Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital Camera Pricing

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 8:23:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Digital camera pricing in general is following the lead of the computer
manufacturers. It is not so much that camera prices are going way down
rapidly but you are getting more for your money. Compared to the very
early days there were huge price drops until so called affordable
pricing levels were established. Once established, the rapid increase
in technology equates to getting more camera in each price class with
the oldest technology fading from the marketplace.

Soon, at leased in the point and shoot classes, the features,
megapixels, zoom ability in the lower price classes will be all buyers
will need and movement will show and prices may drop some until some new
technological breakthrough.

However, I keep reading on webs and in the photo magazines that there
will be major price drops this year. I wonder if this is all hype.
Prices seem to be extremely high for DSLRs and even somewhat high for
point and shoot.

Lets look at DSLRs first. Year ago you could buy first class Film SLRs
for around $200 to $500. That included some Nikons, Canons, Pentaxs and
Minoltas. And you still can today with even more advanced features like
auto program multi metering auto focus etc. And even accounting for
inflation the digital counterparts to these camera are exceptionally
high. The engineering for the lenses, auto focus, multi metering and
program modes have already been paid for. These features have been out
for years. With much of the mechanical parts going unneeded the cost to
manufacture should not be that great. I think that the profit on these
camera must be exceptional.

Camera like the Canon Digital Rebel should be about $100 more than its
film counterpart. And the 20D should not be more than $200 greater than
the DR. The Nikon D70 should sell for no more than $150 more than the N80.

When looking at the point and shoots the difference between a 5MP full
featured digital should be no more than $75 more than a 35mm with the
same features. I do expect that to happen.

I know there is less demand for DSLR cameras but the demand should be
about the same for them as SLRs. If sales of DSLR camera ever approach
those of the SLR than the prices have to substantially drop.

Sorry this was so long but I think it needed to be said.

More about : digital camera pricing

Anonymous
February 4, 2005 9:49:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:M6tMd.194$ZZ.13@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> Digital camera pricing in general is following the lead of the computer
> manufacturers. It is not so much that camera prices are going way down
> rapidly but you are getting more for your money. Compared to the very
> early days there were huge price drops until so called affordable pricing
> levels were established. Once established, the rapid increase in
> technology equates to getting more camera in each price class with the
> oldest technology fading from the marketplace.
>
> Soon, at leased in the point and shoot classes, the features, megapixels,
> zoom ability in the lower price classes will be all buyers will need and
> movement will show and prices may drop some until some new technological
> breakthrough.
>
> However, I keep reading on webs and in the photo magazines that there will
> be major price drops this year. I wonder if this is all hype. Prices
> seem to be extremely high for DSLRs and even somewhat high for point and
> shoot.
>
> Lets look at DSLRs first. Year ago you could buy first class Film SLRs
> for around $200 to $500. That included some Nikons, Canons, Pentaxs and
> Minoltas. And you still can today with even more advanced features like
> auto program multi metering auto focus etc. And even accounting for
> inflation the digital counterparts to these camera are exceptionally high.
> The engineering for the lenses, auto focus, multi metering and program
> modes have already been paid for. These features have been out for years.
> With much of the mechanical parts going unneeded the cost to manufacture
> should not be that great. I think that the profit on these camera must be
> exceptional.
>
> Camera like the Canon Digital Rebel should be about $100 more than its
> film counterpart. And the 20D should not be more than $200 greater than
> the DR. The Nikon D70 should sell for no more than $150 more than the
> N80.
>
> When looking at the point and shoots the difference between a 5MP full
> featured digital should be no more than $75 more than a 35mm with the same
> features. I do expect that to happen.
>
> I know there is less demand for DSLR cameras but the demand should be
> about the same for them as SLRs. If sales of DSLR camera ever approach
> those of the SLR than the prices have to substantially drop.
>
> Sorry this was so long but I think it needed to be said.

Actually, according to Canon, DSLR demand far outstrips the demand for film
SLRs. And the R&D for film is not progressing at the rate that it is for
digital, being far more incremental. Further, the prices for digital SLRs
has dropped a lot, vis a vis features. A Kodak/Canon DCS 560, a 6 megapixel
camera introduced in late 1998 sold for nearly $25,000. Now you can buy a
6mp Canon body with more capability for under $1000. That older camera
could shoot one frame per second for a maximum of three frames, for
instance.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 12:39:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> Digital camera pricing in general is following the lead of the
computer

<snip>

> Sorry this was so long but I think it needed to be said.

You're making the classic mistake of trying to base the price of a
manufactured item on the actual cost of production. It doesn't work
that way. Prices are set by the market, not by how much it costs to
manufacture. If there are huge margins, then many players jump in and
drive prices down until the margins are so bad that everyone except the
most efficient manufacturers bail out.

In the case of D-SLRs, Canon and Nikon have a huge advantage that is
nearly impossible to overcome, the installed base of users. Canon is
locking up future sales by getting buyers into their system with entry
level D-SLRs. Canon is reaping big rewards from having the only
low-noise sensor for D-SLRs.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 3:28:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:23:56 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Digital camera pricing in general is following the lead of the computer
>manufacturers. It is not so much that camera prices are going way down
>rapidly but you are getting more for your money. Compared to the very
>early days there were huge price drops until so called affordable
>pricing levels were established. Once established, the rapid increase
>in technology equates to getting more camera in each price class with
>the oldest technology fading from the marketplace.
....

Wow! You've got this all figured out.
I will presume you actually have many years of experience in
manufacturing, and specific information concerning digital vs film
camera manufacturing.
Tell you what: I'll put up $10US (cash!) to help finance your foray
into manufacturing digital cameras. After all, the work's been done,
and now you can manufacture them at a far lower selling price than
others can. We'll be rich!

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 4:49:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> Digital camera pricing in general is following the lead of the computer
> manufacturers. It is not so much that camera prices are going way down
..

..

..

> I know there is less demand for DSLR cameras but the demand should be
> about the same for them as SLRs. If sales of DSLR camera ever approach
> those of the SLR than the prices have to substantially drop.
>

There's several things in play here, one is that high-tech equipment
(chip fabrication particularly) takes massive investment in research and
building of plants before they even begin to sell, so the release price
of advancements always takes into account what the company has paid out
already and have to pay off before they start properly making profit on
the product. It's the sensor, LCD and associated electronics you're
paying for.
Also, you get early adopters who are willing to pay more than most for
the product. If people are willing to pay the extra the company will be
quite happy to take the extra. After a while they have to drop the price
to reach a less interested/less rich market, as well as to make room
above for the new stuff they're bringing out next, 'cause it doesn't
matter how good a camera is, there's still a limit to how much anyone
will be willing to pay for it.
The reason the cheapest dSLR is still way above the equivalent dSLR is
because it's still too recent, the technology hasn't been around long
enough to filter down to the bottom.
Give it a few years and you'll get a decent dSLR for the same kind of
price as the equivalent film.

Tom
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 8:01:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite@yahoo.com writes:

>With much of the mechanical parts going unneeded the cost to
>manufacture should not be that great. I think that the profit on these
>camera must be exceptional.

Just which of the mechanical parts of a film SLR are not needed in a
DSLR? Sure, you don't need the film takeup spool and film winding
mechanism, but that's pretty simple mechanics. You still need the
shutter and reflex mirror and the high-precision body holding everything
together with accurate spacings. Most of the expensive stuff is still
present. And then you have to add the CCD, LCD, processing electronics,
and card interface that are not present on the film SLR. You provide
essentially nothing to support your argument that DSLRs cost little more
to make.

>Camera like the Canon Digital Rebel should be about $100 more than its
>film counterpart. And the 20D should not be more than $200 greater than
>the DR. The Nikon D70 should sell for no more than $150 more than the N80.

You just pulled these numbers out of the air, right? How much does it
cost to manufacture a single working large CCD or CMOS sensor, to
mention just one cost of the DSLR?

>When looking at the point and shoots the difference between a 5MP full
>featured digital should be no more than $75 more than a 35mm with the
>same features. I do expect that to happen.

P&S digitals use small sensors that cost a tiny fraction of the cost for
the large DSLR sensors. They're also sold in large quantities so the
R&D cost is spread over many times as many units. So your argument is
more reasonable here.

>I know there is less demand for DSLR cameras but the demand should be
>about the same for them as SLRs. If sales of DSLR camera ever approach
>those of the SLR than the prices have to substantially drop.

You also have to consider how long a model is sold to determine how many
units the R&D costs have to cover. Digital SLRs have a lifetime of only
a few years, film ones last longer (just because the market isn't
changing as fast).

Dave
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 8:45:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jack Zeal wrote:

> Idiot question: What stops someone else from making a DSLR with a
> common mount?
>
> If a Sigma or a Pentax or a ... makes a dSLR with a Nikon or Canon
lens
> connector at the end, they'll sell a hell of a lot more bodies that
way.

Sigma does build a camera for Kodak with the Canon mount. It hasn't
sold, because the sensor it uses is not very good. No professional is
going to buy a Kodak-Sigma-Canon camera when their livelihood depends
on it. In fact no professional is going to buy a Sigma or Kodak D-SLR
period.

I don't know all the licensing details here. Normally the lens mount is
patented, and Canon would have to license other companies to build
lenses or bodies. If Canon had any serious competition in the D-SLR
market, then it might even make sense to license other companies to
make bodies, just so they could sell more lenses.

Sigma's Canon mount lenses often have issues with compatibility, and I
expect that other camera's with a Canon mount would have the same sorts
of issues. Remember, just because a company has a license to
manufacture something, doesn't mean that they get all the details on
how to do it.

> I'd think they're better off getting a $1000 sale from a large swath
> of the market, than trying to convince a few people to throw out a
lot
> of kit and give them a lockin position worth $5000.

Once there is some competition in low-noise CMOS sensors then maybe
someone will have a go at it. But by that time, the profitable early
adopters have all already bought a Canon D-SLR. The margins are huge on
the 20D, though only Canon knows when the ROI turns positive.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 8:49:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jack Zeal wrote:

> Idiot question: What stops someone else from making a DSLR with a
> common mount?
>
> If a Sigma or a Pentax or a ... makes a dSLR with a Nikon or Canon
lens
> connector at the end, they'll sell a hell of a lot more bodies that
way.

Sigma does build a camera for Kodak with the Canon mount. It hasn't
sold, because the sensor it uses is not very good. No professional is
going to buy a Kodak-Sigma-Canon camera when their livelihood depends
on it. In fact no professional is going to buy a Sigma or Kodak D-SLR
period.

I don't know all the licensing details here. Normally the lens mount is
patented, and Canon would have to license other companies to build
lenses or bodies. If Canon had any serious competition in the D-SLR
market, then it might even make sense to license other companies to
make bodies, just so they could sell more lenses.

Sigma's Canon mount lenses often have issues with compatibility, and I
expect that other camera's with a Canon mount would have the same sorts
of issues. Remember, just because a company has a license to
manufacture something, doesn't mean that they get all the details on
how to do it.

> I'd think they're better off getting a $1000 sale from a large swath
> of the market, than trying to convince a few people to throw out a
lot
> of kit and give them a lockin position worth $5000.

Once there is some competition in low-noise CMOS sensors then maybe
someone will have a go at it. But by that time, the profitable early
adopters have all already bought a Canon D-SLR. The margins are huge on
the 20D, though only Canon knows when the ROI turns positive.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 9:07:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scharf-DCA wrote:
> measekite wrote:
>
>>Digital camera pricing in general is following the lead of the
>
> computer
>
> <snip>
>
>>Sorry this was so long but I think it needed to be said.
>
>
> You're making the classic mistake of trying to base the price of a
> manufactured item on the actual cost of production. It doesn't work
> that way. Prices are set by the market, not by how much it costs to
> manufacture. If there are huge margins, then many players jump in and
> drive prices down until the margins are so bad that everyone except the
> most efficient manufacturers bail out.
>
> In the case of D-SLRs, Canon and Nikon have a huge advantage that is
> nearly impossible to overcome, the installed base of users. Canon is
> locking up future sales by getting buyers into their system with entry
> level D-SLRs. Canon is reaping big rewards from having the only
> low-noise sensor for D-SLRs.
>
Idiot question: What stops someone else from making a DSLR with a
common mount?

If a Sigma or a Pentax or a ... makes a dSLR with a Nikon or Canon lens
connector at the end, they'll sell a hell of a lot more bodies that way.
I'd think they're better off getting a $1000 sale from a large swath
of the market, than trying to convince a few people to throw out a lot
of kit and give them a lockin position worth $5000.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 2:01:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill wrote:

Bill, you can be cynical, but the OP has a point: the digital camera market
might evolve in the same fashion as the PC computer market with
characteristics like winner takes all, 'good enough' eclipses anything over
time. Maybe lens quality issues break the parallel as larger higher MP CCDs
require harder to make lenses. OTOH, a 25MP camera with a lousy lens probably
will sell better than a 8MP camera with a top lens.

-- Hans
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:23:56 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Digital camera pricing in general is following the lead of the computer
>>manufacturers. It is not so much that camera prices are going way down
>>rapidly but you are getting more for your money. Compared to the very
>>early days there were huge price drops until so called affordable
>>pricing levels were established. Once established, the rapid increase
>>in technology equates to getting more camera in each price class with
>>the oldest technology fading from the marketplace.
>
> ...
>
> Wow! You've got this all figured out.
> I will presume you actually have many years of experience in
> manufacturing, and specific information concerning digital vs film
> camera manufacturing.
> Tell you what: I'll put up $10US (cash!) to help finance your foray
> into manufacturing digital cameras. After all, the work's been done,
> and now you can manufacture them at a far lower selling price than
> others can. We'll be rich!
>
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 2:47:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Reply is embedded

Dave Martindale wrote:

>measekite@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
>
>>With much of the mechanical parts going unneeded the cost to
>>manufacture should not be that great. I think that the profit on these
>>camera must be exceptional.
>>
>>
>
>Just which of the mechanical parts of a film SLR are not needed in a
>DSLR? Sure, you don't need the film takeup spool and film winding
>mechanism, but that's pretty simple mechanics. You still need the
>shutter and reflex mirror and the high-precision body holding everything
>together with accurate spacings. Most of the expensive stuff is still
>present. And then you have to add the CCD, LCD, processing electronics,
>and card interface that are not present on the film SLR. You provide
>essentially nothing to support your argument that DSLRs cost little more
>to make.
>
>
>
The shutter is built diffently.

>>Camera like the Canon Digital Rebel should be about $100 more than its
>>film counterpart. And the 20D should not be more than $200 greater than
>>the DR. The Nikon D70 should sell for no more than $150 more than the N80.
>>
>>
>
>You just pulled these numbers out of the air, right? How much does it
>cost to manufacture a single working large CCD or CMOS sensor, to
>mention just one cost of the DSLR?
>
>
I am talking about mfg cost and not engineering. Look at the price of
other electronics that use similar stuff.

>
>
>>When looking at the point and shoots the difference between a 5MP full
>>featured digital should be no more than $75 more than a 35mm with the
>>same features. I do expect that to happen.
>>
>>
>
>P&S digitals use small sensors that cost a tiny fraction of the cost for
>the large DSLR sensors. They're also sold in large quantities so the
>R&D cost is spread over many times as many units. So your argument is
>more reasonable here.
>
>

They were not sold in any large quantities when the $200 PS was selling
for $2,000. The relative difference in price between PS film and
digital is closer to the difference in costs than dSLR and SLR.

>
>
>>I know there is less demand for DSLR cameras but the demand should be
>>about the same for them as SLRs. If sales of DSLR camera ever approach
>>those of the SLR than the prices have to substantially drop.
>>
>>
>
>You also have to consider how long a model is sold to determine how many
>units the R&D costs have to cover. Digital SLRs have a lifetime of only
>a few years, film ones last longer (just because the market isn't
>changing as fast).
>
>
>
They cannot sell enough because they are obsoleting models by no putting
all of the ready features that they can in one shot but splitting up the
technology into models. It is like the software industry that has
incremental updates with a few features frequently. Thats what
Microsoft was doing until big business said no. Now you have major
update every couple of years or longer.

> Dave
>
>
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 5:46:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite@yahoo.com writes:

>>Just which of the mechanical parts of a film SLR are not needed in a
>>DSLR?

>The shutter is built diffently.

In what way? DSLRs use conventional mechanical shutters, just like film
SLRs.

>>You just pulled these numbers out of the air, right? How much does it
>>cost to manufacture a single working large CCD or CMOS sensor, to
>>mention just one cost of the DSLR?

>I am talking about mfg cost and not engineering. Look at the price of
>other electronics that use similar stuff.

I'll bet that you don't have a single piece of electronics in your
house that uses any silicon IC that's anywhere close to the size of a
DSLR's sensor. You don't have any "similar stuff" to compare to. The
fastest PC processors are miniscule in comparison. And manufacturing
(not engineering) cost of sensors goes up as some power function of
chip area, not linearly.

To see why this is true, imagine that you're building both P&S digicam
sensors and DSLR sensors with the same technology in the same fab
facility. The DSLR sensors are 5 times the dimensions, or 25 times the
area, of the P&S sensors, so in a perfect world with no waste the DSLR
sensors would cost only 25 times as much. But, in fact, you can't get
even 1/25 as many on a wafer because the wafers are round and the larger
sensors leave more wasted space at the edges.

But the real difference is in how defects affect yield. Suppose as an
example, you can fit 20 DSLR sensors on one wafer, or 500 P&S sensors.
Now suppose there are 10 defects scattered across the surface of the
wafer. On the P&S sensor wafer, you'll lose 9 or 10 out of your 500
sensors, giving a 98% yield and effectively raising the cost of the
working chips by 2%. On the DSLR sensor wafer, the defects will ruin 9
or 10 of the 20 sensors, giving a 50% yield and doubling the cost of
the remaining sensors. So, with only 10 defects per wafer, the DSLR
sensors cost 50 times as much as the P&S sensors. At 15 defects per
wafer, you only get 5 good DSLR sensors on average, and the DSLR
sensors cost 100 times as much as the P&S sensors. That's why large
sensors are expensive compared to small ones.

Also, most of the other electronic components in cameras ( memory, A/D
conversion, CPU) are used in other large-volume consumer products.
Even digital camera specfic image processing stuff (e.g. Canon's DIGIC
chip) is shared between the P&S cameras and the DSLRs, and benefits from
the camera volumes. But the large CCD and CMOS sensors are *only* used
in expensive cameras, which keeps the volumes much lower.

Dave
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 5:50:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scharf-DCA" <scharf@hotmail.com> writes:

>Sigma's Canon mount lenses often have issues with compatibility, and I
>expect that other camera's with a Canon mount would have the same sorts
>of issues. Remember, just because a company has a license to
>manufacture something, doesn't mean that they get all the details on
>how to do it.

From what others have written, apparently Canon *does* supply all the
data necessary to build compatible Canon-mount lenses, if you license
the mount from them. Tamron and Tokina manage to do this. The
difference with Sigma is that they're too cheap to license the mount
from Canon, they reverse-engineer it and get it working with
currently-sold Canon models, but botch some of the details so that
current Sigma lenses don't work with future Canon cameras. This seems
like a problem with Sigma specifically, not licensed lens mounts in
general.

Dave
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 6:24:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Intel used these same arguments until AMD came along.

Dave Martindale wrote:

>measekite@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
>
>>>Just which of the mechanical parts of a film SLR are not needed in a
>>>DSLR?
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>The shutter is built diffently.
>>
>>
>
>In what way? DSLRs use conventional mechanical shutters, just like film
>SLRs.
>
>
>
>>>You just pulled these numbers out of the air, right? How much does it
>>>cost to manufacture a single working large CCD or CMOS sensor, to
>>>mention just one cost of the DSLR?
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>I am talking about mfg cost and not engineering. Look at the price of
>>other electronics that use similar stuff.
>>
>>
>
>I'll bet that you don't have a single piece of electronics in your
>house that uses any silicon IC that's anywhere close to the size of a
>DSLR's sensor. You don't have any "similar stuff" to compare to. The
>fastest PC processors are miniscule in comparison. And manufacturing
>(not engineering) cost of sensors goes up as some power function of
>chip area, not linearly.
>
>To see why this is true, imagine that you're building both P&S digicam
>sensors and DSLR sensors with the same technology in the same fab
>facility. The DSLR sensors are 5 times the dimensions, or 25 times the
>area, of the P&S sensors, so in a perfect world with no waste the DSLR
>sensors would cost only 25 times as much. But, in fact, you can't get
>even 1/25 as many on a wafer because the wafers are round and the larger
>sensors leave more wasted space at the edges.
>
>But the real difference is in how defects affect yield. Suppose as an
>example, you can fit 20 DSLR sensors on one wafer, or 500 P&S sensors.
>Now suppose there are 10 defects scattered across the surface of the
>wafer. On the P&S sensor wafer, you'll lose 9 or 10 out of your 500
>sensors, giving a 98% yield and effectively raising the cost of the
>working chips by 2%. On the DSLR sensor wafer, the defects will ruin 9
>or 10 of the 20 sensors, giving a 50% yield and doubling the cost of
>the remaining sensors. So, with only 10 defects per wafer, the DSLR
>sensors cost 50 times as much as the P&S sensors. At 15 defects per
>wafer, you only get 5 good DSLR sensors on average, and the DSLR
>sensors cost 100 times as much as the P&S sensors. That's why large
>sensors are expensive compared to small ones.
>
>Also, most of the other electronic components in cameras ( memory, A/D
>conversion, CPU) are used in other large-volume consumer products.
>Even digital camera specfic image processing stuff (e.g. Canon's DIGIC
>chip) is shared between the P&S cameras and the DSLRs, and benefits from
>the camera volumes. But the large CCD and CMOS sensors are *only* used
>in expensive cameras, which keeps the volumes much lower.
>
> Dave
>
>
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 6:24:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e0XMd.1912$aW6.340@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> Intel used these same arguments until AMD came along.
>

Intel didn't have competition until AMD came along, the digital camera
manufacturers have had competition since day one. Or doesn't Nikon, Canon,
Minolta, Olympus, Pentax, Kodak, Fuji and Sigma ring a bell?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 6:25:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e0XMd.1912$aW6.340@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
>>Intel used these same arguments until AMD came along.
>>

AMD never tried to replace the entire Intel system. Peripherals and
most expansion devices work the same on AMD systems. They offered a
small part of the system which can fill Intel's hole.

I have an AMD system. If I wanted an Intel one, I'd need only a new
motherboard and processor (and heatsink). All my other parts will work
fine. Only about one third of the value of my system is tied to the AMD
vs. Intel choice.

The camera makers are selling entire systems, not just bodies and lenses
which can be freely mixed and matched. It creates a lovely barrier to
entry situation and keeps prices higher.

Given a nice dRebel outfit (or even an old AE-1 film set) with a fair
range of accessories and lenses, if I'm considering a *ist [how is that
said?], a SD10, or an E1, I'd be taking a hit probably far larger than
any savings I can be promised on the body. That's what makes it a very
hard sell.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 6:33:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Are you saying that Tokina and Tamron lenses are better (for Nikon and
Canon) than Sigma. That used to be the case many years ago with Tokina
being somewhat better than Tamron.

Dave Martindale wrote:

>"Scharf-DCA" <scharf@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>
>>Sigma's Canon mount lenses often have issues with compatibility, and I
>>expect that other camera's with a Canon mount would have the same sorts
>>of issues. Remember, just because a company has a license to
>>manufacture something, doesn't mean that they get all the details on
>>how to do it.
>>
>>
>
>From what others have written, apparently Canon *does* supply all the
>data necessary to build compatible Canon-mount lenses, if you license
>the mount from them. Tamron and Tokina manage to do this. The
>difference with Sigma is that they're too cheap to license the mount
>from Canon, they reverse-engineer it and get it working with
>currently-sold Canon models, but botch some of the details so that
>current Sigma lenses don't work with future Canon cameras. This seems
>like a problem with Sigma specifically, not licensed lens mounts in
>general.
>
> Dave
>
>
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 6:33:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Not necessarily better, just more reliable, since the mounts are licensed
from Canon, you know they'll work on subsequent cameras, with Sigma, there's
no such assurance.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:T7XMd.889$ZZ.774@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> Are you saying that Tokina and Tamron lenses are better (for Nikon and
> Canon) than Sigma. That used to be the case many years ago with Tokina
> being somewhat better than Tamron.
>
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 9:50:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jack Zeal" <hakfoo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:36j650F50qbmfU1@individual.net...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:e0XMd.1912$aW6.340@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>>>Intel used these same arguments until AMD came along.
>>>
>
> AMD never tried to replace the entire Intel system. Peripherals and most
> expansion devices work the same on AMD systems. They offered a small part
> of the system which can fill Intel's hole.
>
> I have an AMD system. If I wanted an Intel one, I'd need only a new
> motherboard and processor (and heatsink). All my other parts will work
> fine. Only about one third of the value of my system is tied to the AMD
> vs. Intel choice.
>
> The camera makers are selling entire systems, not just bodies and lenses
> which can be freely mixed and matched. It creates a lovely barrier to
> entry situation and keeps prices higher.
>
> Given a nice dRebel outfit (or even an old AE-1 film set) with a fair
> range of accessories and lenses, if I'm considering a *ist [how is that
> said?], a SD10, or an E1, I'd be taking a hit probably far larger than any
> savings I can be promised on the body. That's what makes it a very hard
> sell.

You misattributed the quote, there. Measekite is the one who contends that,
"Intel used these same arguments until AMD came along."
It's pronounced "Starist."

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 12:45:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 23:01:05 +0100, HvdV <nohanz@svi.nl> wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>
>Bill, you can be cynical, but the OP has a point: the digital camera market
>might evolve in the same fashion as the PC computer market with
>characteristics like winner takes all, 'good enough' eclipses anything over
>time. Maybe lens quality issues break the parallel as larger higher MP CCDs
>require harder to make lenses. OTOH, a 25MP camera with a lousy lens probably
>will sell better than a 8MP camera with a top lens.

Yeah, I'm a cynic by nature. :-/

I seriously doubt that digital cameras will follow the route of VCRs;
there's been no such shake-out in the film camera market, and the
digital camera market is (IMO) only an extension of that market; the
different brands will continue pretty much as they have. Competition
is very strong, and there *have* been casualties (Kodak, for example).
But that's the nature of the competition beast.
In this case (cameras, or even digital cameras in particular) there
doesn't seem to be the same problem VCRs had. With Beta vs VHS, there
were two standards fighting for the same market; with camerass, the
standards have been long set, the competition is among brands. Note
how many VHS VCR brands there are (and there, the different brands
have far less to distinguish themselves that camera brands do; they
all play the same VHS tapes, using the same commands, all plugging
into the same wall sockets and RCA/cable inputs, and all outputting
the same thing. Where's the distinguishing differences?).
With digitasl cameras, the user has far more to actually do; the
interface will differ from one brand (and model) to another. Different
models within a brand appeal to different people because they
specialize; some do wide angle better than others, some do video, some
record sound with video, some let you attach a sound clip to the pics,
and on and on. VCRs do not have such differentiating characteristics,
yet the different brand numbers are staggering. I just don't see the
correlation.

Anyway, I'm struck by the number of people who claim that things don't
need to cost as much as they do, and berate an industry for being so
greedy. Especially when they have so little actuial experience on the
other side of the counter.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 12:51:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 23:50:40 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Get me the patents. ;-)

You get the patents. You don't ask the funding partner to do the work
you've already said is so easy.

Seriously, I say such thinks fairly frequently. To me, saying ghtta
things should be cheaper is real easy; what's hard is actually doing
it.
Having run my own business, and several other as manager, I have a
fairly good idea of what it takes to get a balance between costs and
charges. If either is too high, the business fails. If either is too
low, the business fails. Competition with other business
owners/managers ensures this. (Obviously, there are the occasional
exceptions. But they usually involve new technology/models, which the
others soon adopt, putting everyone on an equal footing again.)

Build a better mousetrap? Sure, it can be done. Corner the market with
it? Sure, it can be done. But it's instructive to learn *why* it
hasn't been done very often.

>
>Big Bill wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:23:56 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Digital camera pricing in general is following the lead of the computer
>>>manufacturers. It is not so much that camera prices are going way down
>>>rapidly but you are getting more for your money. Compared to the very
>>>early days there were huge price drops until so called affordable
>>>pricing levels were established. Once established, the rapid increase
>>>in technology equates to getting more camera in each price class with
>>>the oldest technology fading from the marketplace.
>>>
>>>
>>...
>>
>>Wow! You've got this all figured out.
>>I will presume you actually have many years of experience in
>>manufacturing, and specific information concerning digital vs film
>>camera manufacturing.
>>Tell you what: I'll put up $10US (cash!) to help finance your foray
>>into manufacturing digital cameras. After all, the work's been done,
>>and now you can manufacture them at a far lower selling price than
>>others can. We'll be rich!
>>
>>
>>

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 7:47:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
> "Scharf-DCA" <scharf@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Sigma's Canon mount lenses often have issues with compatibility, and I
>>expect that other camera's with a Canon mount would have the same sorts
>>of issues. Remember, just because a company has a license to
>>manufacture something, doesn't mean that they get all the details on
>>how to do it.
>
>
> From what others have written, apparently Canon *does* supply all the
> data necessary to build compatible Canon-mount lenses, if you license
> the mount from them. Tamron and Tokina manage to do this. The
> difference with Sigma is that they're too cheap to license the mount
> from Canon, they reverse-engineer it and get it working with
> currently-sold Canon models, but botch some of the details so that
> current Sigma lenses don't work with future Canon cameras. This seems
> like a problem with Sigma specifically, not licensed lens mounts in
> general.

Thanks for explaining that. But if Sigma doesn't license the mount,
aren't they violating Canon's patent? The patent on the EOS mount hasn't
yet expired has it?
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 7:47:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:47:56 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

>Thanks for explaining that. But if Sigma doesn't license the mount,
>aren't they violating Canon's patent? The patent on the EOS mount hasn't
>yet expired has it?

Patents are very exact (or, are supposed to be).
Take for example, a patent for a clock face; let's say the patent
describes a particular model for a clock face that includes trhe
typeface for the numerals, an exact diameter of the face, the exact
stuyle of the hands (just to name a few of the variables). They must
be exact; the patent can't just say "round clockface"; it must specify
a diameter.
Now, the patent is accepted.
I come along, and use the *exact* clockface as described in the
patent, but I change the hour hand length by 1/4". Or I change the
numeral typeface marginally. Or change the diameter a little.
Have I violated the patent? Legally, no (giving a nod to the vagaries
of courts).
Sigma has reverse-engineered the Canon mount and associated
software/firmware and application of same. They have also made sure
their design varies enough from Canon's patents to not be a violation,
and retain functionality.
The problem is, because reverse engineering only goes so far (unknown
functions can't be reliably duplicated if their end application isn't
known), it's not the same as Canon's applications. It can work with
current lenses, but as lenses are updated/upgraded, or newly designed,
the reverse engineered system may not work.
Sigma offers to re-chip their lenses, but with a caveat: sometimes it
can't be done, because Sigma got it wrong, and a new chip won't work
with the way the Sigma hardware is designed (remember, they need to
make it different enough to not violate Canon's patents).
So, while a current Sigma lens will probably work with current Canon
cameras, there's no quarantee this functionality will carry over to
newer cameras.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 7:49:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 09:45:05 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 23:01:05 +0100, HvdV <nohanz@svi.nl> wrote:
>
>>Big Bill wrote:
>>
>>Bill, you can be cynical, but the OP has a point: the digital camera market
>>might evolve in the same fashion as the PC computer market with
>>characteristics like winner takes all, 'good enough' eclipses anything over
>>time. Maybe lens quality issues break the parallel as larger higher MP CCDs
>>require harder to make lenses. OTOH, a 25MP camera with a lousy lens probably
>>will sell better than a 8MP camera with a top lens.
>
>Yeah, I'm a cynic by nature. :-/
>
>I seriously doubt that digital cameras will follow the route of VCRs;
>there's been no such shake-out in the film camera market, and the
>digital camera market is (IMO) only an extension of that market; the
>different brands will continue pretty much as they have. Competition
>is very strong, and there *have* been casualties (Kodak, for example).
>But that's the nature of the competition beast.
> In this case (cameras, or even digital cameras in particular) there
>doesn't seem to be the same problem VCRs had. With Beta vs VHS, there
>were two standards fighting for the same market; with camerass, the
>standards have been long set, the competition is among brands. Note
>how many VHS VCR brands there are (and there, the different brands
>have far less to distinguish themselves that camera brands do; they
>all play the same VHS tapes, using the same commands, all plugging
>into the same wall sockets and RCA/cable inputs, and all outputting
>the same thing. Where's the distinguishing differences?).
>With digitasl cameras, the user has far more to actually do; the
>interface will differ from one brand (and model) to another. Different
>models within a brand appeal to different people because they
>specialize; some do wide angle better than others, some do video, some
>record sound with video, some let you attach a sound clip to the pics,
>and on and on. VCRs do not have such differentiating characteristics,
>yet the different brand numbers are staggering. I just don't see the
>correlation.

and VHS is an end of life technology, now. In 5 years it's be in the
dust bin with vinyl records.


*******************************************************

"Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural,
fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right (within the limits of the Non-Aggression
Principle) to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any
weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun, anything
-- anytime, anywhere, without asking anyone's permission."

The Atlanta Declaration
-- L. Neil Smith
http://www.lneilsmith.com/
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 8:17:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:cu09os$205$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> measekite@yahoo.com writes:
>
<snip>

> You just pulled these numbers out of the air, right? How much does it
> cost to manufacture a single working large CCD or CMOS sensor, to
> mention just one cost of the DSLR?
>
<snip>

> P&S digitals use small sensors that cost a tiny fraction of the cost for
> the large DSLR sensors. They're also sold in large quantities so the
> R&D cost is spread over many times as many units. So your argument is
> more reasonable here.

<snip>
>
> Dave

I agree, every doubling of chip size will increase cost by a factor of more
than 10 for almost any chip design.

I still live in hope of a full frame affordable 1Ds mk 2, but not a lot of
hope. (needs to be a bit lighter though)
February 5, 2005 9:09:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:


>
> When looking at the point and shoots the difference between a 5MP full
> featured digital should be no more than $75 more than a 35mm with the
> same features.

Yep, they should lose money on the sensor, give away the R&D required for
firmware etc and then also give away the software/cables and so on so YOU
get to save money. Obviously you work for someone else and have never had
to figure out how to make a profit.
--

Stacey
February 5, 2005 9:12:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scharf-DCA wrote:


>
> Once there is some competition in low-noise CMOS sensors then maybe
> someone will have a go at it.

You and most other canonites assume low noise at high ISO is the ONLY thing
anyone is interested in. I'm willing to accept some noise (which can be
fixed in PP) for a wider dynamic range (which can't be fixed in PP).

Notice how your canon has the dynamic range of slide film even in RAW mode?
Not all dSLR's are like that...

--

Stacey
February 5, 2005 9:15:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

HvdV wrote:

> OTOH, a 25MP camera with a lousy
> lens probably will sell better than a 8MP camera with a top lens.
>

Of course it would. People NEVER look at the actuall results from the
diffeerent camares themselves but either read an line review or look at the
technical specs. No one ever asks how the pictures look from my camera, all
they want to know is "How many MP is it?"

--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 9:29:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill wrote:

> Sigma has reverse-engineered the Canon mount and associated
> software/firmware and application of same. They have also made sure
> their design varies enough from Canon's patents to not be a violation,
> and retain functionality.

Look at HP ink cartridges. HP has been successful in stopping the
distribution of reverse-engineered cartridges, at least in the U.S.. HP
changes cartridge designs frequently, so that by the time a patent
expires it no longer matters if someone reverse engineers it. You can
buy these reverse-engineered cartridges in Asia, but not in the U.S..

The design may vary, but the only purpose of the product is to use it in
a printer with a specific mechanical and electrical interface.

When I bought my Canon film camera, I bought the European version EOS-5,
because the A2E had been decontented because certain features of the
EOS-5 violated U.S. patents of other camera makers (as trivial as
auto-pop-up of flash in green mode).
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 10:34:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> measekite wrote:
>
>
>
>>When looking at the point and shoots the difference between a 5MP full
>>featured digital should be no more than $75 more than a 35mm with the
>>same features.
>
>
> Yep, they should lose money on the sensor, give away the R&D required for
> firmware etc and then also give away the software/cables and so on so YOU
> get to save money. Obviously you work for someone else and have never had
> to figure out how to make a profit.

People don't seem to realize that the price of film cameras is low
because the manufacturers also make film, on which they make a much
higher profit margin. It's called the Gillette Marketing System.
Give away the razor, sell the blades, forever.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 10:59:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 18:15:27 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>HvdV wrote:
>
>> OTOH, a 25MP camera with a lousy
>> lens probably will sell better than a 8MP camera with a top lens.
>>
>
> Of course it would. People NEVER look at the actuall results from the
>diffeerent camares themselves but either read an line review or look at the
>technical specs. No one ever asks how the pictures look from my camera, all
>they want to know is "How many MP is it?"


There are lots of full-resolution E300 captures
available for viewing and download on the web.
Offhand, I don't see where the E300 images are
all remarkable compared to images from similar
DSLRs.

You're very prone to generalizing, Stacey.
Some of us choose our gear just as carefully
as you do. Believe it or not.

It also strikes me as odd that you skipped
right over the logical middle ground of
film scanning. That's a reference point
that some of us have that you lack.

I'll pit my scanned MF film against your
E300 captures any time... just say the word.
Heck, for fun, maybe even scanned 35 mm,
as long as I get to run it through NeatImage.
Waddya say?


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 12:11:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:SyeNd.28734$sM6.7828@fe06.lga...
> Stacey wrote:
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>
> People don't seem to realize that the price of film cameras is low because
> the manufacturers also make film, on which they make a much higher profit
> margin. It's called the Gillette Marketing System.
> Give away the razor, sell the blades, forever.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax don't make film. I'd agree with you if we
were talking about ink jet printers.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 2:57:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Scharf-DCA wrote:
>
>
>
>>Once there is some competition in low-noise CMOS sensors then maybe
>>someone will have a go at it.

> You and most other canonites assume low noise at high ISO is the ONLY thing
> anyone is interested in. I'm willing to accept some noise (which can be
> fixed in PP) for a wider dynamic range (which can't be fixed in PP).

It isn't the only thing, but it IS quite important. You can't really fix
the noise in post processing. In any case, the Nikon CCD sensor in the
D70 is pretty good in terms of noise, but it'll be difficult to scale to
more megapixels.

On the other hand, just being CMOS doesn't guarantee anything in terms
of noise. The Fill Factory 14Mp sensor is CMOS, and it's not great, and
the Foveon 3.4Mp sensor is CMOS, and it's very poor, though much of this
is attributable to the silicon color separation (which is too bad
because it has good dynamic range).

>Notice how your canon has the dynamic range of slide film even in RAW
>mode? Not all dSLR's are like that...

The 8 Mpixel Canon CMOS sensor in the 20D has excellent dynamic range.
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 3:19:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> Of course it would. People NEVER look at the actuall results from the
> diffeerent camares themselves but either read an line review or look at the
> technical specs. No one ever asks how the pictures look from my camera, all
> they want to know is "How many MP is it?"

Nearly every review I've read, warns about not getting carried away in
terms of megapixels, especially on point at shoots. They often even
state that such and such a manufacturer is in a "megapixel war." If
anything, the reviews have become more and more centered on picture
quality, and less on megapixels, since at least for SLRs, all the recent
models are 6-8 megapixels anyway (except for the relatively ancient
Sigma SD9 and SD10, which are 3.4 megapixels).

Now the marketing and advertising is a different story. There are many
poor cameras with high megapixel sensors being foisted on people that
don't know any better. And of course we also have companies that play
fast and loose with the actual definition of a pixel.

Every review I've read includes sample shots, and the final conclusion
of the review is based heavily on the results. The reviews also focus on
issues such as noise, CA, and build quality. When you read the "cons" in
the conclusions, you understand this. If there were nothing better than
these cameras, then it'd be a different story, but that's not the case.

When looking for an SLR, really any of the models that were "Highly
Recommended" in dpreview.com, are just fine, it's a good starting point
in the decision making process since it eliminates the poor cameras. In
order to get only a "Recommmended" score, something has to be seriously
wrong, such as color inaccuracies, low light performance, and build
quality. For example, the Olympus E-300, the Kodak DCS Pro, and the
Sigma SD9/SD10, were the only D-SLRs with serious enough issues to not
be "Highly Recommended."

Steve
http://digitalcamerashortlist.com
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 3:55:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What may happen is the the camera mfg may relegate themselves to just
making and assembling camera. And their may be one or two companies
like AMD or Intel that makes all of the chips and electronics and serves
the entire industry. Then your argument will not stand.

Jack Zeal wrote:

> Skip M wrote:
>
>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:e0XMd.1912$aW6.340@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>>> Intel used these same arguments until AMD came along.
>>>
>
> AMD never tried to replace the entire Intel system. Peripherals and
> most expansion devices work the same on AMD systems. They offered a
> small part of the system which can fill Intel's hole.
>
> I have an AMD system. If I wanted an Intel one, I'd need only a new
> motherboard and processor (and heatsink). All my other parts will
> work fine. Only about one third of the value of my system is tied to
> the AMD vs. Intel choice.
>
> The camera makers are selling entire systems, not just bodies and
> lenses which can be freely mixed and matched. It creates a lovely
> barrier to entry situation and keeps prices higher.
>
> Given a nice dRebel outfit (or even an old AE-1 film set) with a fair
> range of accessories and lenses, if I'm considering a *ist [how is
> that said?], a SD10, or an E1, I'd be taking a hit probably far larger
> than any savings I can be promised on the body. That's what makes it
> a very hard sell.
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 3:55:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

That's a might big if, bud. True, the majority of the sensors are made by
Sony, but then there's Kodak, Panasonic and Canon who probably are reluctant
to let their chip business go to others, when they already do it themselves.
And too much of the other ancillary electronics are proprietary (KM's
AntiShake, Canon and Nikon's flash metering, etc) unlike then mix 'n' match
computer industry. It's a whole different world.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gWdNd.2074$aW6.1612@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> What may happen is the the camera mfg may relegate themselves to just
> making and assembling camera. And their may be one or two companies like
> AMD or Intel that makes all of the chips and electronics and serves the
> entire industry. Then your argument will not stand.
>
> Jack Zeal wrote:
>
>> Skip M wrote:
>>
>>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:e0XMd.1912$aW6.340@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>>
>>>> Intel used these same arguments until AMD came along.
>>>>
>>
>> AMD never tried to replace the entire Intel system. Peripherals and most
>> expansion devices work the same on AMD systems. They offered a small
>> part of the system which can fill Intel's hole.
>>
>> I have an AMD system. If I wanted an Intel one, I'd need only a new
>> motherboard and processor (and heatsink). All my other parts will work
>> fine. Only about one third of the value of my system is tied to the AMD
>> vs. Intel choice.
>>
>> The camera makers are selling entire systems, not just bodies and lenses
>> which can be freely mixed and matched. It creates a lovely barrier to
>> entry situation and keeps prices higher.
>>
>> Given a nice dRebel outfit (or even an old AE-1 film set) with a fair
>> range of accessories and lenses, if I'm considering a *ist [how is that
>> said?], a SD10, or an E1, I'd be taking a hit probably far larger than
>> any savings I can be promised on the body. That's what makes it a very
>> hard sell.
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 4:03:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yup. Look at the digital camera problems. The same as the PC
industry. In the days of the film camera you did not have to put up
with bug fixes. But with the Camera firmware look at the bug fixes.
Part of the reason is poor testing.

Stacey wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>When looking at the point and shoots the difference between a 5MP full
>>featured digital should be no more than $75 more than a 35mm with the
>>same features.
>>
>>
>
>Yep, they should lose money on the sensor, give away the R&D required for
>firmware etc and then also give away the software/cables and so on so YOU
>get to save money. Obviously you work for someone else and have never had
>to figure out how to make a profit.
>
>
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 4:03:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 01:03:58 GMT, measekite <measekite@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Yup. Look at the digital camera problems. The same as the PC
>industry. In the days of the film camera you did not have to put up
>with bug fixes. But with the Camera firmware look at the bug fixes.
>Part of the reason is poor testing.


There's just no comparison between these
two technologies as far as testing is
concerned. Easy to bitch about testing.
Much harder to write good code, especially
with market windows measured in months.

(IIRC, the Nikon FE was in production for
at least 3-5 years.)

If a line of C code is considered a "part"
in the same sense as, say, a screw, or a
washer, or a carbon resistor -- then
most digicams probably have between
100,000 and 500,000 such "parts." And
that's just the firmware; I'm not counting
the TWAIN drivers or any host-side apps.

Most of the firmware updates will be for
fixes of bugs you never even knew about.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 4:49:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:SyeNd.28734$sM6.7828@fe06.lga...
>
>>Stacey wrote:
>>
>>>measekite wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>People don't seem to realize that the price of film cameras is low because
>>the manufacturers also make film, on which they make a much higher profit
>>margin. It's called the Gillette Marketing System.
>>Give away the razor, sell the blades, forever.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
>
> Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax don't make film. I'd agree with you if we
> were talking about ink jet printers.
>

Still, the continuous sale of film had subsidized the price of cameras.
Ever notice how much cheaper it is to fly to Las Vegas than Denver?
Yet I don't know of a single casino, or hotel, that owns an airline.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 5:05:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:

> People don't seem to realize that the price of film cameras is low
> because the manufacturers also make film, on which they make a much
> higher profit margin.

Uh, maybe they don't realize it because it isn't true.
Only Fuji, Kodak, and Konica make film and cameras.
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 5:05:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> People don't seem to realize that the price of film cameras is low
>> because the manufacturers also make film, on which they make a much
>> higher profit margin.
>
>
> Uh, maybe they don't realize it because it isn't true.
> Only Fuji, Kodak, and Konica make film and cameras.
>

And the other companies buy film from them, and remarket it right? The
point is that someone in the industry is getting the benefit of film,
accessories, and such. In the digital realm, no film, just accessories.
Also, R&D costs for digital far exceed what has been spent on film
cameras in the past.

Prices ARE coming down, and will continue to fall, just as they have on
computers, while features improve.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 7:37:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:

>> Uh, maybe they don't realize it because it isn't true.
>> Only Fuji, Kodak, and Konica make film and cameras.
>>
>
> And the other companies buy film from them, and remarket it right?

No.

I have never seen any Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta, or Pentax film, in
the U.S. or in Asia.

I've seen some relabeled films made by Konica, Agfa and 3M, but these
are store branded films (Walgreens, Costco, etc.) and are not all that
popular.

It is not the case that Canon or Nikon benefit from film sales. Kodak
used to benefit in a big way, when they made their own low end cameras
with Disc, 126, and 110.
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 8:12:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Lester Wareham <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote:

>"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>news:cu09os$205$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
>> measekite@yahoo.com writes:
>>
><snip>

>> You just pulled these numbers out of the air, right? How much does it
>> cost to manufacture a single working large CCD or CMOS sensor, to
>> mention just one cost of the DSLR?
>>
><snip>

>> P&S digitals use small sensors that cost a tiny fraction of the cost for
>> the large DSLR sensors. They're also sold in large quantities so the
>> R&D cost is spread over many times as many units. So your argument is
>> more reasonable here.

><snip>
>>
>> Dave

>I agree, every doubling of chip size will increase cost by a factor of more
>than 10 for almost any chip design.

>I still live in hope of a full frame affordable 1Ds mk 2, but not a lot of
>hope. (needs to be a bit lighter though)

That's because you are wed to 35mm. Full frame there is 34x36mm
while for Ansel Adams it was 203x254 mm.

I'm sure you'll get your sensor before Adams followers will get
theirs.

In other words, full frame is in the mind of the beholder.

---- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 8:12:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul J Gans wrote:
> Lester Wareham <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>>news:cu09os$205$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
>>
>>>measekite@yahoo.com writes:
>>>
>>
>><snip>
>
>
>>>You just pulled these numbers out of the air, right? How much does it
>>>cost to manufacture a single working large CCD or CMOS sensor, to
>>>mention just one cost of the DSLR?
>>>
>>
>><snip>
>
>
>>>P&S digitals use small sensors that cost a tiny fraction of the cost for
>>>the large DSLR sensors. They're also sold in large quantities so the
>>>R&D cost is spread over many times as many units. So your argument is
>>>more reasonable here.
>
>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Dave
>
>
>>I agree, every doubling of chip size will increase cost by a factor of more
>>than 10 for almost any chip design.
>
>
>>I still live in hope of a full frame affordable 1Ds mk 2, but not a lot of
>>hope. (needs to be a bit lighter though)
>
>
> That's because you are wed to 35mm. Full frame there is 34x36mm
> while for Ansel Adams it was 203x254 mm.
>
> I'm sure you'll get your sensor before Adams followers will get
> theirs.
>
> In other words, full frame is in the mind of the beholder.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
>
Imagine, an 8x10 sensor! Grin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 8:12:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>> Lester Wareham <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:cu09os$205$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
>>>
>>>> measekite@yahoo.com writes:
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> You just pulled these numbers out of the air, right? How much does it
>>>> cost to manufacture a single working large CCD or CMOS sensor, to
>>>> mention just one cost of the DSLR?
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> P&S digitals use small sensors that cost a tiny fraction of the cost
>>>> for
>>>> the large DSLR sensors. They're also sold in large quantities so the
>>>> R&D cost is spread over many times as many units. So your argument is
>>>> more reasonable here.
>>
>>
>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>> I agree, every doubling of chip size will increase cost by a factor
>>> of more than 10 for almost any chip design.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I still live in hope of a full frame affordable 1Ds mk 2, but not a
>>> lot of hope. (needs to be a bit lighter though)
>>
>>
>>
>> That's because you are wed to 35mm. Full frame there is 34x36mm
>> while for Ansel Adams it was 203x254 mm.
>> I'm sure you'll get your sensor before Adams followers will get
>> theirs.
>>
>> In other words, full frame is in the mind of the beholder.
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>>
> Imagine, an 8x10 sensor! Grin.
>
>
I wonder if it's possible for some optical tricks to take the light
covering a complete 35mm (or 8x10) frame, and parcel it to dozens of
small, possibly overlapping sensors). No need for a expensive single
sensor.
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 8:23:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Scharf-DCA wrote:


>>
>> Once there is some competition in low-noise CMOS sensors then maybe
>> someone will have a go at it.

>You and most other canonites assume low noise at high ISO is the ONLY thing
>anyone is interested in. I'm willing to accept some noise (which can be
>fixed in PP) for a wider dynamic range (which can't be fixed in PP).

> Notice how your canon has the dynamic range of slide film even in RAW mode?
>Not all dSLR's are like that...

Sure. But this is an issue like "which aspect ratio do you
like". I spent 30 years taking essentially only slides. I
think that way in terms of framing, dynamic range, etc.

So guess what? I *love* my 300D.

--- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 8:26:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What may happen is the the camera mfg may relegate themselves to just
>making and assembling camera. And their may be one or two companies
>like AMD or Intel that makes all of the chips and electronics and serves
>the entire industry. Then your argument will not stand.

Let's not get too carried away with analogies. There are
more CPU manufacturers than Intel and AMD. The others
may not be mass market, but it is not because they are
lousy computers. The PowerPC comes to mind as one example.

----- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 8:26:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 05:26:12 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com>
wrote:

>measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>What may happen is the the camera mfg may relegate themselves to just
>>making and assembling camera. And their may be one or two companies
>>like AMD or Intel that makes all of the chips and electronics and serves
>>the entire industry. Then your argument will not stand.
>
>Let's not get too carried away with analogies. There are
>more CPU manufacturers than Intel and AMD. The others
>may not be mass market, but it is not because they are
>lousy computers. The PowerPC comes to mind as one example.


The industry is very weird these days.

Probably the most ubiquitous CPU these
days is the one from ARM -- in terms of
units implemented and and functioning
in real products. But mostly they're
invisible, and "lay" people don't even
know they exist.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do
with still image sensors, which need
features about 5000 times larger than
anything on a standard ASIC. (See
Roger Clark's article, "Does Pixel
Size Matter?")


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 9:25:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:M2kNd.30239$Wx4.13490@fe06.lga...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:SyeNd.28734$sM6.7828@fe06.lga...
>>
>>>Stacey wrote:
>>>
>>>>measekite wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>People don't seem to realize that the price of film cameras is low
>>>because the manufacturers also make film, on which they make a much
>>>higher profit margin. It's called the Gillette Marketing System.
>>>Give away the razor, sell the blades, forever.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>>
>>
>> Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Pentax don't make film. I'd agree with you if
>> we were talking about ink jet printers.
>>
>
> Still, the continuous sale of film had subsidized the price of cameras.
> Ever notice how much cheaper it is to fly to Las Vegas than Denver? Yet I
> don't know of a single casino, or hotel, that owns an airline.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

It's called predictable volume (notwithstanding that Vegas is closer to San
Diego than Denver is). Airlines can pretty much guarantee full or nearly
full airplanes to Vegas, but not to Denver. It has just as much to do with
casinos subsidizing air routes as camera prices do with film sales. None.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 11:34:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> writes:

> measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >What may happen is the the camera mfg may relegate themselves to just
> >making and assembling camera. And their may be one or two companies
> >like AMD or Intel that makes all of the chips and electronics and serves
> >the entire industry. Then your argument will not stand.
>
> Let's not get too carried away with analogies. There are
> more CPU manufacturers than Intel and AMD. The others
> may not be mass market, but it is not because they are
> lousy computers. The PowerPC comes to mind as one example.

And if you compare chips used in embedded devices, the whole PC market is
minuscule in terms of number of units.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
!