# The Price of Full Frame



## daniemare (Feb 10, 2012)

Just read the rumour about the 5 Series split. I was wondering, with the D800 announced and priced ($3-$3,5k body) and Canon bound to respond within this same spec and price range (it seems for both), where does this leave average photographers - whether enthusiast or pure amateur/hobbyist.

I am almost certain there are more casual (even pro's) photographers out there that are PRICE sensitive rather than SPEC sensitive. In the film days, full frame cameras were truly available in all shapes, sizes and prices. 

Being a 60D user, I regularly contemplate my upgrade path. The 7D is a very specific cam - well sealed & sports level AF. And FF appears to be that next step in IQ, low noise and DOF control everyone raves about.

What I would like to see is a rebel FF body - Call it a 6D or whatever:
- 1DX Sensor - this will give Canon another body to get volumes up on the sensor
- Upcoming 70D body and Movie features - another re-use
- Current 7D AF - paid off tech

Priced at at under $2k body only. I can then either use F4 "L" zooms or 3rd Party lenses, with a non-L primes for low light (seeing that the new 24-70 is another price shocker).

Outside of 7D users, I guess most APS-C users are also not too heavily invested in glass, and if so, I suppose some of that is crop body specific in any case. So moving to full frame is not really "switching systems" for most APS-C users. So from where I am sitting a low cost FF body might just steal some other brand customer to Canon also.

Yes the 5D mark II will be available soon second hand, but Canon doesn't make any money from that. 

Am I really alone in thinking, as a Hobbyist, that a $2k FF body will be awesome and the current Price trend seems ridiculous? Can Canon make money with such a lower priced FF body with parts from the wheely bin, bearing in mind future L lens sales? Will this cannibalize sales of other bodies? Or does every single FF user out there crave for the 36MP 61 AF pt monster at $3,5k body only as rumoured?


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 10, 2012)

daniemare said:


> Am I really alone in thinking, as a Hobbyist, that a $2k FF body will be awesome and the current Price trend seems ridiculous? Can Canon make money with such a lower priced FF body with parts from the wheely bin, bearing in mind future L lens sales? Will this cannibalize sales of other bodies? Or does every single FF user out there crave for the 36MP 61 AF pt monster at $3,5k body only as rumoured?



I believe the 5DII street price is about $2k - I suspect the 5DIII *STREET* price will continue to be the about the same - providing the USD/Yen doesn't continue to get worse


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 10, 2012)

I really think Canon will keep the 5D2 and reprice it to $1999 to satisfy and own the entry FF market
still great cameras, great IQ and AF works brilliantly in MF mode  but seriously the center point with f2.8 glass is alright for most stuff. Cannon would be mad to not just continuing to make mk2s and keep that cash cow alive as long as possible


----------



## iaind (Feb 10, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I really think Canon will keep the 5D2 and reprice it to $1999 to satisfy and own the entry FF market
> still great cameras, great IQ and AF works brilliantly in MF mode  but seriously the center point with f2.8 glass is alright for most stuff. Cannon would be mad to not just continuing to make mk2s and keep that cash cow alive as long as possible



I agree as replacement will probably be at least $700 more


----------



## sphax (Feb 10, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I really think Canon will keep the 5D2 and reprice it to $1999 to satisfy and own the entry FF market
> still great cameras, great IQ and AF works brilliantly in MF mode  but seriously the center point with f2.8 glass is alright for most stuff. Cannon would be mad to not just continuing to make mk2s and keep that cash cow alive as long as possible



Totally agreed, that would be the smart thing to go for Canon, and would put them in a great position to rule the low-FF-market that our friend Danlemare here is obviously representing !! The aged AF will make it way less attractive than the new models (mkIII or X, whatever) but the price drop that I expect to be something like 800$ (1899$ -> 2699$) will for sure create a place for it !! I wouldn't pick it 'cos I really need the best AF possible (why I chose the 7D - I shoot both ski and mtb, so it needs to focus fast !) but it would for sure find its way through the market !! I hope Canon is actually thinking more of the combo 5DmkII cheap + 5DX great than this idiots split in the 5D line that was mentioned today ...


----------



## mws (Feb 10, 2012)

Anyone have any idea on the actually manufacturing costs of a full frame chip vs. a c size? Other then one being larger then the other, I would have to guess that the technology can't be all that different.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2012)

mws said:


> Anyone have any idea on the actually manufacturing costs of a full frame chip vs. a c size? Other then one being larger then the other, I would have to guess that the technology can't be all that different.



Canon has stated that production cost for a FF sensor is upwards of 20 times the production cost of an APS-C sensor. It's a combination of far fewer sensors from each wafer, a requirement for more stamping passes for FF vs. APS-C, and proportionately greater loss of FF sensors from QC.


----------



## stabmasterasron (Feb 10, 2012)

As to the question of how much a FF sensor costs – I am sure someone on here will eventually post that a FF sensor costs 20X as much to produce as a crop sensor. That is a number I hear thrown around a lot. I am skeptical of such things, so I did a little research as to the origins of this number. It seems it was inferred from a white paper written by canon back in 2006. 
To me, it seems highly unlikely that the price gap between FF and crop sensor remains today (if it ever truly was) 20X. Lets say that maybe back when the 5D first launched that the FF sensors were very low volume compared to crop sensors. Maybe, just maybe way back then, it could have been. But now, Canon sells lots of FF sensors. And they have had 6years to work out problems in the manufacturing process. The yield rate that used to plague FF sensors – I read that this issue is no longer such an issue, as production tooling has much improved.
Now, the more important question, does it make sense for Canon to drop a FF sensor in a consumer price range camera? I think it will eventually happen. Maybe not in the next couple of years, but eventually. Maybe with Canon’s current product placement, a FF sensor in a low cost package doesn’t make sense, but I think there hand will be forced in this issue because:
What makes more sense is for Sony, or Olympus to drop a nice big fat FF sensor in a consumer body and price it competitively against the top rebel body. Give it equal IQ to 5D mkii and better video features. Also give it really good high ISO performance. This would be a canon and Nikon killer. Hell, I know I would be tempted to switch systems, or let me be more clear – if Sony or Olympus did this, I would switch systems. There profits from the camera body might be pretty thin, but they know that the type of people who would buy the camera would also be buying lenses, and other accessories from them. And before I get flamed by everyone saying that this is not technically possible in this price range – remember technology moves on and things get cheaper and easier to make. I think it is possible to do this and it makes sense for one of the companies on the outside looking in to take a chance on a body like this to win new customers.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 10, 2012)

Canon has no real need to discontinue the 5d2 at it's current price point and positioning... For most rebel, 60D users, having this camera at 1800-1900 would be a great upgrade path and for most hobbyists, it would meet and exceed most peoples expectations... and when they outgrow that camera they can jump to it's big brother, the new 5d, either of them assuming 2 gets released, or the 1d series... If they did discontinue it, I'd see it as a big mistake.


----------



## thejoyofsobe (Feb 10, 2012)

i'd be very interested in an "entry-level" full frame camera. what i'm looking for is basically a 60D with a full-frame sensor.

take the 60D build quality, articulated LCD screen, put a 5D2 sensor in it with Digic 5 and sell it for $1500 (i.e. twice as much as the 60D and probably half the 5D3). 

if something like that came to life i'd probably preorder it though i'm not holding my breath. if it doesn't i'll probably wait until next year and opt for a used or refurbished 5D2.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 10, 2012)

Sorry, but this is a pipe dream. 

Look at the marketplace. The only competition in the full frame market is between Canon and Nikon. Sony discontinued their full frame offerings. Fuji (which may be the most innovative of all the camera manufacturers) seems uninterested in full frame and in fact has indicated that their hybrid technology (digital and organic) will outperform full frame sensors. 

Nikon is pricing the D800 at $3,000. It will probably drop some over the next few months, but expect it to settle in around $2,600 to $2,800. They have discontinued the D700. There is no reason for Canon to continue making the 5DII once the new model/models are announced. Nor is there any competitive reason for them to stick a sensor that (as Neuro points out) costs up to 20X as much as an APS-C sensor into another body.

In addition, we really don't know what, if any, profit margin Canon was getting on the 5D II during the pre-Christmas rebate bargains. There were many good reasons for Canon to discount the MkII to a minimal price point. They may have wanted to lock in market share, boost fourth quarter sales numbers, boost lens sales or simply reduce inventory. I'm not saying they did not make a profit at the prices we saw in December, but I am saying that we don't know that they did. 

For years Canon has publicly maintained that they have a goal of migrating APS-C users to full frame over time. But, while that may make for nice sound bites, it does not override the fact that Canon is a business and their long term objective will always be to maximize the profit margin within the constraints of the marketplace. Their actions, and those of virtually every one of their competitors, indicates that almost all the competition, growth and technology innovation is focused on APS-C sensors.


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 10, 2012)

Or you can buy a full-frame EOS 3 for a few hundred bucks with those sexy 45pt AF points (and "eye-control focus"!), throw some fujichrome in there and enjoy all your EF lenses in their full awesomeness!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2012)

stabmasterasron said:


> What makes more sense is for Sony, or Olympus to drop a nice big fat FF sensor in a consumer body and price it competitively against the top rebel body. Give it equal IQ to 5D mkii and better video features. Also give it really good high ISO performance. This would be a canon and Nikon killer. Hell, I know I would be tempted to switch systems, or let me be more clear – if Sony or Olympus did this, I would switch systems. There profits from the camera body might be pretty thin, but they know that *the type of people who would buy the camera would also be buying lenses, and other accessories from them*. And before I get flamed by everyone saying that this is not technically possible in this price range – remember technology moves on and things get cheaper and easier to make. I think it is possible to do this and it makes sense for one of the companies on the outside looking in to take a chance on a body like this to win new customers.



The problem is that the selection of quality lenses from Canon and Nikon is much greater than that offered by Sony or Olympus, so I suspect most of those interested in a FF sensor would think twice.



stabmasterasron said:


> To me, it seems highly unlikely that the price gap between FF and crop sensor remains today (if it ever truly was) 20X. Lets say that maybe back when the 5D first launched that the FF sensors were very low volume compared to crop sensors. Maybe, just maybe way back then, it could have been. But now, Canon sells lots of FF sensors. And they have had 6years to work out problems in the manufacturing process. The yield rate that used to plague FF sensors – I read that this issue is no longer such an issue, as production tooling has much improved.



I think you're probably correct to some extent. Even the 20x figure stated by Canon was likely an overstatement. They do reference a need for three stamping passes during lithography - you can see the result of thoses passes on this Nikon D3 sensor:







However, Canon currently makes a lithography imager that can 'expose a 50mm x 50mm area in a single shot' (here's a link to the product). Granted, that's for CCD/LCD production, but given that the artifacts seen in the D3 sensor above are not found on the 1DsIII sensor, it seems likely that Canon has applied the same technology for internal use in single-shot stamping of CMOS sensors. 

None of the manufacturers publish their production costs, but most estimates I've seen suggest that a current APS-C sensor costs $70-80 to produce, and a current FF sensor costs $300-400 to produce. 

In the bigger picture, though, the cost to produce a sensor is pretty much irrelevant. Manufacturing costs are far from the most significant factor in determining the price of a product. Consider - the iPhone 4S and the Amazon Kindle Fire have approximately the same production cost of ~$200. The Fire sells for about what it costs to produce one, while Apple gets $650 for an iPhone 4S.


----------



## stabmasterasron (Feb 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist, I think those cost numbers seem much more reasonable than the 20X number I always hear. Thanks for the info, good post.
Yes, it would be a problem that Sony and Olympus do not have high quality lenses built up yet (at least they don’t have the reputation of the L lenses, actual numbers could be different, I don’t know).
But if they could produce a killer body priced just above the top level Rebel, this would pose a serious threat to Rebel sales as well as the equivalent Nikon bodies. Because the buyers they are then targeting are not people who are long time slr users (who know that lenses are more important to a camera system than the body). It could be, but the people they would be after are the well healed consumers upgrading from point and shoot, or maybe m4/3. Give them a killer body and a good kit lens and sell it within a reasonable reach of the top rebel – this would definitely pose a threat to rebel sales.
I know Sony tried this a few years ago. But I think they didn’t price the camera right. It was much closer to 5D mkii prices than Rebel prices. Maybe this had something to do with production costs, who knows.
But one thing is for sure, technology will continue to trickle down to the masses. Just like when Canon shocked the world with the price/performance of the 5D classic. This trend will definitely continue. I don’t know if frame size will continue to be important or not, but a prediction I will boldly make is that digital cameras will continue to get better (I know, I really went out on a limb there). And image quality will continue to increase and this will be passed down to lower costs models eventually. And then I will still be bitching and moaning that the $3000 body has some feature I really want in my $1000 body. Some things never change.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2012)

daniemare said:


> - Current 7D AF - paid off tech



Keep in mind, AF systems have to be designed for the sensor size they compliment, to achieve the right amount of frame spread. The 7D AF was designed for an APS-C size sensor, so technically speaking, creating a 7D-style 19 cross-type point AF system for FF would not really be paid-off tech. Who knows what kind of nuances might present when "scaling" the technology to FF size, but its highly doubtful it would be particularly cheap. It would need to go through the same kind of design and QA process that any new AF design goes through.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2012)

jrista said:


> daniemare said:
> 
> 
> > - Current 7D AF - paid off tech
> ...



What is the 'right amount of frame spread'? By most accounts (mine included!), the point spread on the 5DII sucks. Relative to the image sensor size, every other current Canon camera in the lineup has better AF point coverage, from the 1D X down to the T4/1100D, than the 5DII. 

FWIW, below is a superimposed image of the 7D's AF points (black) projected onto the 5DII's AF points (blue). The coverage still sucks, but to be honest, it doesn't suck all that much more than the 5DII, and the greter density of points would mean better AI Servo performance. Just sayin'...


----------



## jbwise01 (Feb 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> mws said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone have any idea on the actually manufacturing costs of a full frame chip vs. a c size? Other then one being larger then the other, I would have to guess that the technology can't be all that different.
> ...



If you look at the raw difference in production capability based on a standard 8" silicon wafer you would get the following:





So based on a $2500 price for the wafer, that gets you the following cost for each sensor:
FULL Frame: $104 
APS-C: $31.25
Nikon-1: $10.24

Of course there is quite alot more that goes into the cost of the sensor, but lets say that at minimum the 400 to 600 process that are involved from silicon wafer to image sensor would cost about 5 times as much as much as the raw silicon itself, so you would basically mulitple the price by 5 for each sensor.

Now you have:
FULL Frame: $520 
APS-C: $156
Nikon-1: $51

Now we are getting closer to a materials cost for the sensors themselves. This does not not take into account the simple fact that the higher cost FF sensor would be require special handling to ensure the wafer isn't damaged. Imagine for a minute if 5 sensors on each wafer were damaged due to dust, etc.. that would ruin roughly $2500 worth of FF sensors, but only $775 of 7D and $250 worth of Nikon-1's

Next you have to consider the camera body, image processors, etc... not to mention the huge difference in Reserach & Development, and you can quicly see the justification for the cost difference between these cameras.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Feb 10, 2012)

The problem is that there are a lot more unknowns. For instance, what does Canon do with less than optimal sensors? In CPUs that's usually not so big of a deal and the manufacturers sell the less than perfect specimens with a lower clock or locked cores. I'd imagine that this won't work so well with a camera sensor. 
On the other hand, a factor that may skew the price difference in favor of the FF sensors is that in general, the edges of the wafer are the ones that produce lower quality chips and since that in FF wafer the edges will be less utilized anyway that could mean less discarded chips than in the APS wafer.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 10, 2012)

as awinphoto noted, the bigger issue over production cost is actually the competitive landscape. even if Canon *could* drop full frame cameras for $2000, why *would* they? nobody's out there buying the Sony A900 or A850. Nikon just dropped the D700 replacement ... for upwards of $3000. there is zero reason for Canon to low-ball themselves to the bottom of the market. frankly, and I don't mean to tempt fate here, if Canon just continued to compete against the D800 with the 5D Mark II, I think they could still do pretty well given the fairly small performance difference and the fairly significant price difference.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 10, 2012)

jrista said:


> daniemare said:
> 
> 
> > - Current 7D AF - paid off tech
> ...



The 45 point 1Ds3 AF would fit straight in. Not as good as the 1DX - but they have to maintain the differential


----------



## jbwise01 (Feb 10, 2012)

Also something to consider... 

We (consumers) have no idea what the margins or economies of scale are for a particular sensor.

The price of the camera is far more complicated that you might think. Supplier Cost (+mark-up), Assembly Cost (+mark-up), Packaging Cost (+mark-up)... inventory cost.. longterm storage of supply prior to release to vendors. The you add the cost markup by distributors (B&H, Amazon, etc..)

You would think canon sells the cameras for a profit of some kind... but maybe they don't have a very large margin on these cameras , at least not a first... Sony, for exmaple, sold the PS3 at a loss for a few years before it became profitable. Canon may employ a similar strategy, with higher margins on lens' and accesories, to ofset the loss or minor profit on camera sales. This may explain the high cost of the new 24-70 II and you would expect any other new lens' to be high $$$ as well


----------



## stabmasterasron (Feb 10, 2012)

I think kubelik is spot on. Having worked in new product development for many years (not the camera industry) in my experience, this is typically how things happen: The marketing team and sales team get together and decide what the product road maps will be (with some input from engineers). They decide what the selling price and features of a particular product will be. It is then up to the engineers to develop a product whose production cost will be under the selling price. The engineers will then go back to the team with a production cost. There will be a negotiation of features and selling price. Eventually they will settle on a set of feature and selling price.

I have been on teams for many new products where production cost was a factor in selling price, but not the major factor. It had more to do with what the market could bear. Or perception. And yes, a few times, we even sold a product at a loss but knew we would make our money in after sales service and accessories. 

But all of the production cost, profit margin talk is just for fun. None of us here really know, we are not Canon insiders (I guess there could be a few canon insiders trolling this forum).


----------



## K-amps (Feb 10, 2012)

thejoyofsobe said:


> i'd be very interested in an "entry-level" full frame camera. what i'm looking for is basically a 60D with a full-frame sensor.
> 
> take the 60D build quality, articulated LCD screen, put a 5D2 sensor in it with Digic 5 and sell it for $1500 (i.e. twice as much as the 60D and probably half the 5D3).
> 
> if something like that came to life i'd probably preorder it though i'm not holding my breath. if it doesn't i'll probably wait until next year and opt for a used or refurbished 5D2.



Why you just come out and say it, you are looking for a 5D KISS x2.


----------



## jbwise01 (Feb 10, 2012)

stabmasterasron said:


> But all of the production cost, profit margin talk is just for fun. None of us here really know, we are not Canon insiders (I guess there could be a few canon insiders trolling this forum).



very good points... I think it easy for us to guess the price bc we know what the 5DII debuted at ($2699), what the D700 debuted at ($2950), 

The D800 will sells for $2999, so I would expect the 5DIII/X to retail for $2799 at release, and be down to $2599 a year later... This its easier to understand than all the production cost talk...

supply and demand... if canon sells the 5DIII for $2999, people will buy it, if they want more sales they will simply drop the price until they feel comfortable with the sales numbers.


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 10, 2012)

daniemare said:


> Just read the rumour about the 5 Series split. I was wondering, with the D800 announced and priced ($3-$3,5k body) and Canon bound to respond within this same spec and price range (it seems for both), where does this leave average photographers - whether enthusiast or pure amateur/hobbyist.
> 
> I am almost certain there are more casual (even pro's) photographers out there that are PRICE sensitive rather than SPEC sensitive. In the film days, full frame cameras were truly available in all shapes, sizes and prices.
> 
> ...




What about the price trend? Sure, cameras that are on par with what used to be very affordable 35mm film bodies and matching lenses are still expensive. And even that is relative. When the Canon A-1 came out (and I would say that is a fair comparison to, say, a 5DII) it was about $600 with the FD 50 1.4. In today's money that is about $2000.

And good digital SLRs that match that kind of quality are still relatively new. I never jumped onto the DSLR wagon because I could not see myself spending 6 or $7000 on a full frame camera when they were first available. And I simply never wanted a crop camera for a number of reasons. Now prices have actually come down and people who want the digital equivalent of an A1 or whatever can have that (and then some of course). Sure, it was nice when amateurs could actually get a used simple SLR and essentially get the same outcome as from a much more expensive pro model (lenses and skill set aside).

Eventually you may get "full frame" in cheaper and smaller cameras. But that may take a while - simply for marketing reasons. Once Fuji or Samsung or any of those guys come out with an affordable 35mm sensor camera (range finder or SLR) with exchangeable lenses things might change. At the moment you only get this at the 2000+ level - which, again, is quite an improvement of where things were 5 years ago or so.

As far as the cravings: not sure. Depends on where things are going. AF points, higher ISO etc will personally not phase me since I have little use for, especially while the gizillion of AF points are still being located around the center. Higher resolution? Sure, why not - though I'm still unclear of what you can do with it other then crop more. Printing technology is still stuck in the 8MP range somewhere unless you print really big. So it's kind of pointless.


----------



## jbwise01 (Feb 10, 2012)

It should be restated that the 5DII is a great value right now!


----------



## dr croubie (Feb 10, 2012)

Now there's a random thing that i've noticed. For anyone who doesn't know, i spend a *lot* of time on ebay (just ask my missus).

I've been tracking some second hand prices (dependant on condition, of course) lately, and here's what i've found. A few weeks ago, it looked like this:
5D - $800-1000
1Ds2 - $1200-1700
5D2 - $1600-1900
5D2 New - $1800-2200 (depending on exchange rates and how trustworthy is the seller).

Now, in the last week, I've noticed a disproportionate number of 5D (mark 1) bodies going, and they're going for a lot cheaper than normal, some as low as $600 in decent condition. I'm seeing more than 20 bodies in the list (still bidding) for less than $800. Some might end up over $800, but with a supply like this, the average price is going to drop.
But the weirder thing is, the 5D2 is not being sold at all. there's like 3 in the list that started below $1600, compared to a normal week of 6-10.
(1Ds2 doesn't sell enough to see any kind of trend yet)

What I think is happening is two things:
The 5D classic owners have had enough use of their bodies, 5 years is a good lifespan, and they're ditching them now in favour of nikon, or to beat the price drop once the 5D3 is announced.
The 5D2 owners are going the other way. Given that the D800 is launching over $3k, they figure that the 5D3 will do likewise, so a used 5D2 is going to be more attractive, and they're banking on a slight price rise to a used 5D2 later, so not selling them now.

In short:
You want a cheap FF, without fancy AF and without money and features wasted on video and things you won't need? Get a 5D mk1, and get it now while they're cheap. (I was contemplating a 1Ds2, maybe i'll get a cheap 5Dmk1 if i see one $500 or so)

(and I totally agree with whoever pointed it out already, just because we'd like a cheaper FF doesn't mean it's going to happen, canon has no competition and has no incentive to bring out a $1500 FF body, unless they want to compete with the prices of their old used bodies. That in itself is not a good thing, because if their used bodies go too far down in price they're not as attractive to buy new, total cost of ownership ($new price - $2nd hand sell price) goes down and then their bodies are not as attractive to buy new...)


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 10, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> The 5D classic owners have had enough use of their bodies, 5 years is a good lifespan, and they're ditching them now in favour of nikon, or to beat the price drop once the 5D3 is announced.
> The 5D2 owners are going the other way. Given that the D800 is launching over $3k, they figure that the 5D3 will do likewise, so a used 5D2 is going to be more attractive, and they're banking on a slight price rise to a used 5D2 later, so not selling them now.



Perhaps the 5D owners feel that the 5D3 will be expensive and that the 5D2 is cheap at the moment and so are jumping at the upgrade.

5D owners of course will have mastered the AF by now so are not affected by the myth circulating about the rubbish AF


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 11, 2012)

daniemare said:


> What I would like to see is a rebel FF body - Call it a 6D or whatever:



That's the 5D2. Although perhaps just running one 1DX sensor line is cheaper than also keeping a 5D2 sensor line going.

One problem with low end FF is also that on the wide end it's tougher on glass. For APS-C a cheap Tamron will be crisp corner to corner, provide f/2.8, etc.

And if they don't add much to it then maybe it's not seen as worth the extra price over a used 5D2 or 5D.



> Am I really alone in thinking, as a Hobbyist, that a $2k FF body will be awesome and the current Price trend seems ridiculous? Can Canon make money with such a lower priced FF body with parts from the wheely bin, bearing in mind future L lens sales? Will this cannibalize sales of other bodies? Or does every single FF user out there crave for the 36MP 61 AF pt monster at $3,5k body only as rumoured?



Some might depend upon sensor cost, larger sensors do cost more.


----------



## elflord (Feb 11, 2012)

daniemare said:


> Am I really alone in thinking, as a Hobbyist, that a $2k FF body will be awesome and the current Price trend seems ridiculous? Can Canon make money with such a lower priced FF body with parts from the wheely bin, bearing in mind future L lens sales? Will this cannibalize sales of other bodies? Or does every single FF user out there crave for the 36MP 61 AF pt monster at $3,5k body only as rumoured?



Sony tried a 2k full frame body and it wasn't very successful. The good news is that your sub $2k full frame is already here -- it's the used 5D mark II (or a new one if you can get it on sale).

You're not going to see what's very close to a flagship product at a discount price. There's nothing entry level about a full frame body with a flagship sensor and a top of the line AF system.

While it might not seem like Canon make money from used 5D Mark II sales, the buyers of the latest and fanciest technology need to sell their used gear to someone to fund their purchase. So a thriving secondary market where there is reasonably strong demand does help maintain demand for their flagship. If the market is flooded with cheap full frame bodies that are loaded with the same tech as the expensive full frame bodies, it could potentially undercut their high end products. Basically, the guys who would have bought used 5D mark IIs would buy the 6D instead, so those who are selling the 5D Mk II have to offload it for peanuts, and therefore have less to spend on the upgrade.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 11, 2012)

jrista said:


> daniemare said:
> 
> 
> > - Current 7D AF - paid off tech
> ...



There is no scaling, they would use the same size in the FF. The 7D AF is already near the limits a 35mm AF sensor can be and perform properly.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 11, 2012)

elflord said:


> While it might not seem like Canon make money from used 5D Mark II sales, the buyers of the latest and fanciest technology need to sell their used gear to someone to fund their purchase. So a thriving secondary market where there is reasonably strong demand does help maintain demand for their flagship. If the market is flooded with cheap full frame bodies that are loaded with the same tech as the expensive full frame bodies, it could potentially undercut their high end products. Basically, the guys who would have bought used 5D mark IIs would buy the 6D instead, so those who are selling the 5D Mk II have to offload it for peanuts, and therefore have less to spend on the upgrade.



Good point too. No way I'm getting the 5D3 or D800  ;D if I can sell my 5D2 for only a poor price.


----------



## stabmasterasron (Feb 11, 2012)

Dang man. You guys are over thinking this more than the canon marketing group. I have been around some marketing groups, and you guys are thinking at least 2 levels deeper than them. I promise you they only look at charts and sales figures and try to predict sales numbers based on past sales figures. Now maybe some of what you guys are talking about is built into the details of those numbers, but they are not thinking that deeply about why the numbers are the way they are. But you could probably take your beautiful minds and come up with a governing equation to predict future features and selling prices of dslr's.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 11, 2012)

daniemare said:


> Or does every single FF user out there crave for the 36MP 61 AF pt monster at $3,5k body only as rumoured?



I just need enough mps to crop to and print at 20 x 16 @240dpi


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 11, 2012)

When the D700 first came out, it was priced at $3K. The 5D MK III came out a month later priced at $2800. 

Expect the same. The advantage to selling those high MP bodies, is that people will want to buy the latest and highest resolution lenses. look for more lenses at double the old lens price and with 5% better resolution.


----------



## daniel-barton (Feb 11, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Or you can buy a full-frame EOS 3 for a few hundred bucks with those sexy 45pt AF points (and "eye-control focus"!), throw some fujichrome in there and enjoy all your EF lenses in their full awesomeness!



+1 

bought one a few years back and it is a match made in heaven with my 17-40L


----------



## stabmasterasron (Feb 11, 2012)

How timely. Sony announced today that a new FF camera is coming. Hope it is positioned better than the A900 was.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 11, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Or you can buy a full-frame EOS 3 for a few hundred bucks with those sexy 45pt AF points (and "eye-control focus"!), throw some fujichrome in there and enjoy all your EF lenses in their full awesomeness!



I had my large white on an EOS IX APS film camera - it was fun and the pictures were quite reasonable


----------



## elflord (Feb 11, 2012)

stabmasterasron said:


> Dang man. You guys are over thinking this more than the canon marketing group. I have been around some marketing groups, and you guys are thinking at least 2 levels deeper than them. I promise you they only look at charts and sales figures and try to predict sales numbers based on past sales figures. Now maybe some of what you guys are talking about is built into the details of those numbers, but they are not thinking that deeply about why the numbers are the way they are. But you could probably take your beautiful minds and come up with a governing equation to predict future features and selling prices of dslr's.



They do understand that it doesn't make sense for a leading brand to dump a high end product on the market at a discount price. They don't discuss it in depth because it probably doesn't come up very often except perhaps as humor at the water cooler.


----------



## jbwise01 (Feb 11, 2012)

stabmasterasron said:


> Dang man. You guys are over thinking this more than the canon marketing group. I have been around some marketing groups, and you guys are thinking at least 2 levels deeper than them. I promise you they only look at charts and sales figures and try to predict sales numbers based on past sales figures. Now maybe some of what you guys are talking about is built into the details of those numbers, but they are not thinking that deeply about why the numbers are the way they are. But you could probably take your beautiful minds and come up with a governing equation to predict future features and selling prices of dslr's.



While that may be true, I think it's great to give people an idea of the real value you get when purchasing a FF dslr. The difference in sensor cost and value can't be overstated.


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > daniemare said:
> ...



Alright, I'll grant the use of "right amount" was probably the wrong term. How about "adequate point spread"? And since you mentioned it, you would also want adequate point density as well. That would be one of the bonuses of a 61 point AF system...much higher density over a greater, _more adequate_ spread for FF, which, even if there aren't 41 cross-type points on a 5D III 61 point AF system, would still be far more useful. ;-) 

The 7D's AF point spread is pretty nice for the size of sensor...but it would be fairly limiting for FF area. If I had to choose between the 7D 19-pt AF as-is, and say a 61-point AF based on the 1D X's with only 21 cross-type points in the center, I'd go for the second one. I would rather pay a bit more for a useful AF system designed for a FF sensor than a somewhat useful one that covered only a very small area of the center of the frame.


----------



## jrista (Feb 11, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > daniemare said:
> ...



I beg to differ. The 7D AF may be nearing the limits of APS-C (its the light cone that matters...perhaps with EF-S lenses the 7D AF may be nearing limits). However its the 1D X that is at the limits for a 35mm FF AF sensor. It has a much broader point spread of 53% the width of the FF frame, where as the 5D II and 1Ds III covered about 41%, and the 7D probably covers less then 40% of the FF frame (I'd guess about 38%, but more than 50% for APS-C). AF units absolutely scale to the sensor frame, and point spread and point density are key performance factors (the point density of the 1D X AF unit is one of its intriguing features...very point dense despite its greater spread).

Reference: http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/1dx_af_pts_article.shtml


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 11, 2012)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Yes they did some things to the 1DX sensor to get a wider spread than before but as you see the 7D doesn't need any re-scaling since it covers close to the same amount, certainly not a 1.6x scaling which was my point. And for it to go to 1DX size it would need to begin utterly from scratch not just be re-scaled.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 11, 2012)

jbwise01 said:


> stabmasterasron said:
> 
> 
> > But all of the production cost, profit margin talk is just for fun. None of us here really know, we are not Canon insiders (I guess there could be a few canon insiders trolling this forum).
> ...



I'd say its more likely we'll see a match in price at least for the 5d mkIII, if not maybe more ($3100). They won't drop the native price for a while, more likely they will give their distributors a price break for initial stock, which they can then market to customers with rebates. (release price of $3099, but, offer rebates). Then see how the market reacts. Part of it of course will be is the mkiii/x going to live up to the hype and have the stones to make people say yeah it has this cost, but, its worth it! If it comes out shooters hate it, bad reviews will pour in - then we'll see the price come down for sure. But, if it is the upgrade we all want it to be, it will sell. They will check their spreadsheets and I'm sure there's red lines of how many units need to be sold at the release price point to warrent a native price drop. Just saying. If we see any mkiii's selling new for under $2700, it will be due to rebates, not a native price drop. Consumer psychology - $2800 on a body full price seems like wow, paying a ton, who cares that the release price was $3100 - but, pay that same $2800 after a $300 rebate, then wow, I made out! Score!!!!! 

http://chuckalaimo.com/


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 11, 2012)

elflord said:


> daniemare said:
> 
> 
> > Am I really alone in thinking, as a Hobbyist, that a $2k FF body will be awesome and the current Price trend seems ridiculous? Can Canon make money with such a lower priced FF body with parts from the wheely bin, bearing in mind future L lens sales? Will this cannibalize sales of other bodies? Or does every single FF user out there crave for the 36MP 61 AF pt monster at $3,5k body only as rumoured?
> ...



That last paragraph is a very good point. Price points of these things and their longevity help not only the creators of the product, but, the consumers too. checking now, when it's time to make my upgrade, my 7D will account for about 1/3rd of the cost of the 5dmkiii (What I may actually do is get the 5dmkiii, sell my 7d, and grab a 7d mkii, assuming they come out with one. I like the extra range a 1.6 crop gives you, and I don't want to have spend a ton on a 200-400 mm lens when my 70-200mm covers a lot of ranges on both a FF and 1.6 crop crop bodies!

http://chuckalaimo.com/


----------

