Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Top digicams a ripoff?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 5:10:47 AM

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

Remember how much an F4 Nikon body cost?
Remember when $1200 bought a good SLR body?
What is with the $5000+ price tags on the top
DSLRs? Do they really cost that much more to
produce than top of the line film cameras did
or is this just the industry rationalizing that
the old profit makers (accessory lenses, etc) are
not the way to go?
I remember around 1985, camera bodies in the mid-range
were dirt cheap. A Canon T70 cost about $125.00. The
camera makers were making all their money on lenses and
accessories. This didn't last long and bodies climbed in
price rapidly after 1987. An Olympus OM-1 went from $200
to over $400 due to increased costs in Japan.
But to what do we owe the mid-thousands $'s pricing on the
current top DSLRs? Is this because the market is still maturing,
or are these pro cameras now always going to top out around
that price point? Are the days of "pro" bodies that cost
$1500-$2000 long gone? With production rapidly headed to China,
why are there no price cuts? Other products have seen substantial
price drops. Walmart survives on them. Yet not for DSLRs.
Mind you, I'm not talking about the entry-level where plastic is
king.
-Rich

More about : top digicams ripoff

Anonymous
February 24, 2005 9:05:37 AM

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

RichA wrote:
> Remember how much an F4 Nikon body cost?
> Remember when $1200 bought a good SLR body?
> What is with the $5000+ price tags on the top
> DSLRs? Do they really cost that much more to
> produce than top of the line film cameras did
> or is this just the industry rationalizing that
> the old profit makers (accessory lenses, etc) are
> not the way to go?

See any competition for the Canon 1Ds Mark-II? It sits pretty lonely at
16.7MP with a full-frame sensor.

The ID Mark-II? Maybe, with the D2X. But thats still just two of them
there.

Even at the entry level, there are only Canon, Nikon, Pentax and
Minolta with one model each.

Doesn't seem like too much competition up there so no price wars and no
price cuts. Compare that to the P&S digicam market where the prices
seem to be headed southwards all the time with a dozen manufacturers
with a dozen models being put out by each.

Yes, costs of components is higher than a film equivalent given the
additional electronics that go into a high-end dSLR and the current low
volumes.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 9:44:11 AM

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

I think a bunch of things contribute to the higher costs. In a
nutshell, I think a fair number of people are willing to buy the
top-end stuff.

So why is anyone buying these things?
Contributing factors:
Digital workflow saves money and time in production environments.
Photos are more frequently used in print news media. Even the local
freebie papers now like to use decent, large front page photos. Full
page photo spreads are much more common in NewsMags than they used to
be.
The ability to see your images immediately and hold the equivalent of
hundreds of rolls of film in your bag is pretty compelling for
travellers.

How to make a digital SLR:
Take out the film drive mechanisms (Worth how many $$'s?)
Add in a nice sensor.
Develop and incorporate processing electronics and software.
Add in CF/SD interfaces and hardware.
Add in PC interface hardware.
Develop and add in user interface software. (Yeah, there is some of
this in a film camera, but it doesn't need to support zoom preview and
a bunch of other things...)
Develop PC software for the bundle.

So I until film is rare and commands a premium, I doubt we'll see a
DSLR at a lower cost than an equivalent film slr.

On the other hand, as others have mentioned, economies of scale and
some competition would really help to lower prices.


Jamie Fraser
February 24, 2005 11:56:14 AM

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

My first real camera, a Canon FTb with a 50mm f1.4 lens cost me 4 to 5 weeks
of wages in 1970. A much better all automatic with better optics and no
need for a motor drive DSLR is less than that now, even considering the
level of taxes I pay. In 1970, I could not afford or justify the price of
Canon lenses, 35 years later with poorer eyesight, I can see the difference
in my daylight lab (my computer) between a good and a bad lens and justify
the added costs.

In the same light, a Chevy Impala was less than $3000 in 1970, is it worth
10 times more these days?

I would say it's better now than it was then.

Jean

"RichA" <none@none.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:r5vq11t2gp534g61svenn7l1ll63435dof@4ax.com...
> Remember how much an F4 Nikon body cost?
> Remember when $1200 bought a good SLR body?
> What is with the $5000+ price tags on the top
> DSLRs? Do they really cost that much more to
> produce than top of the line film cameras did
> or is this just the industry rationalizing that
> the old profit makers (accessory lenses, etc) are
> not the way to go?
> I remember around 1985, camera bodies in the mid-range
> were dirt cheap. A Canon T70 cost about $125.00. The
> camera makers were making all their money on lenses and
> accessories. This didn't last long and bodies climbed in
> price rapidly after 1987. An Olympus OM-1 went from $200
> to over $400 due to increased costs in Japan.
> But to what do we owe the mid-thousands $'s pricing on the
> current top DSLRs? Is this because the market is still maturing,
> or are these pro cameras now always going to top out around
> that price point? Are the days of "pro" bodies that cost
> $1500-$2000 long gone? With production rapidly headed to China,
> why are there no price cuts? Other products have seen substantial
> price drops. Walmart survives on them. Yet not for DSLRs.
> Mind you, I'm not talking about the entry-level where plastic is
> king.
> -Rich
February 24, 2005 12:13:53 PM

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

sensor price my friend ! 8 meg sensor on the 20D is 900$. So its a lot more
for a FF sensor.
February 24, 2005 12:58:49 PM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:r5vq11t2gp534g61svenn7l1ll63435dof@4ax.com...
> Remember how much an F4 Nikon body cost?
> Remember when $1200 bought a good SLR body?
> What is with the $5000+ price tags on the top
> DSLRs? Do they really cost that much more to
> produce than top of the line film cameras did
> or is this just the industry rationalizing that
> the old profit makers (accessory lenses, etc) are
> not the way to go?
> I remember around 1985, camera bodies in the mid-range
> were dirt cheap. A Canon T70 cost about $125.00. The
> camera makers were making all their money on lenses and
> accessories. This didn't last long and bodies climbed in
> price rapidly after 1987. An Olympus OM-1 went from $200
> to over $400 due to increased costs in Japan.
> But to what do we owe the mid-thousands $'s pricing on the
> current top DSLRs? Is this because the market is still maturing,
> or are these pro cameras now always going to top out around
> that price point? Are the days of "pro" bodies that cost
> $1500-$2000 long gone? With production rapidly headed to China,
> why are there no price cuts? Other products have seen substantial
> price drops. Walmart survives on them. Yet not for DSLRs.
> Mind you, I'm not talking about the entry-level where plastic is
> king.
> -Rich

You've got to realize a few things:
1) Pro dSLRs are not sold in the kind of numbers where the R&D costs
can be amortized by adding a couple bucks per body
2) You are also funding R&D on future products
3) Pro dSLRs don't have a lot of competition (yet) and the two companies
making most of them have pretty much set the price tag...when some of the
late-comers want to buy their way into the market, everybody will lower
prices
4) The products also don't have a long production lifespan to recover
R&D and production (tooling) costs...how many two year old designs does
anyone really want?

George
February 24, 2005 1:04:09 PM

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

"Chuck" <nospammm@no__spam.com> wrote in message
news:3865g8F5h9s6fU1@individual.net...
> sensor price my friend ! 8 meg sensor on the 20D is 900$. So its a lot
more
> for a FF sensor.
>
>

How do you have a price on the sensor? Or is that a retail price if you
need a replacement?
The reason I am wondering is that Canon makes their own sensor, right? And
they don't sell
it to anyone else, so how is there a price on it? You can bet the internal
transfer price is more
on the order of $100-150.
February 24, 2005 2:08:54 PM

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

>
> How do you have a price on the sensor? Or is that a retail price if you
> need a replacement?
> The reason I am wondering is that Canon makes their own sensor, right?
And
> they don't sell
> it to anyone else, so how is there a price on it? You can bet the
internal
> transfer price is more
> on the order of $100-150.

Your kidding right ?

I dont know where I got this information, Ill try to find it later today,
but your way off for sure.
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 2:36:04 PM

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

"George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in message
news:y2mTd.4640$uY6.3476@fe02.lga...
>
> "Chuck" <nospammm@no__spam.com> wrote in message
> news:3865g8F5h9s6fU1@individual.net...
> > sensor price my friend ! 8 meg sensor on the 20D is 900$. So its a lot
> more
> > for a FF sensor.
> >
> >
>
> How do you have a price on the sensor? Or is that a retail price if you
> need a replacement?
> The reason I am wondering is that Canon makes their own sensor, right?
And
> they don't sell
> it to anyone else, so how is there a price on it? You can bet the
internal
> transfer price is more
> on the order of $100-150.

Sensor prices may be related to failure rate. As most of you know, the
reason LCD monitors are still priced a bit high is due to the failure rate.
You have to make a lot of LCD screens before you get one that has enough
"good" pixels in it to pass inspection. I would bet this is the same
problem with image sensors, especially the better ones. They probably
aren't cheap to make, and I doubt they all pass inspection.

And when you realize that someone like Nikon is not marketing a camera like
the D70 to everyone, yet its sales have been very, very good, cameras at the
upper end will continue to sell, even at high prices. Supply and demand
will always rule the market, and some people have to have whatever is new at
whatever the cost.

Look at the cost of a new Ferrari, and there is usually a waiting list.
People who have the money will spend it, be it an outrageous car, or a pro
camera to use as a point and shoot.

Sheldon

>
>
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 6:56:28 PM

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

> You've got to realize a few things:
> 1) Pro dSLRs are not sold in the kind of numbers where the R&D costs
> can be amortized by adding a couple bucks per body
> 2) You are also funding R&D on future products
> 3) Pro dSLRs don't have a lot of competition (yet) and the two companies
> making most of them have pretty much set the price tag...when some of the
> late-comers want to buy their way into the market, everybody will lower
> prices
> 4) The products also don't have a long production lifespan to recover
> R&D and production (tooling) costs...how many two year old designs does
> anyone really want?

Good points, George. As a bleeding edge consumer, I have helped pay for the
R&D on several kinds of products ... my choice (i.e., I had to have a home
computer before anyone else). As to your other post about the sensor cost
of a 20D, I'd say you are pretty close.
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 9:27:29 PM

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

RichA <none@none.com> writes:

> Remember how much an F4 Nikon body cost?
> Remember when $1200 bought a good SLR body?
> What is with the $5000+ price tags on the top
> DSLRs? Do they really cost that much more to
> produce than top of the line film cameras did
> or is this just the industry rationalizing that
> the old profit makers (accessory lenses, etc) are
> not the way to go?
> I remember around 1985, camera bodies in the mid-range
> were dirt cheap. A Canon T70 cost about $125.00. The
> camera makers were making all their money on lenses and
> accessories. This didn't last long and bodies climbed in
> price rapidly after 1987. An Olympus OM-1 went from $200
> to over $400 due to increased costs in Japan.
> But to what do we owe the mid-thousands $'s pricing on the
> current top DSLRs? Is this because the market is still maturing,
> or are these pro cameras now always going to top out around
> that price point? Are the days of "pro" bodies that cost
> $1500-$2000 long gone? With production rapidly headed to China,
> why are there no price cuts? Other products have seen substantial
> price drops. Walmart survives on them. Yet not for DSLRs.
> Mind you, I'm not talking about the entry-level where plastic is
> king.

Well, the Nikon F5 I remember as being a $2800 body. And then of
course there are the Leica products, but perhaps we should leave them
out of this.

The sensors in the pro-grade cameras are *expensive*. The yields on
chips that big are scarily low. And the number of those cameras sold
isn't that high, which keeps the prices up. I imagine there are a
number of custom chips besides the sensor, too, to get the performance
they need. And a lot of software development being amortized over not
that many sales.

It's probably also relevant that, *today*, a digital camera model has
a very short life-span compared to film bodies in the past.

From the buyers point of view, a camera with a lifetime supply of film
and processing included that's only $2000 more expensive can be a hell
of a bargain. The high-end cameras are mostly being bought by people
who shoot quite bit, and for most amateur and all professional work
these days it has to be scanned before it's used for anything, so
that's yet another cost saved by shooting digitally. I figure very
roughly it costs me $20/roll to shoot film, so $2000 is 100 rolls of
film, which is about a year. That's a pretty fast payoff.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 10:15:59 PM

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

> But to what do we owe the mid-thousands $'s pricing on the
> current top DSLRs? Is this because the market is still maturing,
> or are these pro cameras now always going to top out around
> that price point?

Here's what is nearly always missed when talking about camera prices:

Businesses exist to make a profit.

Really. That's it, pure and simple. It's plain economics, the companies
set their price points to where they can maximize profits. There are
various product characteristics that tend to put that price point higher or
lower for different types of items, but in the end, the company is going to
charge what they feel will make them the most money.

I have absolutely no doubt that Canon could slash the price of a 1Ds Mk II
by at least a thousand bucks and still be clearing a profit, but
realistically, they won't sell a sufficiently greater quantity at $7,000
than at $8,000 to make as much profit as they do at the $8,000 price point.

It can also be argued that making profit is *good* for consumers, because
the higher the profit, the more desirable it is for other companies to enter
the market and compete - and competition is *always* good for the consumer,
as it tends to drive prices lower, and spur innovation.

On a related note, I'm terribly excited about the 350D - not just because
I'm going to buy one and think it's a great value, but because I think it's
raised the bar enough to give the other companies something to worry about.
I think it's the kind of "bump up" that is going to have a very real effect
on product design and pricing throughout the entire low- and mid-range
market over the next couple of years.

steve
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 11:56:11 PM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:r5vq11t2gp534g61svenn7l1ll63435dof@4ax.com...
> Remember how much an F4 Nikon body cost?
> Remember when $1200 bought a good SLR body?
> What is with the $5000+ price tags on the top
> DSLRs? Do they really cost that much more to
> produce than top of the line film cameras did
> or is this just the industry rationalizing that
> the old profit makers (accessory lenses, etc) are
> not the way to go?
> I remember around 1985, camera bodies in the mid-range
> were dirt cheap. A Canon T70 cost about $125.00. The
> camera makers were making all their money on lenses and
> accessories. This didn't last long and bodies climbed in
> price rapidly after 1987. An Olympus OM-1 went from $200
> to over $400 due to increased costs in Japan.
> But to what do we owe the mid-thousands $'s pricing on the
> current top DSLRs? Is this because the market is still maturing,
> or are these pro cameras now always going to top out around
> that price point? Are the days of "pro" bodies that cost
> $1500-$2000 long gone? With production rapidly headed to China,
> why are there no price cuts? Other products have seen substantial
> price drops. Walmart survives on them. Yet not for DSLRs.
> Mind you, I'm not talking about the entry-level where plastic is
> king.
> -Rich

To answer your question, there are price cuts. The D300 dropped $100 last
week. What did it cost to get a 6 mp camera 3 years ago?

However, digital cameras, including DSLR's are hot products in a growing
market. Until the development curve levels off and market saturation goes
up, prices on new models with the most features will be high. No
<intelligent> manufacturer is going to sell a product for less than the
market clearing price...

KB
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 3:34:59 AM

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

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:1109253937.383934.186250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> Even at the entry level, there are only Canon, Nikon, Pentax and
> Minolta with one model each.

Don't forget about Sigma and Olympus. ;-)

--

Bill
February 25, 2005 1:04:16 PM

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

found a lot of differents answers...

Some says 750$ for a 6mp. Others said Canon is charging 500$ + 200$ labore
for changing a scratched 8mp sensor (CMOS).

Apparently , the cost of the 6mp in the D70 (made by Sony, CCD) was around
750$ , but it was last year...

I wonder how much cost a FF sensor. Anyone have an idea ?
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 7:22:25 PM

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

In article <388sqpF5ld9tnU1@individual.net>,
Chuck <nospammm@no__spam.com> wrote:
>found a lot of differents answers...
>
>Some says 750$ for a 6mp. Others said Canon is charging 500$ + 200$ labore
>for changing a scratched 8mp sensor (CMOS).
>
>Apparently , the cost of the 6mp in the D70 (made by Sony, CCD) was around
>750$ , but it was last year...
>
>I wonder how much cost a FF sensor. Anyone have an idea ?

Well ... the difficulty in making the sensor is getting all of
those pixels to be good. Starting from the 1.5x factor on the D70, this
means that the linear dimensions are 0.6666.... times that of the full
frame. Squaring that to determine area, you get 0.4444...., which means
that a full frame sensor is 2.25 times the area of the D70's, and
assuming the same pixel size and density you would come out about 13.5
MP. So -- if the difficulty (and thus reciprocal of yield) scales with
the number of pixels, that would make it likely to cost around $1687.50.

Of course, production quantities could improve the experience
and ability, so the cost would eventually drop somewhat, but I don't
think that it will drop too much too soon.

I do remember when Motorola 6800 CPUs sold for $100.00 each, and
later they I bought some for around $2.50 each as the manufacturers
improved their processing. (Yes -- my first computer was powered by a
6800, and I still have it. ;-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 7:49:13 PM

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

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:36:04 -0700, "Sheldon"
<sheldon@REMOVEsopris.net> wrote:

>"George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in message
>news:y2mTd.4640$uY6.3476@fe02.lga...
>>
>> "Chuck" <nospammm@no__spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:3865g8F5h9s6fU1@individual.net...
>> > sensor price my friend ! 8 meg sensor on the 20D is 900$. So its a lot
>> more
>> > for a FF sensor.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> How do you have a price on the sensor? Or is that a retail price if you
>> need a replacement?
>> The reason I am wondering is that Canon makes their own sensor, right?
>And
>> they don't sell
>> it to anyone else, so how is there a price on it? You can bet the
>internal
>> transfer price is more
>> on the order of $100-150.
>
>Sensor prices may be related to failure rate. As most of you know, the
>reason LCD monitors are still priced a bit high is due to the failure rate.
>You have to make a lot of LCD screens before you get one that has enough
>"good" pixels in it to pass inspection. I would bet this is the same
>problem with image sensors, especially the better ones. They probably
>aren't cheap to make, and I doubt they all pass inspection.
>
>And when you realize that someone like Nikon is not marketing a camera like
>the D70 to everyone, yet its sales have been very, very good, cameras at the
>upper end will continue to sell, even at high prices. Supply and demand
>will always rule the market, and some people have to have whatever is new at
>whatever the cost.

Depends on dead and hot pixels. A Kodak utility grade 1 meg sensor
used to cost $1000 but a medical grade (perfect) sensor cost $10,000.
-Rich
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 11:42:00 AM

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

> Remember how much an F4 Nikon body cost?
> Remember when $1200 bought a good SLR body?
> What is with the $5000+ price tags on the top
> DSLRs? Do they really cost that much more to
> produce than top of the line film cameras did
> or is this just the industry rationalizing that
> the old profit makers (accessory lenses, etc) are
> not the way to go?

Two things to consider. First, whether it's a car or house or worker's wages
or taxes or whatever... just about everything is more expensive now than it
was back in 1985 (which you referenced later in your post). Second, and
perhaps more relevant, the digital age has brought about a new phenomenon to
camera bodies- shorter life of design. With changes happening very quickly,
the market lifespan of a particular model is very short. Thus amortizing
development costs is done over one, maybe two years... vs five, maybe ten
even previously?

Less-expensive models that sell in very large quantities will benefit from
cost savings as the electronics get ever cheaper, while more-expensive
models, due to their limited production runs, won't see their electronic
guts ever get all that cheap. Unlike mechanical things, which tend to have
significant recurring production costs (tooling that wears out), most of the
expense in a new silicon chip is during design and initial production. The
incremental cost of each new chip, after a certain point, is very low.

What will eventually happen is that you'll end up paying an ever-increasing
differential for that little extra that makes something a "pro" piece of
gear vs what the rest of us sloths use. The differences will be there, but
probably more in terms of mechanical issues, while it's likely that the
latest & greatest electronics will be found in the cheaper stuff.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:r5vq11t2gp534g61svenn7l1ll63435dof@4ax.com...
> Remember how much an F4 Nikon body cost?
> Remember when $1200 bought a good SLR body?
> What is with the $5000+ price tags on the top
> DSLRs? Do they really cost that much more to
> produce than top of the line film cameras did
> or is this just the industry rationalizing that
> the old profit makers (accessory lenses, etc) are
> not the way to go?
> I remember around 1985, camera bodies in the mid-range
> were dirt cheap. A Canon T70 cost about $125.00. The
> camera makers were making all their money on lenses and
> accessories. This didn't last long and bodies climbed in
> price rapidly after 1987. An Olympus OM-1 went from $200
> to over $400 due to increased costs in Japan.
> But to what do we owe the mid-thousands $'s pricing on the
> current top DSLRs? Is this because the market is still maturing,
> or are these pro cameras now always going to top out around
> that price point? Are the days of "pro" bodies that cost
> $1500-$2000 long gone? With production rapidly headed to China,
> why are there no price cuts? Other products have seen substantial
> price drops. Walmart survives on them. Yet not for DSLRs.
> Mind you, I'm not talking about the entry-level where plastic is
> king.
> -Rich
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 5:29:15 PM

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> RichA <none@none.com> writes:
>
> > Remember how much an F4 Nikon body cost?
> > Remember when $1200 bought a good SLR body?
> > What is with the $5000+ price tags on the top
> > DSLRs? Do they really cost that much more to
> > produce than top of the line film cameras did
> > or is this just the industry rationalizing that
> > the old profit makers (accessory lenses, etc) are
> > not the way to go?
> > I remember around 1985, camera bodies in the mid-range
> > were dirt cheap. A Canon T70 cost about $125.00. The
> > camera makers were making all their money on lenses and
> > accessories. This didn't last long and bodies climbed in
> > price rapidly after 1987. An Olympus OM-1 went from $200
> > to over $400 due to increased costs in Japan.
> > But to what do we owe the mid-thousands $'s pricing on the
> > current top DSLRs? Is this because the market is still maturing,
> > or are these pro cameras now always going to top out around
> > that price point? Are the days of "pro" bodies that cost
> > $1500-$2000 long gone? With production rapidly headed to China,
> > why are there no price cuts? Other products have seen substantial
> > price drops. Walmart survives on them. Yet not for DSLRs.
> > Mind you, I'm not talking about the entry-level where plastic is
> > king.
>
> Well, the Nikon F5 I remember as being a $2800 body. And then of
> course there are the Leica products, but perhaps we should leave them
> out of this.
>
> The sensors in the pro-grade cameras are *expensive*. The yields on
> chips that big are scarily low. And the number of those cameras sold
> isn't that high, which keeps the prices up. I imagine there are a
> number of custom chips besides the sensor, too, to get the
performance
> they need. And a lot of software development being amortized over
not
> that many sales.
>
> It's probably also relevant that, *today*, a digital camera model has
> a very short life-span compared to film bodies in the past.
>
> From the buyers point of view, a camera with a lifetime supply of
film
> and processing included that's only $2000 more expensive can be a
hell
> of a bargain. The high-end cameras are mostly being bought by people
> who shoot quite bit, and for most amateur and all professional work
> these days it has to be scanned before it's used for anything, so
> that's yet another cost saved by shooting digitally. I figure very
> roughly it costs me $20/roll to shoot film, so $2000 is 100 rolls of
> film, which is about a year. That's a pretty fast payoff.
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>,
<http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt;
<http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 5:34:13 PM

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

>
> Well, the Nikon F5 I remember as being a $2800 body. And then of
> course there are the Leica products, but perhaps we should leave them
> out of this.
>
> The sensors in the pro-grade cameras are *expensive*. The yields on
> chips that big are scarily low. And the number of those cameras sold
> isn't that high, which keeps the prices up. I imagine there are a
> number of custom chips besides the sensor, too, to get the
performance
> they need. And a lot of software development being amortized over
not
> that many sales.
>
> It's probably also relevant that, *today*, a digital camera model has
> a very short life-span compared to film bodies in the past.
>
> From the buyers point of view, a camera with a lifetime supply of
film
> and processing included that's only $2000 more expensive can be a
hell
> of a bargain. The high-end cameras are mostly being bought by people
> who shoot quite bit, and for most amateur and all professional work
> these days it has to be scanned before it's used for anything, so
> that's yet another cost saved by shooting digitally. I figure very
> roughly it costs me $20/roll to shoot film, so $2000 is 100 rolls of
> film, which is about a year. That's a pretty fast payoff.
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>,
<http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt;
<http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;

The Kodak DCS 460-760 the first 6mp cameras (1.3 sensor correction)
started at $26,000 in 1994 the DCS 760 was $7500 in 2002. F5 based and
still a good camera, they go used for about $2000 on Ebay. Weighs a ton
(well 6lbs) have a friend who uses it daily, he is a former football
lineman.

Tom
February 26, 2005 10:06:21 PM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:g97v111ci3sdddbteb9dd1ev6lcqpvb5co@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:36:04 -0700, "Sheldon"
> <sheldon@REMOVEsopris.net> wrote:
>
> >"George" <nowhere@newsonly.com> wrote in message
> >news:y2mTd.4640$uY6.3476@fe02.lga...
> >>
> >> "Chuck" <nospammm@no__spam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3865g8F5h9s6fU1@individual.net...
> >> > sensor price my friend ! 8 meg sensor on the 20D is 900$. So its a
lot
> >> more
> >> > for a FF sensor.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> How do you have a price on the sensor? Or is that a retail price if
you
> >> need a replacement?
> >> The reason I am wondering is that Canon makes their own sensor, right?
> >And
> >> they don't sell
> >> it to anyone else, so how is there a price on it? You can bet the
> >internal
> >> transfer price is more
> >> on the order of $100-150.
> >
> >Sensor prices may be related to failure rate. As most of you know, the
> >reason LCD monitors are still priced a bit high is due to the failure
rate.
> >You have to make a lot of LCD screens before you get one that has enough
> >"good" pixels in it to pass inspection. I would bet this is the same
> >problem with image sensors, especially the better ones. They probably
> >aren't cheap to make, and I doubt they all pass inspection.
> >
> >And when you realize that someone like Nikon is not marketing a camera
like
> >the D70 to everyone, yet its sales have been very, very good, cameras at
the
> >upper end will continue to sell, even at high prices. Supply and demand
> >will always rule the market, and some people have to have whatever is new
at
> >whatever the cost.
>
> Depends on dead and hot pixels. A Kodak utility grade 1 meg sensor
> used to cost $1000 but a medical grade (perfect) sensor cost $10,000.
> -Rich
>

Then, the operating environment also affects the cost. ICs that work over a
wider
temperature range cost more. Also, radiation hardening costs quite a bit
more (usually
only the military wants that).
!