[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!