[kenyee]

Defect density 1.2/cm^2 (DRAM was better at 0.5/cm^2), yield was 37%, wafer cost was $1890, function test yield was 70%, final cost per CPU was 112$, sales price per 1000 was 350$. That's $26000 revenue per wafer. At that time, DRAM was more like $3000 revenue per wafer cost of $1500, despite the same yield rate (larger die for 64MB).
Intel has a monopoly on the "Intel" processor and asks 3x the manufacturing costs as chip price. DRAM is more like 1.8x. Image sensors may be between 2x 1/2.3" and 2.5x (FF).

CPU sales also have a lot less sales volume than memory sales, so it's not just monopoly (FF sensors are probably a lot less than CPU chips by at least 2-3 orders of magnitude). Intel's manufacturing is also amazingly good at keeping yields up...they're a lot stronger than 3rd party fabs (AMD learned that the hard way w/ the fab that made their current Llano APU chips).

I'd agree that Nikon probably pays Sony $500-600 per FF chip...Sony could probably sell them for less, but they need to make a profit.
Dum question, but has anyone tried calling a Sony chip sales rep to see how much the FF chip costs?

And even if we do isolate the cost of the chip, we still have Pentax's design/manufacturing/sales cost. Aristophanes' Pentax user base vs. Canikon's FF sales per year is what their product management department has to go against when trying to justify a product. The first FF body will no doubt have to be sold at a loss and Pentax didn't have deep enough pockets for it...maybe Ricoh does or Samsung might have, but it'd definitely have to be a leap of faith. Given all that, I'm not at all surprised they chose the 645D as their halo product...it was probably a loss leader, but with decent marketing payback...
If Canikon ever make a lower tier FF body in the $2200 range, Pentax may be forced to do a FF body though...

p.s., I'm still surprised Nikon/Pentax haven't put Sony's 24MP APS-C sensor into a body...nearly a year old already...

[Jan67]

To amortize that cost, you need market share and volume sales over a long term investment horizon. Pentax would have to switch almost all its customers to FF at $3,000 a camera to come within 20% of what Nikon sells per annum in FF.
That is how huge a lead Canon and Nikon have in the market.

What you are saying means, that Canon and Nikon will have FF monopoly forever.
In that case CEO Ricoh should immediately start to create consorcium of companies, investing together into the sensor fab. I see no other way. Wait 2 years for Sony - nonsense !

[Aristophanes]

What you are saying means, that Canon and Nikon will have FF monopoly forever.
In that case CEO Ricoh should immediately start to create consorcium of companies, investing together into the sensor fab. I see no other way. Wait 2 years for Sony - nonsense !

That's sort of how m43 got started.

Canon make their own chips and Sony can crank out enough for Nikon and themselves. Look at Sony's bottom line. In the red for ages. They will crank up the profits on FF and keep the supply tight. There is no way Sony is going to sell FF for less than top dollar, not when Nikon can sell D700/800's like gangbusters at great margins. And they're not going to let Pentax buy a bulk and undercut those margins. Canon is a closed shop. ON their lower end P&S's Canon buys Sony sensors.

If Pentax wants an FF chip, maybe they have to pull a Canon and go in-house. Or team with Fuji or Samsung. Nikon could do so as well, and Nikon has photolithography and sensor design experience. That's the threat they bring against Sony. Either way, it's going to be years to get another supplier online. Would Samsung be a sole FF supplier for Pentax? That's putting a lot of eggs in one basket. Who takes the risk and capitalizes the fab?

If Canikon ever make a lower tier FF body in the $2200 range, Pentax may be forced to do a FF body though...

It's called the D700. It's staying in production at MAP $2,199 and may even be upgraded to a D720 a that pice point (don't think it will ever do video). We'll see it at loss leader sales from Adorama at $1,899 in 12 months.

[pz1fan]

But I extend my support for all those who want a full-frame camera from Pentax.

Thank you. That's a very positive attitude. Someone said only the vocal minority wants full frame. The vocal minority is actually against it. You can see it on every full frame thread. The same repetitive incorrect arguments about sensor size.

If they keep the D700 in production and it goes under 2000, it will be hard to stay with APSC. At some point, you have to give up. Some forum members still here were asking for full-frame in 2008! If the choice is APSC or 645D for 9000+, I'll go for FF instead for under 2000.

[kenyee]

The same repetitive incorrect arguments about sensor size.

? Incorrect? It's a big chunk of profit margin to go from a $100 sensor (did we come to a consensus on the APS-C sensor cost?) vs. $400-500. Assuming wholesale cost is only $700 now for the body/package which sells for $1000 (standard 50% markup for distributors).

It's called the D700. It's staying in production at MAP $2,199 and may even be upgraded to a D720 a that pice point (don't think it will ever do video). We'll see it at loss leader sales from Adorama at $1,899 in 12 months.

I'm presuming that's only to clear out excess inventory unless Canon truly is going to continue selling the 5DmkII as a "low end FF" body...if not, indeed it's going to be an issue. FWIW, I saw a 5DmkI body on craigslist for only $800...two generations back, but FF for those who want it is now under $1K...

[Aristophanes]

? Incorrect? It's a big chunk of profit margin to go from a $100 sensor (did we come to a consensus on the APS-C sensor cost?) vs. $400-500. Assuming wholesale cost is only $700 now for the body/package which sells for $1000 (standard 50% markup for distributors).

I'm presuming that's only to clear out excess inventory unless Canon truly is going to continue selling the 5DmkII as a "low end FF" body...if not, indeed it's going to be an issue. FWIW, I saw a 5DmkI body on craigslist for only $800...two generations back, but FF for those who want it is now under $1K...

Apparently there are no plans to end the Nikon D700. have not heard about Canon.

The whole reason you have sub-$500 APS-C DSLR's is (in part) because of the very high profit margins on the FF's. It's called cost-shifting. Margins o the high-end, gross revenues for all below. Since Canon and Nikon don't make medium format (or something to compete with Leica), it's all in at FF.

[maxfield_photo]

Only m43 has been able the chew into market share at that rate, and that consortium did so on price, uniqueness, and compactness. FF has all the opposite.

Yeah, image quality, [shallow]depth of field, wider angles, dynamic range...

[feishui]

I concur.
For that very reason you mentioned, I will stay with APSC, whether there is a pentax FF or not.

But of course, I know I am a small body/lens-long focal length-OK IQ kind of guy

But a K-x is 20% the price of FF.

There is little "better" IQ to the average purchaser. Only to those with BOTH the time to play with large FF files and PP and those with $3,000 for a body is there a market. That's a tiny market.

And Pentax will still need to sell FF lenses which are bigger than APS-C. And to get the desired f-stops wide open, they'll be much more expensive.

[Raffwal]

feishui, I think you never told us where this rumor comes from. Any more information?

[philbaum]

Apparently there are no plans to end the Nikon D700. have not heard about Canon.

The whole reason you have sub-$500 APS-C DSLR's is (in part) because of the very high profit margins on the FF's. It's called cost-shifting. Margins of the high-end, gross revenues for all below. Since Canon and Nikon don't make medium format (or something to compete with Leica), it's all in at FF.

Can you quote research to prove that assertion? - just asking. It may be true, and its not illegal, but a true capitalistic marketplace without monopolies, will eventually work against that arrangement. For example, before Pentax had a MF, Nikon should have been able to sell their aps cameras for much less than Pentax if they cost shifted FF monies, but they didn't.

FF dlsrs are highly priced because there is high overhead involved in their development, high sensor cost, and it has to be paid off by the purchases of a very few customers (who need such a camera)
(High sensor cost and development overhead)/(fewer customers than aps)=a high purchase price even without any cost shifting.

Without some strong business reason (such as a short term loss for long term gain), corporations will eventually drop product lines that can't pay for themselves. It may be more likely that the aps cameras are supporting the FF cameras.

I've read that in past years, that the true cost of 1st class airplane seats were not fully paid by 1st class fares - that they were charged lower fares due to cost shifting from the masses in the back of the plane.

[eurostar]

Well, as for sure FF sell because there is Nikon and Canon written over. When Sony tried to sold FF, at a much lower cost than the other twos, it wasn't a success.

Surely it has to do with quality, specs, line of lenses and costumer base, but hoping to sell a FF over (relatively) low price hasn't worked for Sony. I think it will be different if Sony would make a full frame new, I am not so sure if they will present a translucent mirror one.

About Pentax, I guess a FFK-5 would be as popular as an Alpha 900, and that'0s why when Pentax implies about a full frame they always say "it will have to be different". If it will appear, it will not be aimed at the few Pentaxians with the money for it and a large collection of star lenses. It will be, like the Q, something that has nothing alike on the market, and that will appeal not to the traditional pentaxian.

[Rondec]

Can you quote research to prove that assertion? - just asking. It may be true, and its not illegal, but a true capitalistic marketplace without monopolies, will eventually work against that arrangement. For example, before Pentax had a MF, Nikon should have been able to sell their aps cameras for much less than Pentax if they cost shifted FF monies, but they didn't.

FF dlsrs are highly priced because there is high overhead involved in their development, high sensor cost, and it has to be paid off by the purchases of a very few customers (who need such a camera)
(High sensor cost and development overhead)/(fewer customers than aps)=a high purchase price even without any cost shifting.

Without some strong business reason (such as a short term loss for long term gain), corporations will eventually drop product lines that can't pay for themselves. It may be more likely that the aps cameras are supporting the FF cameras.

I've read that in past years, that the true cost of 1st class airplane seats were not fully paid by 1st class fares - that they were charged lower fares due to cost shifting from the masses in the back of the plane.

I would bet that Nikon doesn't make a whole lot of money on low end full frame, but that they make a lot of money on full frame lenses and so they are willing to cut cost to the minimum in order to get their APS-C users to move up to full frame. Same concept as printers - cut the printer cost to the bone, but make a killing on the ink.

[kenyee]

Apparently there are no plans to end the Nikon D700. have not heard about Canon.

FWIW, I asked a longtime Nikon friend about this and he said Nikon doesn't pre-announce EOL on a product...they bring the price down, run out of parts, then make it disappear.

Canon's $3500MSRP for the 5DmkIII has Canon users steamed, but that's MSRP. I think the 5DmkII's MSRP was $2800-2900 but you could get it lower than that from B&H, etc.

So it's hard to say if they'll really do low end FF bodies yet, but I doubt it given the naming conventions they've used in the past...

[Ubuntu_user]

FWIW, I asked a longtime Nikon friend about this and he said Nikon doesn't pre-announce EOL on a product...they bring the price down, run out of parts, then make it disappear.

Canon's $3500MSRP for the 5DmkIII has Canon users steamed, but that's MSRP. I think the 5DmkII's MSRP was $2800-2900 but you could get it lower than that from B&H, etc.

So it's hard to say if they'll really do low end FF bodies yet, but I doubt it given the naming conventions they've used in the past...

I don't see why they wouldn't be steamed! I mean, with the D800 out that is much higher MP and has a lower MSRP... well? The price of the 5d mk3 had better drop or else I'd imagine there'd be some Canon people switching.

[mecrox]

I would bet that Nikon doesn't make a whole lot of money on low end full frame, but that they make a lot of money on full frame lenses and so they are willing to cut cost to the minimum in order to get their APS-C users to move up to full frame. Same concept as printers - cut the printer cost to the bone, but make a killing on the ink.

I wonder if this analogy really stands up, the idea that it's all about getting customers onto an escalator and then keep them moving up. I would have thought the reality is that only a small percentage of customers will move up the escalator at all, let alone all the way up. Many folks will never look further than a particular price point come features set. Under-pricing some parts of the range to lure customers into other parts which are overpriced may work with some industries, but I wonder if photography is one of them.

I'm not sure I really buy another common assumption, namely that if or perhaps when Pentax produce an FF they will only produce one which is quite different from what everyone else does. The problem with this notion is that everyone else is doing the sensible thing: they are sitting in the middle of the market where the sales are and the economies of scale too. Saying that you'll stay well away from the bulk of demand and only do niches isn't much of a strategy for long-term survival and not credible at all if, as has been claimed, Ricoh have big plans for their photography division and Canon in their sights. It only makes sense if the pitch is that you're a specialist company in the first place and Pentax have never been anything of the kind. Well, we'll see soon enough, I guess.