁŁŁ for APS
>> size.
>
> bogus comparison.
>
> the cheapest slrs are cheap not just because of a smaller sensor
> (that's obviously part of it), but because they lack many other
> features in the higher end full frame bodies.
>
> for example, the cheapest full frame nikon has a 51 point autofocus and
> internal focus motor, while the cheapest crop sensor nikon has an 11
> point autofocus and no internal motor. there are many other differences
> between those two, *all* of which contribute to the price difference.

Well compare the cost of full frame film SLR's then - they were just ŁŁŁ as
well.

Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote in message

news:jhmvkh$f43$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Yes - well someone needs to break the mould!

1972 - 8 digit scientific pocket calculator (HP35) £600 ~= £6k today
1975 - 8 digit scientific pocket calculator £200
1988 - 10 digit graphical scientific pocket calculator £80
2005 - 10 digit scientific pocket calculator £1 in the pound shop

1978 - 1kb UVEPROM - £20
1985 - 32kb UVEPROM - £32
:
2000 - 32Mb SD Flash ROM - £??
2012 - 32Gb micro SD Flash ROM - £20

OTOH with my 12Mp phone camera as an example, the writing is on the wall for
Kodak and the low end point and shoot camera market is faltering... Most
smart phones pack 5-8Mp and will take quite good snaps. Time for this
technology to bring down the price of FF SLR's


>
> Trevor.
>
>

[nospam]

In article <uf2dnQgTTrxE-dzS...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton

<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> >> >>> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.
> >> >>
> >> >> crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.
> >>
> >> Comes with cheaper lenses that can't be used with full frame (vice versa
> >> works - as long as the rear of the lens does not hit the mirror).
> >
> > wrong. some dx lenses are budget while others are very expensive. many
> > dx lenses are outstanding. some dx lenses will cover a full frame at
> > some focal lengths, or you just set the full frame camera to dx mode.
>
> You get [serious] vignetting* or even just black.

depends on the lens and the focal length.

[nospam]

In article <weCdnfXLxbjh-tzS...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton

<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> >> And, in that case, note the price differential between a D300s and a
> >> D700. Those are the closest of any two models in the Nikon lineup,
> >> about the same vintage, same level of toughness, etc., with the one
> >> difference being the sensor size. And the price differential is about
> >> 2x
> >
> > Right, FAR more than just the sensor price difference. They simply prefer
> > to keep the "pro" models expensive and exclusive, and thus higher profit
> > margins!
>
> Yes - well someone needs to break the mould!
>
> 1972 - 8 digit scientific pocket calculator (HP35) £600 ~= £6k today
> 1975 - 8 digit scientific pocket calculator £200
> 1988 - 10 digit graphical scientific pocket calculator £80
> 2005 - 10 digit scientific pocket calculator £1 in the pound shop

once again you're comparing different feature sets. the hp-12c (still
sold!) is about $70 us, not much cheaper than it was back in the 1980s
when it originally came out.
<http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/calculator/Financial/1/storefronts/1
2C%2523ABA>

> OTOH with my 12Mp phone camera as an example, the writing is on the wall for
> Kodak and the low end point and shoot camera market is faltering... Most
> smart phones pack 5-8Mp and will take quite good snaps. Time for this
> technology to bring down the price of FF SLR's

the first full frame slr was the canon 1ds in 2002 for $8000. the canon
5d followed a few years later at around $3500. the nikon d700 is $2700
right now (and probably will be less after the d800 ships).

meanwhile, they're selling everything they make, including the crop
sensor cameras for less, so obviously the prices are just fine where
they are. there's no point in dropping it any further at this time.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> writes:

> It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)
>
> Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
> Canon 330 1700
> Nikon 430 1840
> Sony 290 1850
>
> so four to five times really but definitely ŁŁŁŁ for FF and ŁŁŁ for APS
> size.

But that's comparing unrelated models. It tells us as much as comparing
mirrorless cameras to 4x5 digital backs.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> writes:

> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:170220122022340993%nos...@nospam.invalid...
>> In article <D7-dnVEH-IcQZaPS...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
>> <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >>> > What annoys me is having glass for 35mm full frame, but getting a
>>> >>> > smaller
>>> >>> > image on "D" rated cameras unless I pay ŁŁŁŁ for one with a full
>>> >>> > frame
>>> >>> > sensor (as opposed to ŁŁŁ) - ten times as much for approx twice the
>>> >>> > area is
>>> >>> > a rip off.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Not sure what you mean by "D" rated.
>>> >>
>>> >> crop sensor, as in dx versus fx.
>>>
>>> Comes with cheaper lenses that can't be used with full frame (vice versa
>>> works - as long as the rear of the lens does not hit the mirror).
>>
>> wrong. some dx lenses are budget while others are very expensive. many
>> dx lenses are outstanding. some dx lenses will cover a full frame at
>> some focal lengths, or you just set the full frame camera to dx mode.
>
> You get [serious] vignetting* or even just black.

Depends on the lens and the focal length. The Tokina 12-24/4 DX lens
actually covers FF out to about 18mm, for example (one I tested
myself).

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/

[David Dyer-Bennet]

What is the actual difference in sensor prices? And what's your source
for it?

I think you're vastly over-simplifying how pricing a line of modern tech
products is done.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

R. Mark Clayton <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

>> In article <D7-dnVEH-IcQZaPS...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton

>>> It is a lot more than that for others (prices from Jacobs or Google)

>>> Make Cheapest SLR Cheapest FF
>>> Canon 330 1700
>>> Nikon 430 1840
>>> Sony 290 1850

>>> so four to five times really but definitely ££££ for FF and £££ for APS

>>> size.

>> bogus comparison.

>> the cheapest slrs are cheap not just because of a smaller sensor
>> (that's obviously part of it), but because they lack many other
>> features in the higher end full frame bodies.

>> for example, the cheapest full frame nikon has a 51 point autofocus and
>> internal focus motor, while the cheapest crop sensor nikon has an 11
>> point autofocus and no internal motor. there are many other differences
>> between those two, *all* of which contribute to the price difference.

> Well compare the cost of full frame film SLR's then - they were just £££ as
> well.

Nikon F6. Costs $3000. Today (amazon.com).

This being a pro level camera, one would expect *at least*
50,000 shots over the camera life. So please add 1400 films
and development to that cost. That should be at least $2 per
film and $3 for developing (which a pro user would not use ...),
so add at least $7000, probably twice or thrice the cost. Add a
good scanner, too, probably another $2000, plus scanning software.
Add the time spend cleaning negatives and scanner and actually
scanning. Add a climate controled negative archive.


Compare that to the D3x ($7600), one 32GB CF card
($50-$200), one card reader ($10), and 3*1.5TB HDs (one for
storage, 2 for backup, for 50,000 shots at ~28 MB/shot:
3*$100-$300).

Photo editing software, printing of photos, lenses, flash, studio
rooms, models, location costs etc. is assumed to be needed for
both variants.


So the ownership cost if a pro full frame film SLR versus a
highest end full frame DSLR from Nikon is:
SLR DSLR
Body 3,000 7,600
50,000 frames >7,000 <510
100,000 frames >14,000 <810
transfer to computer 2,000 + time 10 + seconds
simple longterm archival $,$$$ 600 for 5 years
675 for 10 years
685 for 15 years
690 for 20 years
720 for forever
======= ======
12,000 8,180
+ archival including archival

And one would assume the extremely low frame count per storage
medium, the additional cost and time in using a scanner to convert
to a computer manipulatible format, the time to change the storage
medium (especially as it's needed so often), the extra time and
cost in development (can't just let the computer churn through
the RAW queue or use out-of-camera JPEGs, not even for a first
sorting), the non-reusable media, the media cost, etc. would
drive down the price of an analogue camera.

The full frame film SLR would be more expensive even if it
was FREE!

> Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.

Who are *you* to decide what feature is worth what to whom?


-Wolfgang

[Trevor]

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:gclf19-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...

> R. Mark Clayton <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.
>
> Who are *you* to decide what feature is worth what to whom?

I think he means it does NOT cost the manufacturer so much more to make that
the retail price should be over $1k more. If you think it adds more to their
manufacturing cost than building one of their cheaper DSLR's with a couple
of kit lenses, you're crazy! They have simply made a choice to keep that end
of the market more exclusive with lower volumes and higher profit margins,
same as nearly every manufacturer does. Have a look at the cost of some cars
where a better engine and a few extra toys can add $50k to the cost of a
$50k car. THAT's where they *really* make a killing, not on the basic
models.
Whether YOU *think* it's worth $1million extra is irrelevant to their actual
costs.

Trevor.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:gclf19-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...

> R. Mark Clayton <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>> In article <D7-dnVEH-IcQZaPS...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton
>

SNIP
>>>> so four to five times really but definitely ŁŁŁŁ for FF and ŁŁŁ for APS
>>>> size.
>
>>> bogus comparison.
>
>
>> Well compare the cost of full frame film SLR's then - they were just ŁŁŁ

>> as
>> well.
>
> Nikon F6. Costs $3000. Today (amazon.com).
>
> This being a pro level camera, one would expect *at least*
> 50,000 shots over the camera life. So please add 1400 films
> and development to that cost. That should be at least $2 per
> film and $3 for developing (which a pro user would not use ...),
> so add at least $7000, probably twice or thrice the cost. Add a
> good scanner, too, probably another $2000, plus scanning software.
> Add the time spend cleaning negatives and scanner and actually
> scanning. Add a climate controled negative archive.

What are you talking about - I meant a decent entry level full frame film
SLR from Canon, Minolta, Nikon or Pentax - they were ŁŁŁ NOT ŁŁŁŁ. Good
technically, but not for the sort of hammer a pro would gie it working 8
hours a day.

>
> The full frame film SLR would be more expensive even if it
> was FREE!

It would now, but ten years ago when film SLR's were still common.

>
>> Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.
>
> Who are *you* to decide what feature is worth what to whom?

That's easier - I worked in IT and electronics. Even now the trade mags do
regular tear downs on mobile phones, cameras, tablets etc. Having
established what is in it one can easily establish and price up a bill of
parts. Sure a few extra buttons or a bit more meory might add $ or even $$
to the price, but it is NOT going to add $$$$ even if you gold plate every
bit.

>
>
> -Wolfgang

Anyway the key argument here is that commoditisation of point and shoot
cameras and DSLR's (and mobile phones and PC's and laptops* and flat screen
tellies etc. etc.) has arrived, but up till now none of the existing "posh"
manufacturers has gone for volume and no new entrant has tried to break into
the market (e.g. a lens manufacturer), although on the camera front the
likes of Fuji have seen off Kodak in point and shoot and made a big dent in
the exchangeable lens camera market with high quality fixed lens cameras.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message

>> R. Mark Clayton <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>>> Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.

>> Who are *you* to decide what feature is worth what to whom?

> I think he means it does NOT cost the manufacturer so much more to make that
> the retail price should be over $1k more.

Unfortunately, that view is not compatible with a *demand*
and *supply* based economy. That view is compatible with a
"worth is how hard it is to make" based economy, which is not
common with a free market (even though many think such a view is
inherently fairer).

Still, it's not a question of "how hard it is to make" but "how
valuable is it to the *actual* buyers" (where the maker decides
who and how large the group of actual buyers should be.

If the maker decides to make (by his calculations) more money
by first selling to a smaller group at a more than offsetting
higher price, that's maybe not "fair" --- but what has fair to
do with it? The only way to counter that is by a competitor
producing a "better" product at the same or an "equal" product
at a lower price --- where "better" and "equal" depends on the
view of the buyer who's in the actual buying group. (That
is, the opinion of Rich --- who will never own a camera ---
is irrelevant.)

> If you think it adds more to their
> manufacturing cost than building one of their cheaper DSLR's with a couple
> of kit lenses, you're crazy!

So basically the difference in cost between the print of a snapshot
with some photoshop cleanup and the print of a good photo with
the same camera is basically nil, assuming it takes the same time
making/postprocessing them?

This does not fit with reality ... but is the application of
the "worth is manufacturing costs" logic.

> They have simply made a choice to keep that end
> of the market more exclusive with lower volumes and higher profit margins,
> same as nearly every manufacturer does. Have a look at the cost of some cars
> where a better engine and a few extra toys can add $50k to the cost of a
> $50k car. THAT's where they *really* make a killing, not on the basic
> models.

Or razors and blades.

> Whether YOU *think* it's worth $1million extra is irrelevant to their actual
> costs.

What *I* think is extremely relevant to my buying decision,
and I guess the same applies to every other buyer.

If the cameras sell well enough ... well, then enough people
think it's worth it.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

R. Mark Clayton <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:gclf19-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
>> R. Mark Clayton <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> In article <D7-dnVEH-IcQZaPS...@bt.com>, R. Mark Clayton

> SNIP

>>>>> so four to five times really but definitely ££££ for FF and £££ for APS
>>>>> size.

>>>> bogus comparison.

>>> Well compare the cost of full frame film SLR's then - they were just £££

>>> as
>>> well.

>> Nikon F6. Costs $3000. Today (amazon.com).

>> This being a pro level camera, one would expect *at least*
>> 50,000 shots over the camera life. So please add 1400 films
>> and development to that cost. That should be at least $2 per
>> film and $3 for developing (which a pro user would not use ...),
>> so add at least $7000, probably twice or thrice the cost. Add a
>> good scanner, too, probably another $2000, plus scanning software.
>> Add the time spend cleaning negatives and scanner and actually
>> scanning. Add a climate controled negative archive.

> What are you talking about -

What you can get today as new from the official channels: top level
analog SLRs. Entry level analog SLRs are no longer available that
way, were sold on a razors and blades model for both lenses and
especially film and cannot be compared without including film
costs, unless you are to comparing DSLRs without sensor.

> I meant a decent entry level full frame film

> SLR from Canon, Minolta, Nikon or Pentax - they were £££ NOT ££££. Good

> technically, but not for the sort of hammer a pro would gie it working 8
> hours a day.

And what they were meant to do is today mostly done by compact
cameras, which are ££. And for most users they are better,
smaller and cost much less per frame.

>> The full frame film SLR would be more expensive even if it
>> was FREE!

> It would now, but ten years ago when film SLR's were still common.

Ten years ago, in 2002, we had the Canon 1D (APS-H, $5,500(?))
and Canon D60 (APS-C, $2,000). Sure, DSLRs were and still are
more expensive, BUT they don't need expensive analog material
and processing.

>>> Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.

>> Who are *you* to decide what feature is worth what to whom?

> That's easier - I worked in IT and electronics.

So you're the one who can decide for
- hobbyists of all kinds
- professionals of photography of all kinds
- (rich) people who need status symbols
- collectors
(and the rest) which features they want and for what price?

> Even now the trade mags do
> regular tear downs on mobile phones, cameras, tablets etc.

Of course. They try to fit mobile phones, cameras, tablets
etc. into some scheme which they hope matches emough of their
readership and what doesn't fit ... is savaged.

However, what's important to a collector (and highly valued in a
collector mag) might well be given a roasting in a consumer mag.
What is important in a consumer mag may well be worthless to a
nature photographer. And what a nature photographer values may
be not good for a wedding photographer.

> Having
> established what is in it one can easily establish and price up a bill of
> parts.

Yup. One human body is worth $4.50[1].

But that's at best manufacturing costs (not even development
costs are included) --- not what something is worth to somebody.

> Sure a few extra buttons or a bit more meory might add $ or even $$
> to the price, but it is NOT going to add $$$$ even if you gold plate every
> bit.

The worth is not the sum of the parts.
How much worth is a pixel? A pixel is trivially to set or change
with about any drawing program, so it must be *extremely* cheap,
basically worth 0.00000000000000000000000000 USD.

How much worth is an 900x600 pixel photograph then --- say of
your wedding, your child or your long dead geat-grandparents?

> Anyway the key argument here is that commoditisation of point and shoot
> cameras and DSLR's (and mobile phones and PC's and laptops* and flat screen
> tellies etc. etc.) has arrived, but up till now none of the existing "posh"
> manufacturers has gone for volume and no new entrant has tried to break into
> the market (e.g. a lens manufacturer), although on the camera front the
> likes of Fuji have seen off Kodak in point and shoot and made a big dent in
> the exchangeable lens camera market with high quality fixed lens cameras.

The key argument here is that if *you* think you can do better,
you are welcome to convince investors, build cameras, be the
market leader in that area and become filthy rich.

The DSLR for less than $1000 is quite a few years old. I regularly
see ads for DSLRs for less than 400 EUR (inclusive taxes,
inclusive lens), and 500 EUR DSLRs with 2 lenses they *must*
be going for volume (and not fot high prices), making your claim
completely absurd.

-Wolfgang

[1] http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/worth.asp

[Trevor]

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message

news:508229-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...

> Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>>> R. Mark Clayton <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.
>
>>> Who are *you* to decide what feature is worth what to whom?
>
>> I think he means it does NOT cost the manufacturer so much more to make
>> that
>> the retail price should be over $1k more.
>
> Unfortunately, that view is not compatible with a *demand*
> and *supply* based economy. That view is compatible with a
> "worth is how hard it is to make" based economy, which is not
> common with a free market (even though many think such a view is
> inherently fairer).
> Still, it's not a question of "how hard it is to make" but "how
> valuable is it to the *actual* buyers"

Exactly, it's NOT really "worth" a grand more, but if you can get enough
suckers to pay it, then that's the capitalist way. Fortunately some
companies still prefer to make a more reasonable profit on a higher level of
sales. That is the sales model I prefer to support. Those who want
exclusivity prefer the exact opposite. Their choice.

Trevor.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>> Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>>> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>>>> R. Mark Clayton <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>>>>> Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.

>>>> Who are *you* to decide what feature is worth what to whom?

>>> I think he means it does NOT cost the manufacturer so much more to make
>>> that
>>> the retail price should be over $1k more.

>> Unfortunately, that view is not compatible with a *demand*
>> and *supply* based economy. That view is compatible with a
>> "worth is how hard it is to make" based economy, which is not
>> common with a free market (even though many think such a view is
>> inherently fairer).
>> Still, it's not a question of "how hard it is to make" but "how
>> valuable is it to the *actual* buyers"

> Exactly, it's NOT really "worth" a grand more,

Worth is determined by what price buyers and sellers agree upon.

> but if you can get enough
> suckers to pay it, then that's the capitalist way.

The alternative is deciding worth by decree, or defining by
time used (from extracting and making and transporting all
the materials over all the time spent in developing --- and of
course all the time spent by the designers, workers, specialists,
etc. in developing their skills ...).

The former doesn't work and the latter has little if any incentive
to develop other products, there's little or no way to make more
money (needed to attract investors, needed to develop products that
may or may not make money in the end (actually, most developments,
inventions, etc. do *not* make money, lots don't even lead to a
product!)) ...

Additionally the latter would indicate that most trade shouldn't
happen; the only price difference should be the transport costs
from source to sink; this doesn't happen in real life --- in
fact, whenever there's a shortness prices rise as supply and
demand change.

> Fortunately some
> companies still prefer to make a more reasonable profit on a higher level of
> sales. That is the sales model I prefer to support. Those who want
> exclusivity prefer the exact opposite. Their choice.

So basically you are saying you want a full frame that doesn't
have *any* benefits except FF over a rock bottom crop DSLR.
Which companies do offer that, and do have a higher level of
sales?

-Wolfgang

[Paul Furman]

RichA wrote:
> Telephotos of specific speeds cannot be shrunk

"Telephoto" explicitly means a shortened design for a long lens.
Telephotos are already reduced in length from a simple lens design.


> like wide angle lenses
> and normal primes just because a sensor is smaller.
>
> A 300mm f2.8 needs a lens at least 110mm across and it needs multiple
> elements because aspherics are not used on large elements yet.
> Whether the sensor is 4/3rds or FF, the lens is going to be that big.
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=40554613
>

[Trevor]

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message

news:a7p339-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...

>> Fortunately some
>> companies still prefer to make a more reasonable profit on a higher level
>> of
>> sales. That is the sales model I prefer to support. Those who want
>> exclusivity prefer the exact opposite. Their choice.
>
> So basically you are saying you want a full frame that doesn't
> have *any* benefits except FF over a rock bottom crop DSLR.

Can you point me to where I said that? But sure, some people may. That
market has yet to be tested.

> Which companies do offer that, and do have a higher level of
> sales?

Well the Canon 5D2 sells OK, so not everyone wanted a 1DS2. I see no reason
a FF equivalent of the 60D for example would not find a market as well. (if
not overpriced!)
(just using Canon as an example)
However that is not the issue, what I said was the profit margins are higher
on the professional camera's. Do you have evidence to dispute that?
I also said people DO have a choice to buy or not, at ANY price demanded.
That is the capitalist way. I never said it needed to change simply because
I'm not willing to pay the prices some people are.
(What's wrong of course is some people earn $Billions for doing little while
others earn little for working hard. Obviously the latter have to watch
their expenditure far more than the former)

Trevor.

[Paul Furman]

Law of diminishing returns. If you want just a little better on the high
end, it's gonna cost a lot more.

[Paul Furman]

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> So basically you are saying you want a full frame that doesn't

> have*any* benefits except FF over a rock bottom crop DSLR.

Yeah, that would be nice but then you'd have an expensive sensor on a
cheap body that broke in three years and that'd be frustrating too.

[David J. Littleboy]

So replace the body. US$900 every three years is better than US$3000 every
three years. Actually, the thing that breaks is the shutter mechanism, and
that can be replaced quite easily. So even the low end cameras can last a
long time.

How many frames have you shot in the last 3 years? I ask because I wonder
how many amateurs run through the 150,000 frame shutter lifetimes on these
things in 3 years.

Whatever, a FF Rebel sounds real sweet to me. I use mostly manual focus
lenses and don't use burst mode, so there's not a whole lot of advantage to
the current crop of midrange cameras. Heck, an FF Rebel might have an
articulating screen, which would be nice on a tripod.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

[Paul Furman]

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Paul Furman"<paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> So basically you are saying you want a full frame that doesn't
>>> have*any* benefits except FF over a rock bottom crop DSLR.
>>
>> Yeah, that would be nice but then you'd have an expensive sensor on a
>> cheap body that broke in three years and that'd be frustrating too.
>
> So replace the body. US$900 every three years is better than US$3000 every
> three years. Actually, the thing that breaks is the shutter mechanism, and
> that can be replaced quite easily. So even the low end cameras can last a
> long time.
>
> How many frames have you shot in the last 3 years? I ask because I wonder
> how many amateurs run through the 150,000 frame shutter lifetimes on these
> things in 3 years.

I replaced the shutter on my D200 and D700, and broke my D70 too :-)
But that's unusual; I was doing time lapse video...

> Whatever, a FF Rebel sounds real sweet to me.

Agreed! Though I think we are oddballs... or at least I know I am :-)

> I use mostly manual focus
> lenses and don't use burst mode, so there's not a whole lot of advantage to
> the current crop of midrange cameras.

I do appreciate the extra manual controls and weather seals, etc. I
certainly don't use 50 or 80 or whatever AF points or most of the
features but I do advanced stuff and like to have advanced options like
mirror lockup and non-cpu-lens data.

[David J. Littleboy]

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>> Whatever, a FF Rebel sounds real sweet to me.
>
> Agreed! Though I think we are oddballs... or at least I know I am :-)

You're an amateur odball. I'm a computer nerd with an MA in Japanese
Literature.

[Trevor]

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:auydnTJVmojxdsLS...@giganews.com...

>> Sure there are fewer bells and whistles, but NOT a grand's worth.
>
> Law of diminishing returns. If you want just a little better on the high
> end, it's gonna cost a lot more.

= Law of higher unit costs at lower production volumes, and more
particularly *higher profit margins*.

The continual argument here however simply seems to revolve around the
definitions of "worth" Vs cost.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message

news:auydnS1VmohSccLS...@giganews.com...

Since I know people still using 300D's, (and I have a 350D in my collection
that still works fine) I'd say that argument is ill founded. Not every one
takes 50,000 photo's per year with one camera, or uses their camera to drive
nails! So not every one wants the most expensive camera money can buy, but
many DO want good photo's occasionally.
(and purchasing extended 5 year warranties is common place now in any case)

Until Canon or Nikon test the market for a cheap FF DSLR, the size of that
market is still unknown.

Trevor.

[Paul Furman]

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Paul Furman"<paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>>> Whatever, a FF Rebel sounds real sweet to me.
>>
>> Agreed! Though I think we are oddballs... or at least I know I am :-)
>
> You're an amateur odball. I'm a computer nerd with an MA in Japanese
> Literature.

<respectful bow>

:-)

[nospam]

In article <jjp22d$1g9$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:

> Until Canon or Nikon test the market for a cheap FF DSLR, the size of that
> market is still unknown.

i'm pretty sure nikon and canon know quite well how viable a full frame
d3000 or rebel would be. meanwhile, people are lining up for $3000 full
frame cameras.

[Trevor]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:130320122128124685%nos...@nospam.invalid...

> In article <jjp22d$1g9$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Until Canon or Nikon test the market for a cheap FF DSLR, the size of
>> that
>> market is still unknown.
>
> i'm pretty sure nikon and canon know quite well how viable a full frame
> d3000 or rebel would be.

I'm sure they have done some market research, which is *NOT* the same thing
as "knowing quite well".

>meanwhile, people are lining up for $3000 full frame cameras.

And many would no doubt line up for $1500 FF camera's too!

Trevor.

[Me]

Didn't Sony get damned close to that price with the @850?

Anyway. if some sources are to be believed (Thom Hogan is one), a
36x24mm sensor costs about $500 to produce. By the time margins are
included, that equates to about $1500 retail, which doesn't leave much
for the rest of the camera, and seems consistent with the rumour that
Sony made a loss on all the @850s sold.

[Trevor]

"Me" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:jjpd04$3d2$1...@news.albasani.net...

> Anyway. if some sources are to be believed (Thom Hogan is one), a 36x24mm
> sensor costs about $500 to produce. By the time margins are included,
> that equates to about $1500 retail,

I simply cannot believe that, and would require some serious proof to
believe it is anything other than a *very small* fraction of that price if
produced in the quantities a cut price Canon or Nikon (not Sony) FF DSLR
would sell. (and *nowhere* near it even at current production levels!)
And lets face it most people these days only trust Canon and Nikon to still
be around when they want to upgrade the body, without buying all new lenses,
flashes etc. And that is even more important for the amateur end than
professionals who can write them off quickly on tax and picture sales. Canon
and Nikon have simply made a decision at the moment to maintain their profit
margins on the pro cameras without any possibility of cheaper ones
canibalising sales.

Trevor.

[Me]

On 14/03/2012 8:01 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> "Me"<us...@example.net> wrote in message
> news:jjpd04$3d2$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Anyway. if some sources are to be believed (Thom Hogan is one), a 36x24mm
>> sensor costs about $500 to produce. By the time margins are included,
>> that equates to about $1500 retail,
>
> I simply cannot believe that, and would require some serious proof to
> believe it is anything other than a *very small* fraction of that price if
> produced in the quantities a cut price Canon or Nikon (not Sony) FF DSLR
> would sell. (and *nowhere* near it even at current production levels!)

I'm not going to bother to find links for you, but it sounds very
believable, and has been explained by many people who do know costs for
semiconductor fabrication, including large yield reduction as surface
area increases. An aps sensor, a bit less than 1/2 the surface area,
apparently only costs about $50 to produce.

> And lets face it most people these days only trust Canon and Nikon to still
> be around when they want to upgrade the body, without buying all new lenses,
> flashes etc. And that is even more important for the amateur end than
> professionals who can write them off quickly on tax and picture sales. Canon
> and Nikon have simply made a decision at the moment to maintain their profit
> margins on the pro cameras without any possibility of cheaper ones
> canibalising sales.
>

I don't agree. I'd expect that both Canon and Nikon make a lot more
money from accessories (including lenses) - the higher up the "feeding
chain" they go with bodies, so it's in their interests to sell as many
high-end bodies as they can. Low end bodies generally get sold as
"kits", and many users never upgrade the cheap zoom lenses which came
with the kit.

[Trevor]

"Me" <us...@example.net> wrote in message

news:jjpj33$ecr$1...@news.albasani.net...

>>> Anyway. if some sources are to be believed (Thom Hogan is one), a
>>> 36x24mm
>>> sensor costs about $500 to produce. By the time margins are included,
>>> that equates to about $1500 retail,
>>
>> I simply cannot believe that, and would require some serious proof to
>> believe it is anything other than a *very small* fraction of that price
>> if
>> produced in the quantities a cut price Canon or Nikon (not Sony) FF DSLR
>> would sell. (and *nowhere* near it even at current production levels!)

> I'm not going to bother to find links for you,

I don't expect you to, you simply won't find any *credible* ones. You can
pull whatever figures you like out of your arse, but it doesn't add anything
to the debate.

>but it sounds very believable,

To YOU maybe. Perhaps I can interest you in a ponzi scheme or two as well
then? :-)

>and has been explained by many people who do know costs for semiconductor
>fabrication, including large yield reduction as surface area increases.

Right, costs do increase, but have reduced MANY fold over the last few years
as production increases and technology improves. I guess you still pay
$10,000 for a 40" LCD TV too?

>An aps sensor, a bit less than 1/2 the surface area, apparently only costs
>about $50 to produce.

Or less! And a FF one less than twice that. And even less if the quantity is
ramped up for higher volume sales.

>> And lets face it most people these days only trust Canon and Nikon to
>> still
>> be around when they want to upgrade the body, without buying all new
>> lenses,
>> flashes etc. And that is even more important for the amateur end than
>> professionals who can write them off quickly on tax and picture sales.
>> Canon
>> and Nikon have simply made a decision at the moment to maintain their
>> profit
>> margins on the pro cameras without any possibility of cheaper ones
>> canibalising sales.
>>
> I don't agree. I'd expect that both Canon and Nikon make a lot more money
> from accessories (including lenses) - the higher up the "feeding chain"
> they go with bodies, so it's in their interests to sell as many high-end
> bodies as they can. Low end bodies generally get sold as "kits", and many
> users never upgrade the cheap zoom lenses which came with the kit.

How does that stop them producing a cheaper FF DSLR? Why would the pros stop
buying pro lenses???

Trevor.

[Martin Brown]

On 14/03/2012 07:01, Trevor wrote:
> "Me"<us...@example.net> wrote in message
> news:jjpd04$3d2$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Anyway. if some sources are to be believed (Thom Hogan is one), a 36x24mm
>> sensor costs about $500 to produce. By the time margins are included,
>> that equates to about $1500 retail,
>
> I simply cannot believe that, and would require some serious proof to
> believe it is anything other than a *very small* fraction of that price if
> produced in the quantities a cut price Canon or Nikon (not Sony) FF DSLR
> would sell. (and *nowhere* near it even at current production levels!)

Larger areas of defect free processed silicon cost a lot more to produce
and you get fewer good ones per wafer. It wouldn't surprise me if the
full frame sensor costs to the camera manufacturer wasn't something like
$500. Smaller sensors give higher manufacturing yields.

The smallest ones for mobile phones are trivial to make by comparison.

> professionals who can write them off quickly on tax and picture sales. Canon
> and Nikon have simply made a decision at the moment to maintain their profit
> margins on the pro cameras without any possibility of cheaper ones
> canibalising sales.
>
> Trevor.

They may be charging a premium price for full frame sensors because they
know that the professional market will stand it. That is standard market
economics - no-one is forcing you to buy a full frame sensor.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[nospam]

In article <jjpc0f$ipn$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>

wrote:

> >> Until Canon or Nikon test the market for a cheap FF DSLR, the size of
> >> that market is still unknown.
> >
> > i'm pretty sure nikon and canon know quite well how viable a full frame
> > d3000 or rebel would be.
>
> I'm sure they have done some market research, which is *NOT* the same thing
> as "knowing quite well".

they've done enough market research.

> >meanwhile, people are lining up for $3000 full frame cameras.
>
> And many would no doubt line up for $1500 FF camera's too!

not much point when people will gladly pay twice that.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> writes:
>
> How many frames have you shot in the last 3 years? I ask because I wonder
> how many amateurs run through the 150,000 frame shutter lifetimes on these
> things in 3 years.

I sure don't.

> Whatever, a FF Rebel sounds real sweet to me. I use mostly manual focus
> lenses and don't use burst mode, so there's not a whole lot of advantage to
> the current crop of midrange cameras. Heck, an FF Rebel might have an
> articulating screen, which would be nice on a tripod.

I'm still kind of ticked off at the change from my "youth", when
flexible viewfinders were a hallmark of pro-grade equipment, to the
current conspiracy to keep any kind of flexibility in viewfinders
limited to the consumer models.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> writes:

> "Me" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
> news:jjpd04$3d2$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Anyway. if some sources are to be believed (Thom Hogan is one), a 36x24mm
>> sensor costs about $500 to produce. By the time margins are included,
>> that equates to about $1500 retail,
>
> I simply cannot believe that, and would require some serious proof to
> believe it is anything other than a *very small* fraction of that price if
> produced in the quantities a cut price Canon or Nikon (not Sony) FF DSLR
> would sell.

The full-frame sensor is *immensely* bigger than for example top-end
modern CPUs. The real cutting-edge CPUs cost over $1000 at retail.
(They require much finer feature size of course). Random wafer defects
are linear with area of course.

Anyway, the $500 real cost number doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

[Me]

On 15/03/2012 7:34 a.m., David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> "Trevor"<tre...@home.net> writes:
>
>> "Me"<us...@example.net> wrote in message
>> news:jjpd04$3d2$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> Anyway. if some sources are to be believed (Thom Hogan is one), a 36x24mm
>>> sensor costs about $500 to produce. By the time margins are included,
>>> that equates to about $1500 retail,
>>
>> I simply cannot believe that, and would require some serious proof to
>> believe it is anything other than a *very small* fraction of that price if
>> produced in the quantities a cut price Canon or Nikon (not Sony) FF DSLR
>> would sell.
>
> The full-frame sensor is *immensely* bigger than for example top-end
> modern CPUs. The real cutting-edge CPUs cost over $1000 at retail.
> (They require much finer feature size of course). Random wafer defects
> are linear with area of course.
>
> Anyway, the $500 real cost number doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

" ...An 8" diameter wafer could cost as much as $450 to $500, $1,000 or
even $5,000. After several hundred process steps, perhaps between 400
and 600 (including, for example, thin film deposition, lithography,
photoresist coating and alignment, exposure, developing, etching and
cleaning), one has a wafer covered with sensors. If the sensors are
APS-C size, there are about 200 of them on the wafer, depending on
layout and the design of the periphery of each sensor. For APS-H, there
are about 46 or so. Full-frame sensors? Just 20.
Consider, too, that an 8" silicon wafer usually yields 1000 to 2000 LSI
(Large-Scale Integrated) circuits. If, say, 20 areas have defects, such
as dust or scratches, up to 1980 usable chips remain. With 20 large
sensors on a wafer, each sensor is an easy “target.” Damage anywhere
ruins the whole sensor. 20 randomly distributed dust and scratch marks
could ruin the whole batch. This means that the
handling of full-frame sensors during manufacture needs to be
obsessively precise, and therefore they are more expensive.
Of course, there is more to this topic. For example, the circuit
pattern of a fullframe sensor is too large to be projected on the
silicon wafer all at once; it requires three separate exposures (See
page 53). This means that the number of masks and
exposure processes is tripled. For now, appreciate that a full-frame
sensor costs not three or four times, but ten, twenty or more times as
much as an APS-C sensor. "

(From a Canon "White Paper" released in 2006)
Of course this doesn't give the price, but at least some idea of why
they cost so much. At that time (2006) Canon must have had an inkling
that the D3 was around the corner (despite Nikon's insistence at the
time that Dx format was the future - at least for them - for
professional slrs).
Kodak offered a sensor (and memory) upgrade for the original DSC 14
series cameras, but that cost almost $2,000. They quit the market not
long after, citing low profitability.
It wouldn't surprise me if Nikon/Sony do have a cost advantage in FX
sensors over Canon, as well as a some clear technical advantages (higher
QE per surface area/lower read noise). While the US dollar price of the
D800 is about the same as the D700 was, in Japanese yen, the cost price
must be significantly lower.

[Eric Stevens]

But who is still using 8" wafers. I thought 12" was the usual size
these days.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Trevor]

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WC_7r.15090$wf.1...@newsfe09.iad...

> Larger areas of defect free processed silicon cost a lot more to produce
> and you get fewer good ones per wafer.

Right the manufacturing cost increases a bit, no argument. Pulling figures
out your arse adds nothing to yours however.

> It wouldn't surprise me if the full frame sensor costs to the camera
> manufacturer wasn't something like $500.

It doesn't surprise me that MANY people fall for ponzi schemes either. I bet
you are one of them

>> professionals who can write them off quickly on tax and picture sales.
>> Canon
>> and Nikon have simply made a decision at the moment to maintain their
>> profit
>> margins on the pro cameras without any possibility of cheaper ones
>> canibalising sales.
>>

> They may be charging a premium price for full frame sensors because they
> know that the professional market will stand it. That is standard market
> economics

As I said all along!

>no-one is forcing you to buy a full frame sensor.

Nor filling a market niche that could easily be fairly substantial and thus
profitable for them.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:140320120933508858%nos...@nospam.invalid...

> In article <jjpc0f$ipn$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
> wrote:
>> >> Until Canon or Nikon test the market for a cheap FF DSLR, the size of
>> >> that market is still unknown.
>> > i'm pretty sure nikon and canon know quite well how viable a full frame
>> > d3000 or rebel would be.
>> I'm sure they have done some market research, which is *NOT* the same
>> thing
>> as "knowing quite well".
> they've done enough market research.

And you know that how? Nobody asked me that's for sure.

>> >meanwhile, people are lining up for $3000 full frame cameras.
>> And many would no doubt line up for $1500 FF camera's too!
> not much point when people will gladly pay twice that.

Some will gladly pay ten times that, so why do they make ANY cheaper
camera's? (using your incredibly stupid logic)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:ylfkipi7...@dd-b.net...

> Anyway, the $500 real cost number doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

I'm happy to apologise as soon as I see a recent invoice showing that's what
they actually cost to produce at wholesale/quantity levels.
But what "sounds reasonable" to you is irrelevant to the debate however.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Me" <us...@example.net> wrote in message

news:jjququ$aag$1...@news.albasani.net...

So you are saying yeilds in large panel TV's have increased and prices
dropped about 90% in the last 6 years, but NO increase in yeild or reduction
in costs have taken place in camera sensors? The cost reductions at the
lower end of the camera market would prove that's an idiotic fallacy.

If you have no recent figures to add to the debate, just admit you haven't
got a clue, and let's move on!

Trevor.

[David J. Littleboy]

"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:25:01 +1300, Me <us...@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> The full-frame sensor is *immensely* bigger than for example top-end
>>> modern CPUs. The real cutting-edge CPUs cost over $1000 at retail.
>>> (They require much finer feature size of course). Random wafer defects
>>> are linear with area of course.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the $500 real cost number doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
>>
>>" ...An 8" diameter wafer could cost as much as $450 to $500, $1,000 or
>>even $5,000. After several hundred process steps, perhaps between 400
>>and 600 (including, for example, thin film deposition, lithography,
>>photoresist coating and alignment, exposure, developing, etching and
>>cleaning), one has a wafer covered with sensors. If the sensors are
>>APS-C size, there are about 200 of them on the wafer, depending on
>>layout and the design of the periphery of each sensor. For APS-H, there
>>are about 46 or so. Full-frame sensors? Just 20.

<SNIP>

>>(From a Canon "White Paper" released in 2006)
>>Of course this doesn't give the price, but at least some idea of why
>>they cost so much. At that time (2006) Canon must have had an inkling
>>that the D3 was around the corner (despite Nikon's insistence at the
>>time that Dx format was the future - at least for them - for
>>professional slrs).
>>Kodak offered a sensor (and memory) upgrade for the original DSC 14
>>series cameras, but that cost almost $2,000. They quit the market not
>>long after, citing low profitability.
>>It wouldn't surprise me if Nikon/Sony do have a cost advantage in FX
>>sensors over Canon, as well as a some clear technical advantages (higher
>>QE per surface area/lower read noise). While the US dollar price of the
>>D800 is about the same as the D700 was, in Japanese yen, the cost price
>>must be significantly lower.
>
> But who is still using 8" wafers. I thought 12" was the usual size
> these days.

Exactly. The 1Ds came out in Sept. 2002, the 5D in August 2005. FF sensors
went from "nearly impossible to make so we're doing you a favor at US$8000"
to "we can make money on a $3000 camera" in just THREE years.

There have been SIX years of progress in the semiconductor industry since
then and that hasn't shown up in FF dSLR prices.

(Although the first 3 of those were bigger. In December 2005, a 4GB CF card
cost US$500 or so, and in December 2008 16GB was down to US$125. But today a
fast 32GB CF card is also US$125 (although slow 32GB SD cards cost under
US$50). So at least in CF cards, there hasn't been much improvement in 3
full years. Still, there's been a factor of 32 price reduction in 6 years.
That's better than Moore's (18 month) law.)

But to get back to big chips.

Today, the i7 2700 costs US$300. It's 215 sq mm with 1.16 BILLION
transistors on it.

Sure, a FF sensor is five times larger, but it has a tiny fraction of the
number of devices with features at least five times larger than the i7. So
current clean room technologies are good enough that one would almost never
see problems with FF sensor devices. They should be getting large numbers of
sensors from every wafer.

So I don't think a FF Rebel is all that distant.

[Ray Fischer]

David J. Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:

>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>> But who is still using 8" wafers. I thought 12" was the usual size
>> these days.
>
>Exactly. The 1Ds came out in Sept. 2002, the 5D in August 2005. FF sensors
>went from "nearly impossible to make so we're doing you a favor at US$8000"
>to "we can make money on a $3000 camera" in just THREE years.
>
>There have been SIX years of progress in the semiconductor industry since
>then and that hasn't shown up in FF dSLR prices.

There is a lot more to a camera than the sensor.

...

>Sure, a FF sensor is five times larger, but it has a tiny fraction of the
>number of devices with features at least five times larger than the i7.

The number of devices is almost irrelevant. Chip size is everything.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
rfis...@sonic.net | Goethe

[David J. Littleboy]

"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4f6164d3$0$12018$742e...@news.sonic.net...

> David J. Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>> But who is still using 8" wafers. I thought 12" was the usual size
>>> these days.
>>
>>Exactly. The 1Ds came out in Sept. 2002, the 5D in August 2005. FF sensors
>>went from "nearly impossible to make so we're doing you a favor at
>>US$8000"
>>to "we can make money on a $3000 camera" in just THREE years.
>>
>>There have been SIX years of progress in the semiconductor industry since
>>then and that hasn't shown up in FF dSLR prices.
>
> There is a lot more to a camera than the sensor.

Sure. But what I want is a FF Rebel, and Rebel bodies are cheap. A US$200
premium for FF would still leave a FF Rebel well under US$1000.

So Canon makes the 5D3, with pro AF, better weather sealing, and faster
motors for the same price (in Japan) as the 5D2. That means they've got FF
sensor prices way down.

> ...
>>Sure, a FF sensor is five times larger, but it has a tiny fraction of the
>>number of devices with features at least five times larger than the i7.
>
> The number of devices is almost irrelevant. Chip size is everything.

Well, no. Chip size relative to the number of defects per unit area is
everything, and reducing feature sizes is about reducing defects. Since the
industry is reducing defects, so there has to be _some_ improvement in
yields in large-feature older-technology devices produced in current plants.

[Trevor]

"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote in message
news:qLqdndsdmtmh__zS...@giganews.com...

EXACTLY.

> So I don't think a FF Rebel is all that distant.

There's the rub. What is possible, and what they actually do are two
different things! :-(

Trevor.

[nospam]

In article <jjrm2d$es2$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>

wrote:

> >> >> Until Canon or Nikon test the market for a cheap FF DSLR, the size of
> >> >> that market is still unknown.
> >> > i'm pretty sure nikon and canon know quite well how viable a full frame
> >> > d3000 or rebel would be.
> >> I'm sure they have done some market research, which is *NOT* the same
> >> thing as "knowing quite well".
> > they've done enough market research.
>
> And you know that how? Nobody asked me that's for sure.

they don't need to ask you personally to do their market research.

> >> >meanwhile, people are lining up for $3000 full frame cameras.
> >> And many would no doubt line up for $1500 FF camera's too!
> > not much point when people will gladly pay twice that.
>
> Some will gladly pay ten times that, so why do they make ANY cheaper
> camera's? (using your incredibly stupid logic)

it's not my logic that's stupid.

[Trevor]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:140320122151423311%nos...@nospam.invalid...

>> > they've done enough market research.
>>
>> And you know that how? Nobody asked me that's for sure.
>
> they don't need to ask you personally to do their market research.

Exactly, which is what makes small scale market research simply an educated
guess, rather than "knowing" as you suggested.

>> >> >meanwhile, people are lining up for $3000 full frame cameras.
>> >> And many would no doubt line up for $1500 FF camera's too!
>> > not much point when people will gladly pay twice that.
>>
>> Some will gladly pay ten times that, so why do they make ANY cheaper
>> camera's? (using your incredibly stupid logic)
>
> it's not my logic that's stupid.

Stupid exactly, NOT logic but it's what you've written. No point in making
cheaper camera's if some people will pay twice as much!
Yeah right :-)

Trevor.

[nospam]

In article <jjrtmf$2ec$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:

> >> > they've done enough market research.
> >>
> >> And you know that how? Nobody asked me that's for sure.
> >
> > they don't need to ask you personally to do their market research.
>
> Exactly, which is what makes small scale market research simply an educated
> guess, rather than "knowing" as you suggested.

what market research have *you* done?

> >> >> >meanwhile, people are lining up for $3000 full frame cameras.
> >> >> And many would no doubt line up for $1500 FF camera's too!
> >> > not much point when people will gladly pay twice that.
> >>
> >> Some will gladly pay ten times that, so why do they make ANY cheaper
> >> camera's? (using your incredibly stupid logic)
> >
> > it's not my logic that's stupid.
>
> Stupid exactly, NOT logic but it's what you've written. No point in making
> cheaper camera's if some people will pay twice as much!
> Yeah right :-)

ok, so what's the reason to make cheaper cameras if you can get someone
to pay more money for essentially the same thing?

[David J. Littleboy]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> ok, so what's the reason to make cheaper cameras if you can get someone
> to pay more money for essentially the same thing?

(1) If you don't do it, someone else will do it first and eat your lunch.

(2) You can make more money selling thousands of cheap cameras than hundreds
of expensive ones.

And probably dozens of other reasons as well.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:36:47 -0800, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

To increase your profit margin. What else?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Martin Brown]

On 15/03/2012 02:58, Trevor wrote:
> "Martin Brown"<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:WC_7r.15090$wf.1...@newsfe09.iad...
>> Larger areas of defect free processed silicon cost a lot more to produce
>> and you get fewer good ones per wafer.
>
> Right the manufacturing cost increases a bit, no argument. Pulling figures
> out your arse adds nothing to yours however.

Manufacturing costs increase rather rapidly once you reach a chip size
where the probability of a critical defect becomes non-negligible. This
scales with chip area used and is why smaller sensors are much cheaper.

The cost of manufacture necessarily increases faster than area of the
chip which is slightly more than the product of the linear dimensions.
That is not a bit unless you are a deranged clueless halfwit.

Here are the numbers:

4/3rds = 17.3 x 13mm = 225mm^2
APS-C = 23.6 x 15.7m = 370mm^2
35mm = 36 x 24mm = 864mm^2

So the bare sensor is at least 4x more expensive than a P&S 4/3s device
and 2.3x more than an APS-C on silicon area alone. This ignores the
reduced yield and increased wastage with larger die sizes on a wafer.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[David J. Littleboy]

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The cost of manufacture necessarily increases faster than area of the chip
> which is slightly more than the product of the linear dimensions. That is
> not a bit unless you are a deranged clueless halfwit.
>
> Here are the numbers:
>
> 4/3rds = 17.3 x 13mm = 225mm^2
> APS-C = 23.6 x 15.7m = 370mm^2
> 35mm = 36 x 24mm = 864mm^2
>
> So the bare sensor is at least 4x more expensive than a P&S 4/3s device
> and 2.3x more than an APS-C on silicon area alone. This ignores the
> reduced yield and increased wastage with larger die sizes on a wafer.

We heard that NINE years ago when the US$8000 or so 1Ds came out.

Then, SIX years ago, the 5D came out for US$3000, it was probably just as
true.

Today, nine years later, I'm sure that FF sensors are many times more
expensive than APS-C sensors.

But that's not the question.

The question is: how much cheaper are FF sensors today than they were six
years ago.

I can fit all sorts of curves through those two points. And they all have
the cheapest FF camera being a lot less than US$3000. But I don't see a FF
Rebel anywhere.

[nospam]

In article <paydnQPuzoGzfPzS...@giganews.com>, David J.

that's because people are lining up to buy the rebel and 5d iii at
their current price points.

nikon and canon aren't stupid.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

It's no less relevant than what sounds reasonable to you.

[Andrew Haley]

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> writes:
>
>> "Me" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
>> news:jjpd04$3d2$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> Anyway. if some sources are to be believed (Thom Hogan is one), a 36x24mm
>>> sensor costs about $500 to produce. By the time margins are included,
>>> that equates to about $1500 retail,
>>
>> I simply cannot believe that, and would require some serious proof to
>> believe it is anything other than a *very small* fraction of that price if
>> produced in the quantities a cut price Canon or Nikon (not Sony) FF DSLR
>> would sell.
>
> The full-frame sensor is *immensely* bigger than for example top-end
> modern CPUs.

Sandy Bridge-EP-8 is 435 mm^2.

Andrew.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

But apparently Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic, Fuji, and so forth are. *If*
the sensor prices are low enough as some people think, that'd be a great
way for the smaller players to steal tons of sales from the big
players.

[Martin Brown]

That is still only half the area of a full frame CCD sensor at 864mm^2.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[James Silverton]

True enough and I think it is worth adding that the Sandy Bridge CPU is
just about 21mm on a side as opposed to full frame at 36x24mm.

--
Jim Silverton

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

[nospam]

In article <ylfklin2...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet

<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> >> I can fit all sorts of curves through those two points. And they all have
> >> the cheapest FF camera being a lot less than US$3000. But I don't see a FF
> >> Rebel anywhere.
> >
> > that's because people are lining up to buy the rebel and 5d iii at
> > their current price points.
> >
> > nikon and canon aren't stupid.
>
> But apparently Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic, Fuji, and so forth are. *If*
> the sensor prices are low enough as some people think, that'd be a great
> way for the smaller players to steal tons of sales from the big
> players.

except that none of the ones you list are interested.

olympus and panasonic have 4/3rds and they're not about to do full
frame especially since not a single lens they make would work.

pentax discontinued all their full frame lenses (stupid, since some
were *very* good), so you won't see a full frame pentax any time soon,
if ever.

fuji is no longer making dslrs at all, so nothing from them either.

that leaves sony. there have been some rumblings about a cheaper full
frame sony, but nothing yet. meanwhile, people are lining up for
nikon/canon full frame slrs at $3k but not so much for sony, so they
have a reason to cut prices. nikon/canon don't, at least not yet.

[Alan Browne]

A photo sensor chip doesn't needs the fine layout of a CPU.

CPU's like the i7 are about 730M transistors per chip (quad core) on
263mm^2. That's nearly 3M per square mm. (!).

A FF photography sensor has up to 36M photo sites with up to 4
transistors per site (2 or 3 is typical). Edge logic will bump that up
a little but 2 orders of magnitude less. All in all, less than 150M
transistors on a chip that is over 3x the size of an i7.

A mere 200,000 transistors (at most) per mm^2.

Potentially lower costs per chip even considering defect rejection.

OTOH, the volume of CPU production is an order or 2 higher than FF
sensors leading to lower costs overall.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

>> In article <jjp22d$1g9$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>

>>> Until Canon or Nikon test the market for a cheap FF DSLR, the size of
>>> that
>>> market is still unknown.

>> i'm pretty sure nikon and canon know quite well how viable a full frame
>> d3000 or rebel would be.

> I'm sure they have done some market research, which is *NOT* the same thing
> as "knowing quite well".

And let us notice you have *not* done any market research,
unlike the potential manufacturers, and you don't know the
market *at all*.

>>meanwhile, people are lining up for $3000 full frame cameras.

> And many would no doubt line up for $1500 FF camera's too!

Only if the $1500 FF was good enough.

And Canon would only produce one if it was worth Canon's time
to build one and thus eat into their own mid-to-high end crop
market and into their well running 5D market.

In other words, Canon won't be doing that in the near future;
they have a 5D2.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:

> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:a7p339-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...
>>> Fortunately some
>>> companies still prefer to make a more reasonable profit on a higher level
>>> of
>>> sales. That is the sales model I prefer to support. Those who want
>>> exclusivity prefer the exact opposite. Their choice.

>> So basically you are saying you want a full frame that doesn't
>> have *any* benefits except FF over a rock bottom crop DSLR.

> Can you point me to where I said that?

The posting I answered.
Message-ID: <jis1ti$2uc$1...@speranza.aioe.org>


> But sure, some people may. That
> market has yet to be tested.

Just like that of high end cars with only the comfort and
gadgets that are available in entry level cars.

Sorry, I prefer a good camera over one that's merely FF and
nothing else.


>> Which companies do offer that, and do have a higher level of
>> sales?

> Well the Canon 5D2 sells OK, so not everyone wanted a 1DS2.

The 5D2 offered quite a lot more than entry level cameras at
the same time. E.g. video (which is why it was such a good
seller in the filmmaker circles --- such a sensor on a movie
camera costs at least 100 times more.)


> I see no reason
> a FF equivalent of the 60D for example would not find a market as well. (if
> not overpriced!)
> (just using Canon as an example)

The 60D isn't exactly an entry level camera, that would be
the 1100D.

And if you want something like a 60D in FF, you can just take
the 5D2. It's not completely up to date, but ...


> However that is not the issue, what I said was the profit margins are higher
> on the professional camera's.

"on the professional camera's[sic]" what?

Actually this is probably quite wrong. Sure, the makeup between
manufacturing and sales price is higher, but it's more costly to
develop a high end camera and you have fixed costs to set up the
production *and* you have to get that money back with much less
units sold.


> Do you have evidence to dispute that?

Your evidence for your claim first.

> I also said people DO have a choice to buy or not, at ANY price demanded.
> That is the capitalist way. I never said it needed to change simply because
> I'm not willing to pay the prices some people are.
> (What's wrong of course is some people earn $Billions for doing little while
> others earn little for working hard. Obviously the latter have to watch
> their expenditure far more than the former)

Completely different topic. All the Windows users feed Bill Gates'
Billions --- for often rather low quality software.


-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:

> "Me" <us...@example.net> wrote in message

> news:jjpj33$ecr$1...@news.albasani.net...

>>>> Anyway. if some sources are to be believed (Thom Hogan is one), a
>>>> 36x24mm
>>>> sensor costs about $500 to produce. By the time margins are included,
>>>> that equates to about $1500 retail,

>>> I simply cannot believe that, and would require some serious proof to
>>> believe it is anything other than a *very small* fraction of that price
>>> if
>>> produced in the quantities a cut price Canon or Nikon (not Sony) FF DSLR

>>> would sell. (and *nowhere* near it even at current production levels!)

>> I'm not going to bother to find links for you,

> I don't expect you to, you simply won't find any *credible* ones. You can
> pull whatever figures you like out of your arse, but it doesn't add anything
> to the debate.

Especially when you define "credible" as "agrees with Trevor".


>>but it sounds very believable,

> To YOU maybe. Perhaps I can interest you in a ponzi scheme or two as well
> then? :-)

Sure. I'd like a couple FF sensors in the quality of the 5D3
for $50. Paid after delivery and testing.


>>and has been explained by many people who do know costs for semiconductor
>>fabrication, including large yield reduction as surface area increases.

> Right, costs do increase, but have reduced MANY fold over the last few years
> as production increases and technology improves.

Sure ... what you are seeing is miniaturization. Which means
smaller chip areas for the same features, i.e. a drastic
improvement of yield due to smaller affected areas by each error.
BTW, this has been happening at approximately the same rate for
30 odd years.

Unfortunately 24x36mm sensors cannot shrink. On wafer error
rates only dropped a little. I also seem to remember reading
that Canon's 1.6x crop is the largest size that can be handled
as a unit.


> I guess you still pay
> $10,000 for a 40" LCD TV too?

I guess you still use sensors with pixel sizes of 40" LCD TVs too.
And $50,000 DSLRs, too, right?


>>An aps sensor, a bit less than 1/2 the surface area, apparently only costs
>>about $50 to produce.

> Or less! And a FF one less than twice that. And even less if the quantity is
> ramped up for higher volume sales.

Let's try a *last* time to give an idiot some understanding.

Let us assume you have rectangular wafers where 2 APS or 1 single
FF sensor fits and where one single defect (rendering a sensor
broken) exists. Assume it costs $50 to produce said wafer and test
the results.
How much does it cost to produce 100 APS sensors then?
How much does it cost to produce a single FF sensor then?

Do you grasp enough elementary mathematics to answer this?
Or are you ... too stupid?

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

David J. Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:

> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

>>> So basically you are saying you want a full frame that doesn't

>>> have*any* benefits except FF over a rock bottom crop DSLR.

>> Yeah, that would be nice but then you'd have an expensive sensor on a
>> cheap body that broke in three years and that'd be frustrating too.

> So replace the body. US$900 every three years is better than US$3000 every
> three years.

$3000 for 10 years (or an equivalent resale value) is much nicer
than $900 every 3 years. Not necessarily cheaper, but *much* more
joy to use, much better stuff (100% viewfinder, pentaprism instead
of mirrors, thumb wheel, LCD instead of just a glaring display,
a size to fit larger hands, much better AF, etc etc etc.), ...

> Actually, the thing that breaks is the shutter mechanism, and
> that can be replaced quite easily. So even the low end cameras can last a
> long time.

> How many frames have you shot in the last 3 years? I ask because I wonder
> how many amateurs run through the 150,000 frame shutter lifetimes on these
> things in 3 years.

But Rebel shutters only last 50,000 frames!

> Whatever, a FF Rebel sounds real sweet to me. I use mostly manual focus
> lenses and don't use burst mode, so there's not a whole lot of advantage to
> the current crop of midrange cameras. Heck, an FF Rebel might have an
> articulating screen, which would be nice on a tripod.

So buy a medium format camera and shoot film and scan that ...

-Wolfgang

[Me]

On 16/03/2012 1:31 a.m., David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> The question is: how much cheaper are FF sensors today than they were six
> years ago.
>
> I can fit all sorts of curves through those two points. And they all have
> the cheapest FF camera being a lot less than US$3000. But I don't see a FF
> Rebel anywhere.

$3000 x 117/77 = $4558 <--- that's the exchange rate adjusted price for
an original Canon 5d today.

>
The 5DII was close to a FF Rebel - perhaps a FF 20d.
If they made one using a penta-mirror, an even worse AF system - if that
was possible, smaller buffer, slower mirror assembly with longer
blackout time, cheaper metering system, etc that would that make you happy?

[Me]

You've disingenuously snipped my comments above. A Nikon D800 might
have cost (less than) US$2200 today if the US dollar could still buy 107
yen (July 2008 exchange rate). The Japanese makers must have achieved,
- and passed on - some cost reduction, yet you're whining.

As for comparison with LCD TV, not sure where you're coming from.
Perhaps you're confused. TFT "printing" can't be compared to using
silicon wafers, cost of an LCD panel on an area basis should reduce with
increasing panel size.
Perhaps you're alluding to the TV panel cartel, where the major makers
colluded to fix prices. Does a cartel exist between Canon and Nikon -
as that's what you seem to be suggesting? I don't see any evidence of
that, beyond the normal - that there's only ever a very loose
correlation between cost, price, and quality, except in base commodity
markets.

[Andrew Reilly]

The density of circuits doesn't matter, other than the extent to which
they require newer fab lines. All that matters (regarding manufacturing
cost) is number of process steps and yield per wafer.

NRE costs on a processor are probably much higher than those on a sensor,
but the much higher volumes will help with that.

Processors have the large advantage (compared to sensors) that they now
have significant redundancy that allows the effective yield to be much
higher than the defect-free die rate: large areas are cache, and cache
blocks can be re-mapped around defects; multiple core parts can be sold
as reduced-core-count versions by marking defective cores inactive.

I expect that the price of 35mm sensors has been decreasing with time, as
one would expect, but they'd still be relatively expensive. Which is a
pitty: I'd love someone to make a 35mm rangefinder competitor to Leica
that I could afford.. I don't consider my D700 to have been outrageously
expensive, but I would definitely appreciate similar functionality in a
smaller body. Don't need an AF motor, and personally I don't need the
sophisticated metering and AF sensor electronics. Should be possible to
get a 35mm sensor into a body about as big as an FE2 or FM3a (or much
smaller, if you go for an EVF and do away with the mirror box and
pentaprism.)

Cheers,

--
Andrew

[David J. Littleboy]

"Andrew Reilly" <areil...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:58:56 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>> A photo sensor chip doesn't needs the fine layout of a CPU.
>>
>> CPU's like the i7 are about 730M transistors per chip (quad core) on
>> 263mm^2. That's nearly 3M per square mm. (!).

FWIW, wiki claims 215 sq mm and 1.16 billion transistors.

>> A FF photography sensor has up to 36M photo sites with up to 4
>> transistors per site (2 or 3 is typical). Edge logic will bump that up
>> a little but 2 orders of magnitude less. All in all, less than 150M
>> transistors on a chip that is over 3x the size of an i7.
>>
>> A mere 200,000 transistors (at most) per mm^2.
>>
>> Potentially lower costs per chip even considering defect rejection.
>>
>> OTOH, the volume of CPU production is an order or 2 higher than FF
>> sensors leading to lower costs overall.
>
> The density of circuits doesn't matter, other than the extent to which
> they require newer fab lines. All that matters (regarding manufacturing
> cost) is number of process steps and yield per wafer.

Right. But those blokes are always busting their butts to improve yields.
The idea that there have been no significant improvements in SIX years is
beyond unbelievable.

> Processors have the large advantage (compared to sensors) that they now
> have significant redundancy that allows the effective yield to be much
> higher than the defect-free die rate: large areas are cache, and cache
> blocks can be re-mapped around defects; multiple core parts can be sold
> as reduced-core-count versions by marking defective cores inactive.

Sure, but a fully functional quad-core i7 2600 is still only US$300. A
friggin billion functioning transistors all working at 3.4 GHz for a measly
US$300. Kewl beyond words.

But dSLR sensors are not defect free. They all have some number of dead
pixels, which are "mapped out" in demosaicing.

> I expect that the price of 35mm sensors has been decreasing with time, as
> one would expect, but they'd still be relatively expensive.

But I'd expect that many of the improvements in clean room and other
fabrication technologies that are absolutely necessary for the 64nm things
(that were coming online back when the 5D came out) to say nothing of the
current 32nm generation, would be applicable (and actually applied) in
bread-and-butter commercial foundries and non-bleeding-edge in-house lines.

The question is: how much does something that probably cost around US$500 to
produce in 2006 cost to produce in 2012? If it's down to 1/3, then it'd be
real easy to make a FF Rebel.

> Which is a
> pitty: I'd love someone to make a 35mm rangefinder competitor to Leica
> that I could afford.. I don't consider my D700 to have been outrageously
> expensive, but I would definitely appreciate similar functionality in a
> smaller body. Don't need an AF motor, and personally I don't need the
> sophisticated metering and AF sensor electronics. Should be possible to
> get a 35mm sensor into a body about as big as an FE2 or FM3a (or much
> smaller, if you go for an EVF and do away with the mirror box and
> pentaprism.)

We're on the same page here. I've never used burst mode, my main lenses are
all manual focus, and AE can't possibly produce the right exposure all the
time, so for critical stuff you have to do something that does work (spot or
incident metering) or chimp.

[Trevor]

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message

news:co8739-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...

> Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>>> So basically you are saying you want a full frame that doesn't
>>> have *any* benefits except FF over a rock bottom crop DSLR.
>
>> Can you point me to where I said that?
>
> The posting I answered.
> Message-ID: <jis1ti$2uc$1...@speranza.aioe.org>

Which doesn't say that.

>> But sure, some people may. That
>> market has yet to be tested.
>
> Just like that of high end cars with only the comfort and
> gadgets that are available in entry level cars.

There ARE cheaper cars with big V8's, which would be a more suitable
analogy.

> Sorry, I prefer a good camera over one that's merely FF and
> nothing else.

Your budget and definition of good is entirely up to you. Why do you believe
everyone must be forced to buy the same camera as you?

>> Well the Canon 5D2 sells OK, so not everyone wanted a 1DS2.
>
> The 5D2 offered quite a lot more than entry level cameras at
> the same time. E.g. video (which is why it was such a good
> seller in the filmmaker circles --- such a sensor on a movie
> camera costs at least 100 times more.)

Sure, but some people were willing to pay twice as much for a 1DS2 so
contravenes your idea that there is no need to sell a cheaper camera "if
some people are willing to pay twice as much."

>> I see no reason
>> a FF equivalent of the 60D for example would not find a market as well.
>> (if
>> not overpriced!)
>> (just using Canon as an example)
>
> The 60D isn't exactly an entry level camera, that would be
> the 1100D.

*YOU* said entry level *NOT* me. I said a cheaper FF DSLR, and my preferred
option would be a FF 60D for about $1500. It could be done easily.

> And if you want something like a 60D in FF, you can just take
> the 5D2. It's not completely up to date, but ...

Sure it is, the 5D3, but more expensive than what I'm suggesting.

>> However that is not the issue, what I said was the profit margins are
>> higher
>> on the professional camera's.
>
> "on the professional camera's[sic]" what?

Are you really that petty?

> Actually this is probably quite wrong. Sure, the makeup between
> manufacturing and sales price is higher, but it's more costly to
> develop a high end camera and you have fixed costs to set up the
> production *and* you have to get that money back with much less
> units sold.

One of the main reasons you sell much less units is the very high price.

>> Do you have evidence to dispute that?
>
> Your evidence for your claim first.

What claim, you've snipped it. I believe your claim was first in any case.

>> I also said people DO have a choice to buy or not, at ANY price demanded.
>> That is the capitalist way. I never said it needed to change simply
>> because
>> I'm not willing to pay the prices some people are.
>> (What's wrong of course is some people earn $Billions for doing little
>> while
>> others earn little for working hard. Obviously the latter have to watch
>> their expenditure far more than the former)
>
> Completely different topic.

Same topic. What people want and can afford, and whether there is a market
that can be filled, and whether the manufacturers choose to fill it.

>All the Windows users feed Bill Gates'
> Billions --- for often rather low quality software.

Now THAT's a completely different topic!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message

news:o7c739-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...

>> I'm sure they have done some market research, which is *NOT* the same
>> thing
>> as "knowing quite well".
>
> And let us notice you have *not* done any market research,
> unlike the potential manufacturers, and you don't know the
> market *at all*.

And let us notice you have no idea of the extent or result of any market
research been done by Canon or Nikon, so have no idea either.

>>>meanwhile, people are lining up for $3000 full frame cameras.
>
>> And many would no doubt line up for $1500 FF camera's too!
>
> Only if the $1500 FF was good enough.

Well duh, I think many would consider a FF 60D "good enough".

> And Canon would only produce one if it was worth Canon's time
> to build one and thus eat into their own mid-to-high end crop
> market and into their well running 5D market.

Which is what I said already.

> In other words, Canon won't be doing that in the near future;
> they have a 5D2.

And now 5D3, but they had a 1DS before the 5D as well. And the 300D series
was their entry level DSLR before they introduced the even cheaper 1100
line, which is actualy better than the 300 or 350D, because that's what
technology advancement allows you to do

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message

news:oud739-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...

>> I don't expect you to, you simply won't find any *credible* ones. You can
>> pull whatever figures you like out of your arse, but it doesn't add
>> anything
>> to the debate.
>
> Especially when you define "credible" as "agrees with Trevor".

And many others here that agree your figures are wildly out of date. And
it's better than defining it as what Wolfgang pulls out his arse at least!
:-)


<snip more rubish because this crap is too tiresome to bother with>

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote in message
news:B7ydnftNSIKqEPzS...@giganews.com...

I'm glad somebody gets it.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:150320120559399070%nos...@nospam.invalid...

Yes they ARE as stupid as you if they don't believe there are any potential
buyers of FF DSLR's *NOT* willing to pay $3000.

I'll bet money we see one sooner or later!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message

news:ylfklin2...@dd-b.net...

>> nikon and canon aren't stupid.
>
> But apparently Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic, Fuji, and so forth are. *If*
> the sensor prices are low enough as some people think, that'd be a great
> way for the smaller players to steal tons of sales from the big
> players.

Except people wanting a FF DSLR also want a few lenses etc, and having been
caught by the smaller manufacturers dropping in and out of the market at
will, changing lens mounts etc. and destroying any investment in lenses,
flashes etc, many people are sticking with Canon and Nikon these days. And
one of the main reasons Olympus, Sony, Pentax, Fuji etc. are currently bit
players in the DSLR market at any sensor size IMO.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message

news:ylfkobry...@dd-b.net...

>> But what "sounds reasonable" to you is irrelevant to the debate however.
>
> It's no less relevant than what sounds reasonable to you.

When did I use the term?

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:Ke-dnawtAfiSxf_S...@giganews.com...

> OTOH, the volume of CPU production is an order or 2 higher than FF sensors
> leading to lower costs overall.

I would have thought far more than 2 times, but the number of FF sensors
made would increase rapidly if a cheaper FF camera becomes available.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message

news:u8e739-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de...

> But Rebel shutters only last 50,000 frames!

Right, a human lifetime for some amateur users who don't blaze away at 10fps
for every shot. Certainly the camera will be replaced with something better,
LONG before the shutter dies for most amateur users. And we aren't
discussing pro's in this argument for cheap FF cameras.

Trevor.

[Chris Malcolm]

In rec.photo.digital David J. Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> "Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:25:01 +1300, Me <us...@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The full-frame sensor is *immensely* bigger than for example top-end

>>>> modern CPUs. The real cutting-edge CPUs cost over $1000 at retail.
>>>> (They require much finer feature size of course). Random wafer defects
>>>> are linear with area of course.

>>>>
>>>> Anyway, the $500 real cost number doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
>>>
>>>" ...An 8" diameter wafer could cost as much as $450 to $500, $1,000 or
>>>even $5,000. After several hundred process steps, perhaps between 400
>>>and 600 (including, for example, thin film deposition, lithography,
>>>photoresist coating and alignment, exposure, developing, etching and
>>>cleaning), one has a wafer covered with sensors. If the sensors are
>>>APS-C size, there are about 200 of them on the wafer, depending on
>>>layout and the design of the periphery of each sensor. For APS-H, there
>>>are about 46 or so. Full-frame sensors? Just 20.

> <SNIP>

>>>(From a Canon "White Paper" released in 2006)

>>>Of course this doesn't give the price, but at least some idea of why
>>>they cost so much. At that time (2006) Canon must have had an inkling
>>>that the D3 was around the corner (despite Nikon's insistence at the
>>>time that Dx format was the future - at least for them - for
>>>professional slrs).
>>>Kodak offered a sensor (and memory) upgrade for the original DSC 14
>>>series cameras, but that cost almost $2,000. They quit the market not
>>>long after, citing low profitability.
>>>It wouldn't surprise me if Nikon/Sony do have a cost advantage in FX
>>>sensors over Canon, as well as a some clear technical advantages (higher
>>>QE per surface area/lower read noise). While the US dollar price of the
>>>D800 is about the same as the D700 was, in Japanese yen, the cost price
>>>must be significantly lower.
>>
>> But who is still using 8" wafers. I thought 12" was the usual size
>> these days.

> Exactly. The 1Ds came out in Sept. 2002, the 5D in August 2005. FF sensors
> went from "nearly impossible to make so we're doing you a favor at US$8000"
> to "we can make money on a $3000 camera" in just THREE years.

> There have been SIX years of progress in the semiconductor industry since
> then and that hasn't shown up in FF dSLR prices.

Don't forget the large development costs and the vary large production
line setup costs for a new FF sensor. All of which investment has to
be paid back by the profits from sales over the years. And the market
for FF sensors is very much smaller than the market for smaller ones.

--
Chris Malcolm

[nospam]

In article <jjuajh$9em$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
wrote:

> >> I can fit all sorts of curves through those two points. And they all have
> >> the cheapest FF camera being a lot less than US$3000. But I don't see a
> >> FF Rebel anywhere.
> >
> > that's because people are lining up to buy the rebel and 5d iii at
> > their current price points.
> >
> > nikon and canon aren't stupid.
>
> Yes they ARE as stupid as you if they don't believe there are any potential
> buyers of FF DSLR's *NOT* willing to pay $3000.

except they don't have an unlimited supply of full frame sensors and
what they do have they are selling at $3k (or more).

> I'll bet money we see one sooner or later!

eventually.