[Klaus]

[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1309469862' post='9659']

Well, the article is from September 1, 2006. That´s pretty old in digital era. Of course I have no idea how much the costs have been lowered since then but I assume today in 2011 it certainly isn´t as expensive to produce as it was back in 2006... (but I may be wrong, too).

[/quote]



Well, 385$ five years ago does easily translate to about a hundred bucks today. At that time FF was not just a niche - it was exotic.

[Guest]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309463131' post='9655']However, just take the EOS 7D vs 5D II - we are talking about 1300EUR vs 1900EUR. In terms of total investments the 600EUR difference is, frankly, just "noise". If a potential 7D buyer really wanted he could afford a 5D II. Yet the 7D seems to outsell the 5D II by quite a margin - in Japan it does so by a factor of two.

I think the users just don't want to hassle with the usual FF bugs such as high vignetting and poor wide angles and, of course, the much more heavier tele lenses (at comparable FOV).

[/quote]

Not sure if I'd agree with that. "Investment" is professional's talk, meaning that camera will generate money. In that case, yes, 600eur would pay off rather quickly. However for most of us it's just a hobby, and imho 1.5x price difference is huge.

[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309467482' post='9657']Add to that the that AA-filters double the costs of the sensors.

And due to the higher prices for FF, the production numbers will be lower, also making them more expensive again.

[/quote]

In that case it's real shame that they don't offer a cheaper (even by 100eur) AA-less FF option, I'd grab one immediately.

[popo]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309467482' post='9657']

Add to that the that AA-filters double the costs of the sensors.

[/quote]

Got a reference for that? I would have thought they would be more proportional to area than a sensor.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309470400' post='9661']

Well, 385$ five years ago does easily translate to about a hundred bucks today. At that time FF was not just a niche - it was exotic.

[/quote]

That $385 is just based on some calculations and assumptions, not on Canon's manufacturing process and documentation.

5 years ago, the APS-C cameras cost about the same as they do now. The sensors have advanced too, so you can not just say it will just be $100 now, that is just based on nothing.



The other source (Canoin CMOST white paper) states a 10 to 20 fold price for FF manufacturing.



So... suppose the figure you stated for APS-C sensors is right: $20 (hard to judge the value of that figure). Then the FF sensor will be 200 to $400.



Suppose the sensors still cost more to manufacture. If they are for instance $40, then you are looking at $400 to $800 for FF.



And pop, the price of AA-filters was just given in relation to sensors, to explain just how difficult they are to make, and how expensive they are. Whether that was based in APS-C, FF or an average was not stated.

[popo]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309474790' post='9666']

And pop, the price of AA-filters was just given in relation to sensors, to explain just how difficult they are to make, and how expensive they are. Whether that was based in APS-C, FF or an average was not stated.

[/quote]

Where was that from? The Canon doc or elsewhere? I'll have to try looking it up some time.



What do they make it out of anyway? Manufactured calcite?

[dave9t5]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309463131' post='9655']

A sort-of-college investigated the production costs recently. He concluded production costs of less than 100$ actually and less than 20$ for an APS-C sensor.

[/quote]



Production cost is far from retail selling price. At each selling step along the way, the price increases.



For instance, the sensor-maker sells to camera company who sells to importer/wholesaler who sells to retailer who sells the consumer, that's 5 transactions. Each seller needs to make their profit-margin to run their business. I have no idea what the exact mark-up's in the photo business are, but I do manufacture other goods in Asia so I guesstimate it probably averages 50% at each step.



So, (1.5 mark-up) * (5 transactions) = 7.5x factor between cost and retail.

That means (in our example):

$100 at cost sensor accounts for about $750 of the retail cost of the camera body.

$20 at cost sensor accounts for $150 of the retail cost of the camera body.



So, all else being equal (in this example) the full-frame body will be at least $500 more at retail. However, since the full-frame sensor has low demand and only a few fabricators can make it, the difference in economy of scale would say that it's greater than $500 difference. And as others here have speculated, the 5:1 ratio may be an underestimate.



For real-life examples, there aren't many but we can look at but let's consider the Nikon D700 and D300s, there is a 10x difference (~$1000) between the retail prices of between these bodies. However, these bodies also have larger prisms, mirrors, shutters and motors/batteries to drive the latter two. So, the sensor difference alone is probably in the $750 retail range.



The only real good news is that a mirrorless body eliminates a few bucks in the prisms, mirrors, shutters and motors/batteries. So we are probably looking at a $750 up-charge for a full-frame mirrorless body over an APS-C body.



Now, I believe everyone here would consider a $1500 full-frame mirroless. However, the majority of the market are not geeks enthusiasts like us here in this forum. Real people would have a difficult time paying $1500 for a 12MP MIL over a 12MP APS-C MIL. If you don't believe me, consider how long it's taken the μ4/3 coalition to bring out some simple prime lenses...it's because they don't appeal to most of the market. They're going to be equally slow to bring out FF MIL's. Sony will be the first, because they fab their own sensors so they have a big advantage in access to small quantities of sensors and can come to the retail market $100 cheaper than most others.



Further, to keep things on-topic...considering the above examples, a μ4/3 body should be ~$75 cheaper than a comparable APS-C body. Why the heck is μ4/3 sooooo expensive?!?!? And if you are a hard-core bad-ass full-frame altar-worshipper, what are you even doing slumming blessing our mortal presence in this thread about μ4/3??? It's not for you...go away!

[Klaus]

[quote name='dave9t5' timestamp='1309488786' post='9668']

Now, I believe everyone here would consider a $1500 full-frame mirroless.

[/quote]



I wouldn't. A 300mm equiv lens on a FF mirrorless is still gigantic. The whole size argument is obsolete then.

A Leica 135mm f/3.4 is just as heavy and big as a similar DSLR lens.



If you're still interested you just need to wait for the rumored Sony SLT FF body.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309501821' post='9669']

I wouldn't. A 300mm equiv lens on a FF mirrorless is still gigantic. The whole size argument is obsolete then.

A Leica 135mm f/3.4 is just as heavy and big as a similar DSLR lens.



If you're still interested you just need to wait for the rumored Sony SLT FF body.

[/quote]

Hmmm? The Sony SLT will not exactlyt be mirrorless <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />... so also not more compact due to missing mirror box.



I just want a compact FF body, say size of EOS 600D/5100D. Not sure why I would want a mirrorless full frame body

[Klaus]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309509510' post='9673']

Not sure why I would want a mirrorless full frame body

[/quote]



- no mirror slap

- Live histogram

- Live WB view

- faster fps

- super-imposable whatever

- accurate focusing via magnified view

- at least potentially independent from focus shift issues in AF mode



Actually there are no reasons for a mirror full frame body (other than the possible lack of maturity on the mirrorless side although you may discuss this already).

SLRs were introduced as a workaround and it is time that this workaround dies. It's a past concept.