# When will we have a full frame body below $1,000?



## sylvestrerato (Nov 24, 2012)

Hi,

The title says it all. 

Cheers


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 24, 2012)

i'll be that guy that chimes in with---

It's already here! It's called the original 5d, or as many call it the 5dc. I see them used now for $500-900 all the time.


----------



## tron (Nov 24, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> i'' be that guy that chimes in with---
> 
> It's already here! It's called the original 5d, or as many call it the 5dc. I see them used now for $500-900 all the time.


I guess OP means new not used.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 24, 2012)

i guess that too, but, until APS-C sensors are phased out, FF will be at a premium.


----------



## Halfrack (Nov 24, 2012)

Never

Chip costs for the sensor won't allow for pricing to be that low and everyone making a markup. Compromises made to the 6D at the $2k price point seem to piss everyone off, so to think of a $1k price, it wouldn't even be a p&s type. Refurb on sale gets a 5d2 down to 1,400-1,500 range, but that's about as low at it will go.


----------



## Buyi (Nov 24, 2012)

whats the motivation for camera makers if u make a good ff below 1.000? different formats makes a difference so u get what u pay for really


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 24, 2012)

Same time next year, 6D


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2012)

DB said:


> When Yongnuo start making DSLRs :


 ;D ;D


----------



## ScottyP (Nov 25, 2012)

Halfrack said:


> Never
> 
> Chip costs for the sensor won't allow for pricing to be that low and everyone making a markup. Compromises made to the 6D at the $2k price point seem to piss everyone off, so to think of a $1k price, it wouldn't even be a p&s type. Refurb on sale gets a 5d2 down to 1,400-1,500 range, but that's about as low at it will go.



I don't believe that the FF sensors cost dramatically more to make than 1.6 crop sensors. They use the difference to allow them to sell cameras at a lower price point to 95% of the people buying cameras without undercutting the prices on their own FF models. 

It may cost a lot to develop new sensor models, but I really don't think FF sensors cost a whole lot more money to crank out than a crop sensor, and I don't think either one really cost as much per unit to fab as people imagine. Chip fab facilities in Taiwan, etc., just crank these things out like saltine crackers. There should be no reason camera sensor production economics should be dramatically different from all the other chips and things we are surrounded with. The difference is in the huge markup they are allowed due to very little competition. High-end camera sensors have not become commoditized like most other microelectronics.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 25, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> I don't believe that the FF sensors cost dramatically more to make than 1.6 crop sensors. They use the difference to allow them to sell cameras at a lower price point to 95% of the people buying cameras without undercutting the prices on their own FF models.


Costs to make a FF sensor have certainly dropped dramatically over the years, but the basic concept driving the price to 20X the cost of APS-C has not changed. DSLR sensors are not made from run of the mill silicone wafers as some seem to think.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Full-Frame_CMOS_White_Paper.pdf


----------



## Danielle (Nov 25, 2012)

2nd hand full frame camera's. As people have said the 5D classic. I wouldn't buy it personally, but its there and cheap. Even 1Ds mark ii's are nearly there, much more tempting I'd suggest.

The question is that are they better than the current crop sensors? No, not necessarily at all... possibly far behind.

You know what Im sick of? People seeing crop sensors as second rate. THEY'RE NOT necessarily *points to the 7D*. Most people don't need to spend a massive bucket load of cash on a Full Frame vs a crop sensor, they won't get the real benefit anyway. 

Get off your high horses. Skill will matter a million times more than any fancy piece of overpriced tech. 'Oh, full frame is better at high iso' ... really? Thats it? Oh, that's right ... reach? NO... don't care, doesn't matter.


----------



## Rat (Nov 25, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> I don't believe that the FF sensors cost dramatically more to make than 1.6 crop sensors.


I do believe that. Exponential error rates truly are a bitch. But although an aps-c sensor can be manufactured for a couple of dozens of dollars tops, an FF sensor doesn't need to cost more than a few hundred dollars. You'd think that a $700 Rebel with a FF sensor slapped on would fit the bill.

However, stuff like the shutter, the mirror mechanism and the pentaprism needs to be a lot bigger too, and that isn't exactly cheap either. Now you can save money on most of those (say: pentamirror instead of prism) but that would chip away at the quality of both camera and images. And quality is exactly the reason to choose FF over crop. It would make no sense to produce an extremely cheap FF camera, unless of course the market for gear whores becomes substantially bigger than that for actual photographers. I may be naive, but I don't think that's the case yet.

By the way: every few decades prices double because of inflation, so a sub-$1000-camera will be less likely every year. If it is to happen, it'll need to happen in the very near future - say less than five years. Unless Sony starts making 450mm sensor wafers with excellent yields real soon, and I don't see that happening. And I don't see Canon invest in that sort of tech anytime soon at all.

All in all, my guess is never, but you may get lucky between 2015 and 2020


----------



## spinworkxroy (Nov 25, 2012)

That day will come...
And the day mobile phones become FF will also come..just a matter of time i believe...


----------



## pwp (Nov 25, 2012)

Available right now...pre-owned on eBay. 
Nothing wrong with a well looked after, low-mileage 5D or 5DII.

But new? It will happen. Probably not 2013, 2014 or even 2015. If you have a budget limit of $1k and have a definite need for FF, it's a pre-owned body for you.

-PW


----------



## bvukich (Nov 25, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> I don't believe that the FF sensors cost dramatically more to make than 1.6 crop sensors. They use the difference to allow them to sell cameras at a lower price point to 95% of the people buying cameras without undercutting the prices on their own FF models.



You would believe wrong then.

A FF sensor has approximately 2.6x the surface area, so they only get about 1/3 as many on a wafer.
Because of the increased surface area there is an increased risk of flaws, but not a 2.6x increase, a 6.9x increase. (actually 6.9x (square of the difference) sounds a little high, so don't quote me on that. I do know it's not linear though.)
There is also the reduced volumes vs. APS-C, especially taking into account for the 18MP sensor that has made it into seemingly half the APS-C bearing line.

Add those all together, and you get massive cost increases.

As to your second point (unquoted for brevity)...

Even an APS-C sensor is larger (up to 2x) than the latest 6 & 8 core Intel processors. Have you priced out an 8 core Xeon lately? They start north of $1k in bulk. And even the newest 10 core E7 processors are almost half the size of a FF sensor, and they start at about $2500.

Sensor vs. CPU isn't an entirely fair comparison though. Processors are several orders of magnitude more complicated, and expensive to fab. They're also more sensitive to flaws.

So I guess my takeaway point is... Things are more complicated than you think.


----------



## pdirestajr (Nov 25, 2012)

Buy a film body. Full frame with an interchangeable sensor. It's pretty awesome and has been around for a little while, so they have had time to work out all the bugs!

But to answer the OP's original question. It's hard to say since they are marketed as top end consumer cameras and "professional" cameras. There is no REAL reason "Full Frame" has to be considered a high-end / pro format. My EOS Rebel G is all plastic (even the mount) with 3 AF points... and IT'S FULL FRAME! Does that mean I could have considered myself a pro when I got it from Santa as a kid?

Basically FF will have to be the standard sensor in entry-level cameras first to be marketed <1K.

Also, ask the average tourist walking around with a Rebel what size sensor is in their camera, or what the "crop factor" is, and you'll most likely get a blank look. They don't care.


----------



## weekendshooter (Nov 25, 2012)

bvukich said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe that the FF sensors cost dramatically more to make than 1.6 crop sensors. They use the difference to allow them to sell cameras at a lower price point to 95% of the people buying cameras without undercutting the prices on their own FF models.
> ...



Absolutely right. I've done work in nanofabrication and the plain fact is that big chips are extraordinarily difficult and expensive to make. Many of the advancements made in fabrication technology in recent years have aimed to reduce the minimum feature size, enabling smaller, more power-efficient chips. This sort of move is irrelevant to sensor fab, as sensors have a fixed overall size and thus are very expensive to make regardless of how advanced the fab process is.

Imagine building something where your initial investment (building the fab) is in the billions of dollars, then for every time your process messes up a single step (out of dozens) you have to toss out a wafer of 10 or more full frame sensors. These things are extremely hard to get right, and prices won't go way down by a significant margin anytime soon unless someone decides it's worth it to sell full frame cameras at a loss. 

That could be a nice venture, considering how much full frame lenses cost! Nikon already sells its lowest crop body (think canon T3) as a kit only, so I can see Canon doing this and selling a barebones full frame body with a mandatory 24-70/4 IS kit. I'm sure $1500 for that lens is leaving plenty of profit margin ;D


----------



## gmrza (Nov 25, 2012)

pwp said:


> Available right now...pre-owned on eBay.
> Nothing wrong with a well looked after, low-mileage 5D or 5DII.
> 
> But new? It will happen. Probably not 2013, 2014 or even 2015. If you have a budget limit of $1k and have a definite need for FF, it's a pre-owned body for you.
> ...



Consider the following initial list prices (source dpreview.com):


EOS D30: US $2990
EOS D60: US $2199
EOS 10D: US $1999
EOS 20D: US $1599
EOS 30D: US $1399
EOS 40D: US $1299
EOS 50D: US $1299
EOS 60D: US $1099 (possibly not a real comparison)

Canon has kept release prices of enthusiast level APS-C bodies above the $1000 barrier. Although, if one were to adjust for inflation, we would be below the 2000 value of $1000.

I suspect, subject to market forces, Canon will probably try to keep full frame bodies above $1500 (at launch). Given the trajectory shown above, that may take another 2 generations to reach, however.

You also need to consider where Canon is pitching the xx0D range - which have now settled at listing just below $900 at launch. That makes a sub $1000 full frame body seem unlikely to me, unless APS-C starts to fall away, which seems unlikely to me.


----------



## weekendshooter (Nov 25, 2012)

gmrza said:


> Canon has kept release prices of enthusiast level APS-C bodies above the $1000 barrier. Although, if one were to adjust for inflation, we would be below the 2000 value of $1000.
> 
> I suspect, subject to market forces, Canon will probably try to keep full frame bodies above $1500 (at launch). Given the trajectory shown above, that may take another 2 generations to reach, however.
> 
> You also need to consider where Canon is pitching the xx0D range - which have now settled at listing just below $900 at launch. That makes a sub $1000 full frame body seem unlikely to me, unless APS-C starts to fall away, which seems unlikely to me.



APS-C will always have a place in Canon's lineup, as they have proven that a 1.6x crop sensor is useful for many types of photography. APS-C sensors are the sweet spot for the manufacturer price-wise; they can charge $1000 for a 60D-type camera where the sensor costs a couple hundred dollars, compared to a 6D that's going for $2000 with a $1500 sensor. As things are now, Canikon can't charge significantly less than $2k for a full-frame body without either making it out of silly putty or taking a significant loss on every camera sold.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 25, 2012)

weekendshooter said:


> gmrza said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has kept release prices of enthusiast level APS-C bodies above the $1000 barrier. Although, if one were to adjust for inflation, we would be below the 2000 value of $1000.
> ...


 
Although I am in agreement that a FF sensor is more expensive, it certainly does not cost Canon $1500. Their cost to manufacture the 6D is going to be less than that. The selling price of a body is probably at least 3 - 4X the cost to manufacturer it. Adversising, freight, maintaining warehouses, returns and the cost of servicing cameras are huge expenses. And, then, there is the dealer profit and the rebate program. It likely costs $300 to give a buyer a $200 rebate, for example.
My guess as to the price for a FF sensor for the 6D is about $350-$450 max. The APS-C sensors likely now cost $20 to make.


----------



## ScottyP (Nov 25, 2012)

bvukich said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe that the FF sensors cost dramatically more to make than 1.6 crop sensors. They use the difference to allow them to sell cameras at a lower price point to 95% of the people buying cameras without undercutting the prices on their own FF models.
> ...



You quote the retail price of Intel CPU's, which misses my point. Whatever the retail, you know it doesn't cost Intel anything like that much to produce. Even if you can really translate surface area directly into fab cost (cost per square centimeter), and the surface area is 2.6 times greater, and even if the 0.05% dud rate is really multiplied by 6.9x or whatever number you toss at it, I still am not convinced that the actual cost to make it is that great. 2.6 times what??


----------



## weekendshooter (Nov 25, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> weekendshooter said:
> 
> 
> > gmrza said:
> ...



You're quite misinformed if you think sensors are that cheap. Think $1k for full frame and $100-200 for APS-C. Again, it's REALLY HARD to make huge chips with no imperfections. A single dust speck or mistimed/mismeasured fabrication step is much more expensive for a full frame process where only a few chips fit on a wafer than on APS-C, which fit many more. Every possible cost is squared and then some when building big chips.


----------



## weekendshooter (Nov 25, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > ScottyP said:
> ...



The dud rate is WAY higher than that, considering it's not intel making these, or any other company with state of the art fab, for that matter. Just did a quick check and Intel's Ivy Bridge processors are about 5-8 times smaller than a full frame sensor, so square that and then add cost due to a less optimized process and let me know how much you think that costs. These things are NOT cheap, despite how much we want them to be. Until we agree to accept a smaller sensor, they won't be cheap.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Nov 25, 2012)

sylvestrerato said:


> Hi,
> 
> The title says it all.
> 
> Cheers



my answer is based on the title and here it is: "now and they are all on craigslist. you are asking for full frame, but did not ask for new or old version of them though" ;D


----------



## EchoLocation (Nov 25, 2012)

> You're quite misinformed if you think sensors are that cheap. Think $1k for full frame and $100-200 for APS-C. Again, it's REALLY HARD to make huge chips with no imperfections. A single dust speck or mistimed/mismeasured fabrication step is much more expensive for a full frame process where only a few chips fit on a wafer than on APS-C, which fit many more. Every possible cost is squared and then some when building big chips.


FF sensors definitely are not 1000 dollars each....
If they were, the 6D would be 3000 dollars minimum, not overpriced at 2100.
I have read VERY conflicting articles on it, but at this point, I don't even think they are evn $500 each as seems to be the most quoted price online...
The last article I read made it seem like they more about $100 each to produce....
I haven't read an article yet that I fully trust in terms of the actual price of the sensor, but somehow, I know that they are not $1000.
If anyone has a link to an article that more clearly and absolutely gives the cost of manufacturing sensors i'd be quite interested to read it.


----------



## ScottyP (Nov 25, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> > You're quite misinformed if you think sensors are that cheap. Think $1k for full frame and $100-200 for APS-C. Again, it's REALLY HARD to make huge chips with no imperfections. A single dust speck or mistimed/mismeasured fabrication step is much more expensive for a full frame process where only a few chips fit on a wafer than on APS-C, which fit many more. Every possible cost is squared and then some when building big chips.
> 
> 
> FF sensors definitely are not 1000 dollars each....
> ...



EXACTLY. If they sell a 6D for $2100 (and then lower it to retail for $1,700 6 months after release) then how in the world could the sensors cost $1,000.00?? Canon has to make a profit, plus the retailer  has to make a profit, plus the REST of the camera  has to cost something to make and to assemble too, right?? Also all the marketing and advertizing Canon does in all the magazines, TV, etc., is not free either. 
It might be gratifying (if you own a FF body) to think that a crop sensor could be made for $20 bucks but a FF must cost 50 TIMES that much, but that is nonsense. And you know the crop sensor can't cost more than $25 to $50 bucks tops, or else how could the T3i I bought 1 year ago at its peak have cost $630.00 body-only, and still the retailer made money, Canon made money, and on top of that, they managed to wrap a whole camera around that sensor, all with change left over?


----------



## ishdakuteb (Nov 26, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> That day will come...
> And the day mobile phones become FF will also come..just a matter of time i believe...



like i believe i can fly. i believe i can touch the sky...


----------



## dirtcastle (Nov 26, 2012)

Yup. The 5D is that camera. You sacrifice AF and ISO. But something's gotta give.

What you get in return for that sacrifice is full lens potential, given the necessary lighting conditions.


----------



## iso79 (Nov 26, 2012)

If you can't afford it, don't buy it. If you really want it, save up for it.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Nov 26, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> That day will come...
> And the day mobile phones become FF will also come..just a matter of time i believe...



Its mor likely that a FF (or crop) camera gets a smart phone integrated than vice versa... just simply because people would call a smart phone with a Ff lens attached a camera and not a phone.... thats optics and not speculation on manufacturing costs


----------



## Area256 (Nov 26, 2012)

My guess is it won't be a straight progression of the current d600 and 6D to lower prices. The 6D/d600 future generations will likely cost about the same (i.e. about $1700-2000), and just offer better specs in terms of build quality, AF, burst, ect. A new class will have to come in with lower specs and build (aside from the sensor), and more "auto" features. 

When will this happen? My thought is not for a long time. It'll be at least 2-3 years before the d600 and 6D get refreshed, and they won't want to undercut those with cheaper cameras for at least a year after that. When they do, it'll be about $1500. Wait another 1-3 years, and sales will start pushing them close to $1000. This of course assumes any of the big three wants to go in this direction, they may try to keep full frame in the realm of serious enthusiasts with deeper pockets able to buy full frame lenses.

So overall I'd expect at least 4-7 years before we see a sub $1000 full frame. However this could change with EVIL cameras stealing the show. If enough competitive pressure comes from those markets to erode sales in the DSLR market, we may see a push to claim higher image quality on full frame DSLRs a lot sooner.


----------



## preppyak (Nov 26, 2012)

Assuming you don't accept used and refurbished cameras into the equation, then the reality is that the cheapest full-frame we have now is $14-1500, and that is a several years old model that stayed relevant because it had original features that nobody really topped at that price range. The cheapest, newest iteration is $2100. So, you've got to drop 50% on that body...quite a ways to go.

Heck, the entry-level APS-C cameras retail at $999...can't imagine we'll see another cheap full-frame in production long enough to cross that thresh-hold; the 6D would have to last as long as the 5DII, and I don't see that


----------



## bycostello (Nov 27, 2012)

i was gonna say never, but actually agree with the guy on 2nd hand gear...


----------



## Area256 (Nov 27, 2012)

ishdakuteb said:


> spinworkxroy said:
> 
> 
> > That day will come...
> ...



Can we also have anti-gravity, and other fun things that break the laws of physics?


----------



## weekendshooter (Nov 27, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> EchoLocation said:
> 
> 
> > > You're quite misinformed if you think sensors are that cheap. Think $1k for full frame and $100-200 for APS-C. Again, it's REALLY HARD to make huge chips with no imperfections. A single dust speck or mistimed/mismeasured fabrication step is much more expensive for a full frame process where only a few chips fit on a wafer than on APS-C, which fit many more. Every possible cost is squared and then some when building big chips.
> ...



Because your T3i has a comparatively tiny sensor, in terms of area and ability to pack multiple chips onto a single wafer. Yes, full frame sensors really do cost many MANY times more to make than crop. Here's a link that has a nice picture illustrating what I'm trying to get across. You can ignore the actual numbers since they're his assumptions anyway, but the logic he used to get there is sound: http://www.naturescapes.net/092006/ej0906.htm

Again, full-frame sensors are, especially by modern standards, ENORMOUS chips that nobody really wants to fab because it's extraordinarily difficult to get good yield numbers when a few defects on an entire wafer mean that you have to throw out a large percentage of the total chips on that wafer. A reasonable estimate of 1-3 defects per wafer could theoretically result in a much lower yield of full-frame chips than crop sensors.

This is also the reason that you don't see many 16:10 computer monitors these days; the manufacturers realized that they can pass off 16:9 just as easily while fitting more panels onto a single plate of glass. The gains seem small but are in fact enormous when you consider the scale of manufacturing and the decreased impact of fabrication defects that results from having more units per wafer/plate/etc.


----------



## shutterwideshut (Nov 27, 2012)

tron said:


> DB said:
> 
> 
> > When Yongnuo start making DSLRs :
> ...



LMAO ;D ;D ;D


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 27, 2012)

shutterwideshut said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > DB said:
> ...



Kidding aside, maybe a Samyang-Yongnuo collaboration on camera, body and accessories is very good for photography as a whole. A sub $1000 FF with a kit lens and external flash kit won't be far-off. Samyang lens technology isn't that far-off. If they have full access to the wiring technology between body and lenses, I think they can easily build the AF module. What's left is Yongnuo's capability of producing capable bodies. I just hope they'll also have a great after-sales support. Even if they produce a camera system that's behind by 2-3 years in technology, if they offer it at a very cheap price (1/3 the price of Canikon/Sony), there will be no shortage of takers among the entry, enthusiasts and who knows, the professional level photographers.


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 27, 2012)

I wouldn't be shocked if we saw a $1000-$1500 FF mirorrless camera within the next two years. I see the 6D and 600D as game changers. Suddenly, we have reasonably specc'd FF cameras being released with $2k price tags. 

For typical camera users, I see the current bread and butter models as follows:

M4/3 - Olympus EPL5 - $599
APS-C - Sony Nex 5R - $648
APS-C - Canon T4i - $799
FF - Canon 6D - $2,000
FF - Nikon D600 - $2,000

I know my logic can be countered in a number of ways, but if I was a camera company exec, I'd be thinking that there's a big hole between $800 and $2000. What would get the camera community excited? A cheap FF camera. I'd then work backwards, basing everything upon a final sale price of $1250 - $1500. Ultimately, I end up with a very simple mirrorless camera with an EVF and a FF sensor. I end up with a Nex 5, but with a FF sensor and a $600-$800 premium. (And going by most of the comments above, an $800 price increase isn't unreaslistic to cover the price of a full frame sensor). 

Over its lifespan, this camera will decrease in value. Come end of life, you will see run out specials below $1,000. Maybe in 4 years time.

The big question is, will it be a Canon? Sadly, I think not. As a betting person, I'm liking the odds on Pentax who have a lot of legacy FF lenses and users to satisfy.


----------



## nicku (Nov 27, 2012)

sylvestrerato said:


> Hi,
> 
> The title says it all.
> 
> Cheers



....never........ even if the technology allow to produce FF bodies + profit under $1000. the companies are too greedy.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 27, 2012)

What do you mean "when"? ... Full Frame bodies are already available for under $1000 ... in our dreams ;D


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 27, 2012)

I think you can pick up a Rebel G for about 25 buckaroos on ebay...


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 27, 2012)

i'm sure you can pick up a 5d classic for $1000...


----------



## Area256 (Nov 27, 2012)

nicku said:


> sylvestrerato said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



You forget about competition. Why do you think we now have $2000 FF bodies? It will take a while, but slowly and surely prices will be forced down as Canon/Nikon/Sony and maybe others fight for market share. People said the sub $1000 DSLR wouldn't happen, then Canon released the Rebel and won over tons of new customers. So someone will make it happen eventually.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 27, 2012)

5Dc


----------



## jcollett (Nov 27, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> 5Dc


+1 all the way. The first iteration of the 5D is still a very viable camera for many people and can be had well south of $1K. It is what I have now. While it does not have some of the new whiz bang features of new cameras, those features do not necessarily make better pictures. Plus, the price on the 5Dc has fully depreciated so even if you want to sell it down the road, you will not have lost much in the transaction. Oh and I love the large pixel size of the ONLY 12MP sensor; allows for a tighter f stop giving more DOF without diffraction issues. Really wish Canon would make this camera again with this sensor but with ultrasonic cleaning tech included. They could do that for $1K cameras new.


----------



## tron (Nov 27, 2012)

jcollett said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 5Dc
> ...


Good idea. Especially if you think that with current sensor and microlenses technology the noise of a 12Mpixel camera will be lower than 5D's


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 27, 2012)

weekendshooter said:


> is about $350-$450 max. The APS-C sensors likely now cost $20 to make.



You're quite misinformed if you think sensors are that cheap. Think $1k for full frame and $100-200 for APS-C. Again, it's REALLY HARD to make huge chips with no imperfections. A single dust speck or mistimed/mismeasured fabrication step is much more expensive for a full frame process where only a few chips fit on a wafer than on APS-C, which fit many more. Every possible cost is squared and then some when building big chips.

I am not mis-informed, I have a ton of experience in electronics manufacturing and the costs to do so.
Canon has improved processes and switched to 12 in wafers which, along with improved high resistivity wafer manufacturing process technology has vastly improved the yield. Its why the cost of FF bodies has dropped.
However, you only need to work backward from the selling price to become aware that the direct cost to manufacture a Camera is far less than the selling cost.
The direct cost is the actual cost of the parts, and the labor to assemble them. 

Selling Price:
less Rebates
less Dealer markup
Less Canon North America Profit
Less Canon Japan Profit
Less Canon Warehousing / Inventory Costs including wages, taxes, facility cost, etc
Less a allowance for Service (Canon Repair facilty & warranty Costs)
Less Losses for broken, damaged, stolen items
Less insurance, both liability and catastrophic damage insurance
less shipping costs
Less Advertising Costs
Less Amortized Tooling Costs
Less R&D
Less amortized Development costs

I'm only roughly touching some of the costs of doing business beyone what it actually takes to assemble a product, which is why the final selling price tends to be a multiple of the actual direct manufacturing cost.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 27, 2012)

iso79 said:


> If you can't afford it, don't buy it. If you really want it, save up for it.



Wow....this is logic...but alas, this topic is not logical so it will fall on def ears!!!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 27, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> i'm sure you can pick up a 5d classic for $1000...




I see 2 on the B&H used page right now for $749 and $799


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 27, 2012)

Area256 said:


> nicku said:
> 
> 
> > sylvestrerato said:
> ...





Maybe it will, I could see a full plasitc body, totally hobbled FF rebel - 

but do you want something with like 
14MP
6point AF (no cross points)
SD card only
3fps
ISO range 100-1600

I could see that for about a grand, but, it would be sooooo hobbled that I'd say going with a used FF is a better option.


----------



## xps (Nov 28, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> weekendshooter said:
> 
> 
> > is about $350-$450 max. The APS-C sensors likely now cost $20 to make.
> ...



+1 
I got the same information. FF sensors are very expensive, some hundred $.


----------



## ScottyP (Nov 28, 2012)

Ok, $sub-$1,000 might be a bit of an exaggeration, but those who knowledgeably proclaim that the FF sensors cost $1,500 or $1,000 are nuts. 
Watch and see when the 6D hits a flash sale for $1,700 or $1,800 and then try to tell me that the sensor in that thing costs $1,000 to make. No way that with that $800 dollar difference that they can build a whole camera body to put the sensor into, with all the other expensive processors and parts and LCD screens, and still have room left over for Canon and also the retailer make money.

But then if someone would start a thread arguing that there is no good reason for Canon to charge so much for (insert some other  random single camera part here) the 150,000 - 200,000 actuation-rated shutter, lets say, on the more expensive bodies. We would have had a lot of excited FF owners typing furiously defending how a good shutter like that CERTAINLY costs $1500 dollars alone. Or the magnesium body must cost $1000 alone to make. Or the processors must probably cost $1,500 dollars each for Canon to make. And those heavy-duty neck straps..... :


----------



## EchoLocation (Nov 28, 2012)

Do you folks have any sources for this talk about $1000 sensors? 
Please explain to me how the 6D is $2100 and the D600 is at $2000 when the sensor alone is half of that price? I believe the 6D will be selling at $1700 in a matter of months. I've read that FF sensors cost $500 to manufacture a couple years ago, but I have never heard of them being $1000 to make.


----------



## jhanken (Nov 28, 2012)

> It's already here! It's called the original 5d, or as many call it the 5dc. I see them used now for $500-900 all the time.



If you want full frame, don't care about video, you get a 5D classic. If you are afraid of the lack of warranty, you can literally almost buy two copies for $1,000 these days, and ebay has lots of low mileage copies. I got mine that way and love it.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_from=R40&_nkw=canon+5D+-ii+-iii&rt=nc&LH_BIN=1


----------



## Daniel Flather (Nov 28, 2012)

I remember my dad buying our first VCR, it cost $799. I remember when a 1TB drive cost more than $1000. I believe that 24*36mm cameras will drop below $1000, but it's a matter of when the manufactures have to drop the price, and not when they can. Because they'll be able to sell 24*36 for less than $1000 before they have to sell them at that price.


----------



## amazin (Nov 28, 2012)

Never say never on such things.

It will happen, and it's forseable.

Why? Simply because every products no matter what the domain or when follow the same life curb.

I've not search *FF body history and launch price for each item*, but if someone can help remember those i would be glad to help and create a predictory chart so we can answer this question.


----------



## jcollett (Nov 28, 2012)

Regarding the actual manufacture of CMOS sensors ... Canon had put out a white paper on this topic a few years back that still has relevancy now. I found a download location for it here.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Full-Frame_CMOS_White_Paper.pdf

It is a decent read. Shows how they could only get 20 FF sensors on a 8 inch wafer but could get 200 crop sensors on the same wafer. Also discusses the various processes involved in creating these sensors and what can go wrong. Unlike many other camera makers, Canon makes their own sensors in house.


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 28, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> i'm sure you can pick up a 5d classic for $1000...



I picked one up of craigs;ist for 800m with BG and four real batteries! Not bad at all... but a wee old in the UI.. will be selling it for a 5d MK II... and awaiting the 7D MK II...


----------



## Rocky (Nov 28, 2012)

jcollett said:


> Regarding the actual manufacture of CMOS sensors ... Canon had put out a white paper on this topic a few years back that still has relevancy now. I found a download location for it here.
> 
> http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Full-Frame_CMOS_White_Paper.pdf
> 
> It is a decent read. Shows how they could only get 20 FF sensors on a 8 inch wafer but could get 200 crop sensors on the same wafer. Also discusses the various processes involved in creating these sensors and what can go wrong. Unlike many other camera makers, Canon makes their own sensors in house.



This white paper has been quoted many times in this forum. Unfortunately, this is dated back to 2006 and there are a few mistakes in the paper. Let us use with the most obvious. Canon claims that they can have 200 APS-C sensors from the 8" wafer. My estimate is only 75 APS-C on an 8" wafer. You can draw it out by yourself and see the mistake that Canon has made. I think Canon was using these number to justify the high cost of the FF sensor and hence the high cost of the FF DSLR. 6 year in silicon fabrication is almost 2 lifetime. Most stuff that was in the white paper has been changed a few times. Also Canon should have moved to 12" fabrication already.


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 28, 2012)

Hard to say. 2 maybe 3 years perhaps at the rate we're going? Looking at the price of the still current 5DII and comparing that to the 6D I would think we're probably heading in that direction. A $1000 6D would probably sell to a lot of folks who would currently not considering upgrading their Rebels and 60Ds and stuff - and without added production cost really.
It's still too early but I see sensor size becoming the next marketing slogan for the market segment that is still looking at megapixels and ISO numbers.
The question is if there will be any actually usable mirrorless camera first or if it's a small(ish) SLR.

For around a 1000 bucks the 6D would make a really nice entry level camera or a decent backup camera for more invested folks. For 2K I don't see it making any sense in any market segment.


----------



## Rocky (Nov 28, 2012)

It is price vs feature again. Canon should be able to make a $1000 FF DSLR even now(plastic body, with minimum feature, Porro-Prism, NO AFMA, center point AF only, 2 FPS etc ). But, how many people would buy it?? On the other hand All Canon newer FF DSLRs are loaded with features and hence with a higher pricr.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 28, 2012)

7enderbender said:


> Hard to say. 2 maybe 3 years perhaps at the rate we're going? Looking at the price of the still current 5DII and comparing that to the 6D I would think we're probably heading in that direction. A $1000 6D would probably sell to a lot of folks who would currently not considering upgrading their Rebels and 60Ds and stuff - and without added production cost really.
> It's still too early but I see sensor size becoming the next marketing slogan for the market segment that is still looking at megapixels and ISO numbers.
> The question is if there will be any actually usable mirrorless camera first or if it's a small(ish) SLR.
> 
> For around a 1000 bucks the 6D would make a really nice entry level camera or a decent backup camera for more invested folks. For 2K I don't see it making any sense in any market segment.




It's doubtfull that the 6d would make any kind of profit selling at or near 1K now. On paper it's very close to the 5d2, which after all this time still holds it's own in the market (retailing even now at $1800 new despite the fact that it is several years old now). Now, take the specs of the original 5d and put that in a small plastic body (rebel), make it SD card onlyand then you've potentially got a FF body at or around 1k. But, I really doubt that will happen as long as APS-C sensors are selling like hotcakes. And for the most part, those buying a sub $1000 body are either beginners (people who know a little bit about what the difference in crop vs FF is, but don't have the cash to justify spending a ton yet), casual users (who have no clue what the sensor even does, much less the size), ambitious P&S users upgrading (again, they most likely won't know the difference). So, until APS-C is phased out and everything is FF, I just don't see a 'new' FF body being available for 1K.

Oh, another way they could reduce costs is to run FF sensor lines that don't have as much quality control! Who wants that though??????



EchoLocation said:


> Do you folks have any sources for this talk about $1000 sensors?
> Please explain to me how the 6D is $2100 and the D600 is at $2000 when the sensor alone is half of that price? I believe the 6D will be selling at $1700 in a matter of months. I've read that FF sensors cost $500 to manufacture a couple years ago, but I have never heard of them being $1000 to make.



For one --- Nikon is reaping the benefits from outsourcing their sensors to sony. Take all that R&D out of the equation and yeah, your cost to produce goes down. Another very valid point regarding nikons recent pricing --- they are making moves to gain market share - which means they very well may be making the trade off of less profit margin per body sold for quantity of bodies sold. Also, to correct ya, actual price of the d600 is $2100, it has a $100 rebate now which brings it down to $2000. Also, looking at the top sellers list from amazon --- it does really look like nikon made the d600 too nice! It does appear to be eating away at d800 sales! (the d800 had been in the top 20 since release, but, since the d600 came out it has slipped further and further back, down to 26th). The 6d is much less likely to eat away at mk3 sales, in fact, it may even sway people towards the mk3! 

Will the price of all of these go down after release? Of course they will. But, it won't happen until the R&D/production costs are paid off. Retooling assembly lines to make new parts, all the time put into creating the tech -- once all that is paid off then the price can naturally go down. We keep throwing around #'s though like we're in canon's accounting dept, so I'll pretend too. Lets say for the first year (or make it more of a financial goal as opposed to time based. 6D, current cost to produce might actually be as high as $1500 (with all the added R&D, retooling costs, advertising, etc, etc). Lets say they need to sell 3 million of these at that price to pay off the production costs. Now we're left with actual cost to produce, which may be around 1k. It's probably not as cut and dry as that, there are other factors too. But I'd guess that this isn't too far off the case.

All that said - the mk3 the price will go down to around 3k around a year after release (this spring). Then the 6d will go down a bit by next november/december. And, by that time we'll have the new 7d to contend with and possibly a big MP body too, plus a slew of rebel updates. My guess is that we may see a natural price of $2700ish on the mk3 in 2014 , and the 6d may be down to around $1800 by then (the mk3 has more room to drop, I don't think we'll see the 6d go down to $1500 until it's closer to 6d2 time (a big q with that is product cycle. Most of the pro gear is on a 3 year cycle, but lower grade stuff is yearly. So how entry level is the 6d? Might next year bring a 6d2?)


----------



## tron (Nov 29, 2012)

Now, I visualize a Canon executive reading this thread and thinking the following as a possible answer to the OP's question: 

When hell freezes over ;D


----------



## CharlieB (Nov 29, 2012)

There is a basic lack of understanding here... of how manufacturing works.

Two noted issues "sensor cost", and "Canon should be able to make X, Y, and Z"

These are irrelevant issues. They always have been irrelevant. They will continue to be irrelevant.

There is one thing, and only one thing, holding up (or down) the price of any product - and that is - the marketplace.

Canon could do sub-$1000 FF SLRs any time it wants to, and do it profitably. Because it can, does not mean it will, nor mean it should.

Its all about features/benefits vs selling price. What determines that? The marketplace (you and me). Anything is only worth what we are willing to fork out for it. If Canon's market research has missed the boat, price adjustments will follow... either up or down.

Its all about what the marketplace has to offer... in terms of consumer buying and in terms of competition.

And thats it.

Canon will offer a sub-$1000 FF SLR when the market conditions call for it.


----------



## ScottyP (Nov 29, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > Halfrack said:
> ...



And the point is missed again. 
1. The fact Canon charged you 1200 dollars to replace a sensor does not mean it costs common that much to make it. Actually it proves the opposite. Canon made a profit on that part plus labor cost too. 
2. Maybe a FF sensor does cost Canon several times more to manufacture than a crop sensor costs canon to make. But so if the crop sensor only costs canon 25 bucks to make, then you are talking only a couple hundred or few hundred bucks.


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 29, 2012)

CharlieB said:


> Canon could do sub-$1000 FF SLRs any time it wants to, and do it profitably. Because it can, does not mean it will, nor mean it should.



That's why I think that any lower priced FF camera will be a surprise entry from a low market share camera company. The big three (Canon, Sony and Nikon) already have FF entries. They're don't want to disturb their margins by introducing a low cost FF camera. They also won't want to cannibalise their higher end models. With the peer pressure on photographers to go full frame, they know that people will happily pay a high price if they feel it will lead to photograhy perfection. 

But for Mamiya, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, Pentax, Ricoh, Casio etc who are all looking at increasing market shares (and in some cases just want to stay in business), getting into the FF market must look very tempting. And it will be hard for them to compete with the big three. The answer I keep coming back to is to introduce the camera at a low price and make your money on the lenses and on future higher specc'd camera model releases.

Without wanting to be too repetitive, the company I keep coming back to is Pentax. Their K-01 is retailing for $350. What the?? Surely they can just put a FF sensor in their and sell it in the low $1k range? It will have a K mount and would interest a lot of people. My alternative is Samsung, who are very ambitious right now and want to be seen as the world's leading tech company. Surely their camera division are under pressure to gain more profits and market share.


----------



## ScottyP (Nov 29, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> CharlieB said:
> 
> 
> > Canon could do sub-$1000 FF SLRs any time it wants to, and do it profitably. Because it can, does not mean it will, nor mean it should.
> ...



That makes a lot of sense. Good point.


----------



## ScottyP (Nov 29, 2012)

DB said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



Maybe I didn't express that, or maybe you only skimmed what I wrote. 
First, I said a crop sensor probably costs $25 bucks, not $15 bucks, for Canon to churn out. This could be $35 bucks, but no way more than $50 bucks BASED ON WHAT THEY SELL CROP CAMERAS FOR. The sensor does have an entire camera attached to it.  Also, Canon makes a profit, and the retailer makes a profit. How much room do you see for all those other expenses plus all those other profits if they are selling the crop body for $500.00 or $600.00??
Secondly, I allowed for sake of argument that it really does cost 'several times more to make a FF sensor". Several means "four" in colloquial English. So, $25 x 4 = $100. $35 x 4 = $140. $50 x 4 = $200.
Thirdly, look at the 6D. Sells pre-order for $2100. You know it will be going for $1700 or $1800 in 6 months. You lose any and all credibility if you claim the FF sensor in that thing costs Canon more than few hundred to make, given the cost of all the other parts in the camera, plus labor, plus profit to Canon plus profit to the retailer, etc...

Yes, the sensor probably is the most expensive single part, but there are many many other parts in there too, and they all cost money also. The processor, the shutter, the motherboard, the LCD screen(s), the body, and hundreds more. Plus the cost to assemble all these parts into a camera. There is just so much you can reasonably claim the sensor alone costs Canon to manufacture.


----------



## RS2021 (Nov 29, 2012)

Much of the whining here that this can't happen anytime soon comes from those who paid a lot for their bodies and who wishfully defend the higher prices for longer periods of time cuz they paid a lot... I liken these sentiments to those who paid 700K for a house just before the crash of 2007/2008 and predicted, and wished that the price will never dip under ...oh lets say... 650K...then demured and whimpered as the prices slid lower and lower.

Wake up! All tech items with time come down in price. Competition and market saturation drives lower prices. And yes we will have an ~1000 body sooner than some of the very early replies suggest. Even 6D pricing is likely to slide and get closer to ~1500 after release. I will not be surprised at all if in 12 months 6D is at ~$1000...without a gasp from anyone. Afterall, about a week ago you could have scooped up a 5D IIIf or $2500!! and not even a year has gone by!!! (On that note, hi there "oh-my-god-I-wet-my-panties-such-a-great-camera-I-should-preorder-it-at-$3800-six-months-in-advance-and-tell-everyone-including-my-paper-boy" crowd). Are you telling me the prices are not going down on FF market whatever the MSRP is!? 

I am not petty enough to hope or wish that the price on my 1DX will never go down because frankly it was not an expensive "trophy" toy one can crow about nor was it an "investment". If you want to invest, then buy gold, or if you absoutely must "invest" in camera gear, then lenses.  In all likelyhood even the flagships in the next 3 years will move closer to the 5 to 4K mark as more FF bodies with more and more "must-have" features show up in the market. 

So, yes, we will have a $1000 in a year or so... I don't think it will have the bells and whistles, but it will be here sooner than some predict. Chin up!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 29, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> Much of the whining here that this can't happen anytime soon comes from those who paid a lot for their bodies and who wishfully defend the higher prices for longer periods of time cuz they paid a lot... I liken these sentiments to those who paid 700K for a house just before the crash of 2007/2008 and predicted, and wished that the price will never dip under ...oh lets say... 650K...then demured and whimpered as the prices slid lower and lower.
> 
> Wake up! All tech items with time come down in price. Competition and market saturation drives lower prices. And yes we will have an ~1000 body sooner than some of the very early replies suggest. Even 6D pricing is likely to slide and get closer to ~1500 after release. I will not be surprised at all if in 12 months 6D is at ~$1000...without a gasp from anyone. Afterall, about a week ago you could have scooped up a 5D IIIf or $2500!! and not even a year has gone by!!! (On that note, hi there "oh-my-god-I-wet-my-panties-such-a-great-camera-I-should-preorder-it-at-$3800-six-months-in-advance-and-tell-everyone-including-my-paper-boy" crowd). Are you telling me the prices are not going down on FF market whatever the MSRP is!?
> 
> ...




I do believe the logic here is flawed and the time table is flawed too. The 6d is about to be ready to ship, but yet the 5d2 still retails at $1800 brand new. And how old is the 5d2 now? Yes, you may find some internet stores or grey market dealers that will sell for lower than MAP prices, but that's just a retailer offering a deal to move more product. Yes, if you bargain hunt you can find a mk3 in the 2500-3000 range. But it's official price from canon, and the price the vast majority of official dealers still have it at $3499! Rebate it by $200 and its $3299 ---

Not all tech 'comes down' in price! This is true for the all that matters is volume market. Could the big 3 cut costs? Have cheap low wage labor make the sensors? Yeah, they could, but then the whole pro DSLR market is a race to the bottom. Have fun with that! Others brought up the cars and this is a great example - did a quick littkle search and this is the result overt he past 70ish years:

Average Cost of New Car Cars 
1930 $600.00 
1940 $850.00
1950 $1,510.00 
1960 $2,600.00 
1970 $3,450.00 
1980 $7,200.00 
1990 $16,950.00 
2008 $27,958

So much for advances in tech driving the cost down!

Not many here are willing to except that there is R&D that goes into making a new body, that costs money. On other threads many claim that for canon to create a new sensor that can match the EXMOR in DR it may cost them 1-2 billion. So tell me, if you are a CEO for a DSLR company considering whether or not to invest that kind of money in a seonsor, are you putting that sensor in a consumer grade plastic body retailing for $999? Or, are you taking pride in the advancement and putting it first in your flagship model for $7K?

I say it again ---- the only way we will see a new FF at or near $1K is if they hobble it way more than the 6D ---your putting the original 5d sensor in a cheap plastic body with a flimsy mirror, 3 fps, max ISO of 1600.

USED 5d classics are selling for for around $700---- Used!!!!!! This camera came was released in 2005!!!!!! And, the mk2 is still at $1800 new ---and canon is trying to clear out the inventory on that model so they can officially discontinue it! So yeah, I see no price drop like your talking on the 6d. Maybe a year from now it will retail at a cool $1999, maybe $1899 with rebate. The 6d won't be sub $1000 for another 4-5 years at least, unless they're going to follow the rebel way and update the 6d in a year. But, if they do that your still looking at the used market to snag it for $1000 or less.

Again, the only way I see a FF brand new body under a grand is when and if APS-C sensors are phased out. As long as there is that line in the sand there is no reason for a change in the market to take place like your suggesting.


----------



## RS2021 (Nov 29, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Not all tech 'comes down' in price! This is true for the all that matters is volume market. Could the big 3 cut costs? Have cheap low wage labor make the sensors? Yeah, they could, but then the whole pro DSLR market is a race to the bottom. Have fun with that! Others brought up the cars and this is a great example - did a quick littkle search and this is the result overt he past 70ish years:
> 
> Average Cost of New Car Cars
> 1930 $600.00
> ...




Your logic is laughable. It only works if you argue the dollar value has remained the same since 1936 and inflation was nil. You seem to selectively skirt the buying power of a dollar in 1936 and what the same dollar will buy now. Do you know what the anual salary of a person was in 1936? While you selectively presented average cost of the car in 1936, here is a more complete list that puts the "value of the dollar" then in perspective:

What Things Cost in 1936:
Car: $600
Gasoline: 19 cents/gal
House: $6,200
Bread: 8 cents/loaf
Milk: 48 cents/gal
Postage Stamp: 3 cents
Stock Market: 180
Average Annual Salary: $1,600

Good luck with that 19 cent a gallon gas. It is clear some of us slectively present data to win an argument. Still doesn't change the outcome of the election


----------



## sandymandy (Nov 29, 2012)

I was thinking the same. Troll post? not sure...

House for 6200$ is really cool also...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 29, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> I was thinking the same. Troll post? not sure...
> 
> House for 6200$ is really cool also...



Is that directed at me?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 29, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Not all tech 'comes down' in price! This is true for the all that matters is volume market. Could the big 3 cut costs? Have cheap low wage labor make the sensors? Yeah, they could, but then the whole pro DSLR market is a race to the bottom. Have fun with that! Others brought up the cars and this is a great example - did a quick littkle search and this is the result overt he past 70ish years:
> ...



Was that a scientific post? no, just a quick search based on the idea that all tech comes down in price.

Also, thanks for the selective quoting --- here's the rest of what i said minus the car stuff -

I do believe the logic here is flawed and the time table is flawed too. The 6d is about to be ready to ship, but yet the 5d2 still retails at $1800 brand new. And how old is the 5d2 now? Yes, you may find some internet stores or grey market dealers that will sell for lower than MAP prices, but that's just a retailer offering a deal to move more product. Yes, if you bargain hunt you can find a mk3 in the 2500-3000 range. But it's official price from canon, and the price the vast majority of official dealers still have it at $3499! Rebate it by $200 and its $3299 ---

Not all tech 'comes down' in price! This is true for the all that matters is volume market. Could the big 3 cut costs? Have cheap low wage labor make the sensors? Yeah, they could, but then the whole pro DSLR market is a race to the bottom. Have fun with that! 

Not many here are willing to except that there is R&D that goes into making a new body, that costs money. On other threads many claim that for canon to create a new sensor that can match the EXMOR in DR it may cost them 1-2 billion. So tell me, if you are a CEO for a DSLR company considering whether or not to invest that kind of money in a seonsor, are you putting that sensor in a consumer grade plastic body retailing for $999? Or, are you taking pride in the advancement and putting it first in your flagship model for $7K?

I say it again ---- the only way we will see a new FF at or near $1K is if they hobble it way more than the 6D ---your putting the original 5d sensor in a cheap plastic body with a flimsy mirror, 3 fps, max ISO of 1600.

USED 5d classics are selling for for around $700---- Used!!!!!! This camera came was released in 2005!!!!!! And, the mk2 is still at $1800 new ---and canon is trying to clear out the inventory on that model so they can officially discontinue it! So yeah, I see no price drop like your talking on the 6d. Maybe a year from now it will retail at a cool $1999, maybe $1899 with rebate. The 6d won't be sub $1000 for another 4-5 years at least, unless they're going to follow the rebel way and update the 6d in a year. But, if they do that your still looking at the used market to snag it for $1000 or less.

Again, the only way I see a FF brand new body under a grand is when and if APS-C sensors are phased out. As long as there is that line in the sand there is no reason for a change in the market to take place like your suggesting.


----------



## RS2021 (Nov 29, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



Sorry, reposting word for word your original post does not win an argument. I don't have time to carry on a flame war here or type as much as you have and probably will. You win, yes FF will for ever cost tons and tons of money. Best.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 29, 2012)

it's not a flame war (not calling you names, not being personal, just having a conversation I thought at least), I admit my car comparison there was off. Just a quick google search. Silly, shouldn't have done that. But my other points are valid - i reposted it because the selective quoting did totally ignored the valid points.

i would also take issue with the idea that a camera body is an investment (which you say no, buy gold that's an investment). If your business is photography then anything you buy for your business is an investment! 

Will there be a sub $1000 brand new FF body? I hold to my points that the only way this happens is a) when APS-C is phased out and all SLR camera's are FF. Or, b) if one of the big 3 puts 8 year old tech in a cheap plastic body - a true rebel FF. Other than that, there is the used market.

And, in regards to the 6d - none of what we say means anything right now because it's an unknown! How good/bad is it? Maybe the IQ is better than the mk2? Maybe it is just as good as the mk3 in ISO performance. Maybe it isn't and the thing blows chunks. If the 6d ends up sucking the big fat one, then yeah the price will drop and canon will phase it right on out! But then again, if it sucks that bad, whose going to want it even at the bargain cost? and on the other hand, it may be a good and capable camera which enjoys a 2-3 life cycle! Who knows the answer to to that! None of us yet, but we'll have a better idea of where this body stands soon enough.


----------



## CharlieB (Nov 29, 2012)

DB said:


> @CharlieB
> 
> Please could you enlighten us all and tell us precisely what it costs (the nearest $ will do, round-up the cents) Canon to make the 5D3 or 1DX?
> 
> ...



If you want to discuss things on the basis of manufacturing practices, and how market analysis derives the "suggested selling price", and how marketing derives the feature/benefit set (and the price point) and how engineering must then find a way to make it profitable, fine. If you want to be a sarcastic asinine twit, leave me alone.


----------



## weekendshooter (Nov 30, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



oh crap, I actually agree with Mikael on something??? time to go jump off a bridge, see you later guys.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 30, 2012)

sylvestrerato said:


> Hi,
> 
> The title says it all.
> 
> Cheers



Already discussed ad nauseam: Large hunks of chips are disproportionately expensive, companies need to keep a margin of profit, there is a camera to wrap around that large chip- all true and relevant.
But I ask: why and for whom? Considering good lenses that take advantage of new sensor techs are becoming so expensive, who will buy cheap FFs just because they are so darned cheap? Like somebody mentioned, causal shooters don't care about FF (indeed, not many even know what it is and shoot pretty nice pics all the same). 
Like all electronics equipment, I am sure cameras will become crazy cheap some day. Maybe companies will even sell them at a loss to tie customers to their more expensive lens collections (not sure that's not happening even now). Lenses won't become cheap though. Unless someone invents some artificial UD glass and the like that costs pennies to make AND doesn't care about patents!


----------



## sandymandy (Dec 1, 2012)

I still agree that all tech cost comes down with time. The more common something is the less pricy it will be OR there will be cheap alternatives at least. Just think of the first computers lol they were so ridiculously expensive!! Today u will find a processor thats as fast as a 100.000$ computer in a mobile fone.
You can also get a cheap car. Or a cheap camera. Imho there are more cheaop alternatives nowadays to get good photo results than were available at the beginning of the 35mm film era.
I guess its something like at the dentist. The actual material cost isnt so high but its other factors that can icnrease the price a lot.

p.s.

please FF camera for under 1k$ w/o video mode, wifi or such  Reduce it to just what we need. Aperture, shutter speed, iso.
Uhh sounds like Leica....lol


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 1, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> I still agree that all tech cost comes down with time. The more common something is the less pricy it will be OR there will be cheap alternatives at least. Just think of the first computers lol they were so ridiculously expensive!! Today u will find a processor thats as fast as a 100.000$ computer in a mobile fone.
> You can also get a cheap car. Or a cheap camera. Imho there are more cheaop alternatives nowadays to get good photo results than were available at the beginning of the 35mm film era.
> I guess its something like at the dentist. The actual material cost isnt so high but its other factors that can icnrease the price a lot.
> 
> ...



one thing that seems to be missing (which is why i think some are advocating a race to the bottom instead of a race to the top) is the if you look at the market how is it divided? APS-C sensor camera's (with the exception of the 7d and the d7000) are consumer grade bodies. FF sensor bodies are directed and marketed to Pro's. This isn't to say lower models are bad. If your experience is with a P&S, just making that step into a t3i with kit lens is a huge WOW experience. And from there you move up the tiers as your experience builds. Most causal users will never actually outgrow this camera! Then you get to higher level APS-C, all the way up to 7d then after that it's FF. 

And that leads me to that idea of racing to the bottom instead of racing to the top! Yeah, canon ccould cut quality control on FF sensor lines - that would cut the cost. But it would also lead to a hit or miss sensor. They could wrap that hit or miss sensor in a plastic body, give the minimal amount of features, assemble it with cheap labor - then push it out at under a grand. But why would they do that when they could offer a much better APS-C alternative?

I could see canon making such a move if they weren't making pro product as well. A super cheap no quality control FF would cheapen everything else in the canon line. And so the alternative to this is used, cause older tech is cheaper than new tech if your trying to stay on the cutting edge (yeah, on that level I'd much rather the R&D team be working on ways to increase DR and other things on their pro sensor line rather than spending time plotting out a rebel FF).

What I really don't get here is why people tend to seem so down on the used market???? Granted most of my used stuff is lenses, but, I would buy a used body as well (I'm weighing options now, a used 5d2, a new 6d, a new/used if i find one mk3, or a used 1dmk4 - don't really need to move on it till spring so i am seeing what happens). 

So feel free! There are FF options under a grand! And yeah, as with all things in an expensive area like photography, you make trade off's when you buy. Look at lenses. In a pinch you can snag the $100 50 mm 1.8, and the IQ on it isn't half bad, but the build q is horrid (i know many who have had to bring the camera into the shop cause in the summer the plastic will expand and the lens will be stuck on the body). and in the L range lenses - yeah when I bought my 70-200, I wanted it to be 2.8 but couldn't quite afford the one with IS, so i saved x 2 by snagging a used one without IS (it's now one of most used lenses!!!!). We all make trade offs when we buy. And yeah, Canon knows there is a used market (On canon's end, why waste factory time making cheap FF's when better quality used ones are out there????). Let the used market take care of those who want FF but can't leap into one of the newer systems. 



sandymandy said:


> I still agree that all tech cost comes down with time. The more common something is the less pricy it will be OR there will be cheap alternatives at least. Just think of the first computers lol they were so ridiculously expensive!! Today u will find a processor thats as fast as a 100.000$ computer in a mobile fone.
> You can also get a cheap car. Or a cheap camera. Imho there are more cheaop alternatives nowadays to get good photo results than were available at the beginning of the 35mm film era.
> I guess its something like at the dentist. The actual material cost isnt so high but its other factors that can icnrease the price a lot.
> 
> ...



Reread above...lol

Also, taking video out wouldn't be wise as it would cut the potential market for it drastically (unless they really limited it and stripped it of a live view function too) - from the accounting dept side of things any sub $1000 body is going to make less total $$$ per body than the higher level ones. For the sub $1000 level, it's all about volume. And if your going to sell a crippled FF camera in that range it would have to have video because there are a ton of video people that would buy it. I never use video, but, if it helps drive sales and doesn't really harm anything else, why not? 

Back to the biggest point of all though, seriously think about the used market! 2 of my lenses - used, both of my flashes - used. I tend to trust B&H and adorama with used stuff. Got my 70-200 from b&H, had it now for well over a year and the thing is awesome! And I just picked up a used 16-35L v2, I see no flaws in it all so far. The only reason I'm not leaping on a used 5d2 right now is because I want to see what the 6d can do, and if that sucks then I am snagging another mk3 (shooting weddings and having 2 would just make sense no one body works one way the other works another way kind of stuff). And if i am waiting till spring, there may just be a few mk3's onm the used market (think about people that snagged a mk3 but actively saving for 1dx, once goal is met, sell mk3 snag 1dx). 

If you want FF and under a grand - snag a 5d classic at $750, then buy a few cheap manual flashes and a few cheap transmitters.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 2, 2012)

DB said:


> There are 2 types of CR blogger: Generation X and Generation Y. The former were those born between 1965 to 1980 (the Baby Boomers preceded them from 1946 to 1964), but the Generation Y - those born since 1980, well they stick out like a sore thumb on CR. They never shot and processed/developed their own film, they expect everything for nothing, especially if it is on the Web, and they particularly do not understand the time value of money ???
> 
> I hate to generalize, but you can tell the age of a poster on CR, just from their whining tone, unrealistic expectations, and moreover, their complete failure to acknowledge that Canon Inc. is a superb company that makes excellent products, albeit at a reassuringly high price (and I mean that last sentiment as Canon's pricing policy has protected the value of my L glass immeasurably).
> 
> Generation Y people are also quick to throw tantrums and be verbally abusive, but that's just a reflection of the solipsistic society that we now live in. :




If you HATE to generalize, then don't. 
Making arbitrary statements will only negate the correct ones, making you look foolish and biased.
By the way, I don't fall in your 'dreaded' Generation Y


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 2, 2012)

Canon could make and sell a sub-$1000 full frame body, but honestly, who would want to buy a 2.5 frame per second, ISO1600 max ( and a very noisy 1600 to boot), 8 megapixel camera......

As time moves forward technology gets cheaper, but we are not using the same technology as just a few years ago.... enormous strides have been made in image processing algorithms, processing power, power saving, sensor sensitivity and density, storage speeds and size, and just about everything else that goes into a DSLR, with, of course, the obvious exception of the rubber grip....

That is what we pay for.. and that is why newer cameras cost more..... yes, Canon makes more profit, but that profit is what pays for the research that makes the newer cameras possible. You can't have one without the other.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 2, 2012)

Don Haines said:


> Canon could make and sell a sub-$1000 full frame body, but honestly, who would want to buy a 2.5 frame per second, ISO1600 max ( and a very noisy 1600 to boot), 8 megapixel camera......
> 
> As time moves forward technology gets cheaper, but we are not using the same technology as just a few years ago.... enormous strides have been made in image processing algorithms, processing power, power saving, sensor sensitivity and density, storage speeds and size, and just about everything else that goes into a DSLR, with, of course, the obvious exception of the rubber grip....
> 
> That is what we pay for.. and that is why newer cameras cost more..... yes, Canon makes more profit, but that profit is what pays for the research that makes the newer cameras possible. You can't have one without the other.



exactly what I was saying up there man! Stack it up, why the heck would anyone buy a "2.5 frame per second, ISO1600 max ( and a very noisy 1600 to boot), 8 megapixel camera......" when for the same price you could get a much more capable crop sensor camera (or a used FF)? Stick a hobbled 5d classic in a plastic rebel body --- do you think that body will sell used for $750 in 3 years? where if you snag a used 5d classic for $750, unless you trash it in a year you could probably get $650-700 for it. 2 years from now, $600-650. Yeah, eventually the shutter will go on it. But, my bet is that if they made a rebel FF - the still circulating 5d classic would outlast it!

Not to mention that you could also scoop up something like these:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800906281-USE/Canon_9443a002_EOS_1DS_Mark_II_Digital.html
Canon EOS-1DS Mark II, 16.7 Megapixel, SLR, Digital Camera (Camera Body) --- $999. This one has a quality rating of 7, which means it's definitely worn - shutter count would be an issue. But damn, would you honestly say a brand new rebel FF would be better than a 1d series body??????? 45pt AF, what would a rebel FF have? 9 point at best! ISO not that great, but the 1ds was more geared towards lower ISO performance anyways. If I was desperately seeking a FF body under $1000, I would seriously consider these. And yeah, there is another of the same model but in better condition for $1200. Look around people!!!!! There are goodies to be found a plenty out there if you look!


----------



## tron (Dec 3, 2012)

At the end of 2012 Noisy 1600 top ISO FF camera and 8Mpixel at the same time! Wow, someone has very vivid imagination


----------



## Rocky (Dec 4, 2012)

Don Haines said:


> Canon could make and sell a sub-$1000 full frame body, but honestly, who would want to buy a 2.5 frame per second, ISO1600 max ( and a very noisy 1600 to boot), 8 megapixel camera......


It will never be that way. the cheapest way to build anything is to use the existing and the cheapest parts. Actually, the 6D is as cheap as it can get. (execpt the "new" sensor) So the next "$1000"FF will have a 6D sensor, AF system. Single Digit V, etc. The reasons why the 6D is at $2000 are: 1. it need to recap the sensor development cost ( No big deal just a new mask set). 2. It needs to recap the AF module developement cost. 3. It is intended to be a 5D II replacement. So it got to be in the same price range. 3. Canon wants higher profit. 
Canon should be able to build a $1000. Whether it will be sold at $1000, that is another story.


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 15, 2012)

You can currently pick up a Nikon D600 Digital Camera with a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR Lens and other accessories for $1996. If you take the normal sale price of the lens ($597) and accessories ($174) away, you could say that the underlying price of the camera is $1225.

Getting very close to your $1,000 mark.


----------



## CharlieB (Dec 15, 2012)

Rocky said:


> The reasons why the 6D is at $2000 are: 1. it need to recap ..... 2. It needs to recap the AF..... 3. It is intended to be a 5D II replacement....3. Canon wants higher profit.
> Canon should be able to build a $1000. Whether it will be sold at $1000, that is another story.



Not true. 

The reason the 6D is priced as it is, is because Canon's market research indicates that the market (you and me, the buying public) will support the 6D's feature set at that given price. Which also happens to be the reason _anything_ is the price it is. If the market won't support the price, you either have no more product soon, or you lower the price and hope your costs are well contained (and they should be based on the scale at which Canon can produce cameras).


----------



## StepBack (Dec 17, 2012)

Cell phone makers will push camera manufacturers out of business as Moore's Law lowers the price point for sensors and open source software developers hack out algorithms over the weekend for fun which will pummel all but the highest end cameras.


----------



## preppyak (Dec 17, 2012)

StepBack said:


> Cell phone makers will push camera manufacturers out of business as Moore's Law lowers the price point for sensors and open source software developers hack out algorithms over the weekend for fun which will pummel all but the highest end cameras.


...looking forward to that full-frame phone that people carry around in their pocket. Should be comical to see; seeing as the smallest full-frame camera has more in common with an 80's phone than an iPhone


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 18, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> You can currently pick up a Nikon D600 Digital Camera with a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR Lens and other accessories for $1996. If you take the normal sale price of the lens ($597) and accessories ($174) away, you could say that the underlying price of the camera is $1225.
> 
> Getting very close to your $1,000 mark.




not sure where you are seeing that deal, but on b&h the combo kit does have a healthy $700 discount - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/896618-REG/Nikon_13187_D600_Digital_SLR_Camera.html - at $2499

I highly doubt the sub $2000 deal was from an authorized dealer.

$1996 body only (bundled with other goodies, similar to the current deal on the 6d.


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 18, 2012)

Its from B & H. $1996. This is the link: -

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892428-REG/Nikon_D600_Digital_Camera_with.html

BTW, don't buy it. Its obviously a piece of junk if Nikon has to drop the price so dramatically just after launch.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 18, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> Its from B & H. $1996. This is the link: -
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892428-REG/Nikon_D600_Digital_Camera_with.html
> 
> BTW, don't buy it. Its obviously a piece of junk if Nikon has to drop the price so dramatically just after launch.



wasn't planning on it, just kind of shocked that they are offering it at this price...maybe nikon is hurting more than we may think?


----------



## CharlieB (Dec 18, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> CharlieB said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky said:
> ...



Mik, when you have 30 years experience in manufacturing and working with market research, come have a thoughtful discussion with me. Until then, it might be better to learn instead of exclaim.


----------



## darkhound (Dec 19, 2012)

Never? In a decade, a new FF will go for less than $300.



Halfrack said:


> Never
> 
> Chip costs for the sensor won't allow for pricing to be that low and everyone making a markup. Compromises made to the 6D at the $2k price point seem to piss everyone off, so to think of a $1k price, it wouldn't even be a p&s type. Refurb on sale gets a 5d2 down to 1,400-1,500 range, but that's about as low at it will go.


----------



## agierke (Dec 19, 2012)

this thread is like when sports fans want to trade their garbage no name player to get a superstar. pointless.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 20, 2012)

agierke said:


> this thread is like when sports fans want to trade their garbage no name player to get a superstar. pointless.



You are one of the "pointless guy" too. Otherwise, why should you post here???


----------



## Rocky (Dec 20, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> You can currently pick up a Nikon D600 Digital Camera with a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR Lens and other accessories for $1996. If you take the normal sale price of the lens ($597) and accessories ($174) away, you could say that the underlying price of the camera is $1225.
> 
> Getting very close to your $1,000 mark.


Another recent example is that B&H Photo is selling the Canon Rebel T4i w/18-55 IS kit for $649 . Minus the lens ($100 already highly discounted as a kit lens. Stand alone price is $199), that make the T4i body worth $549. Add $200 for the FF sensor, another $250 for larger body, mirror, shutter etc. That will make it $999 for a cheap FF body. Granted it will not be full of features. But it is doable.


----------

