Why do full frame dslr's cost so much?

<p>Yeah, probably discussed before...</p>

<p>Curmudgeon mode on.</p>

<p>Let me first say that I use a "crop sensor" dslr. I just came to P.net for my daily visit and on the front page is a first impressions review of the new Nikon D600, http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon/d600-first-impressions-review. To quote P.net author Shun Cheung, "Prosumer/enthusiast DSLR: Canon 6D and Nikon D600 both with the same $2099.95 introduction price... For the first time, FX-format DSLRs are now available at a fairly affordable price just over $2000."</p>

<p>For some reason, today, this touched a nerve. Sorry in advance if I sound like a whining baby. Or a cranky middle-aged man.</p>

<p>I understand that "fairly affordable... $2000" is a relative statement compared to the $3000-7000 prices of the top end full frame cameras. But in reality, what makes any of these +$2000 cameras worth their suggested retail prices? I'll use my generic crop sensor camera as the model of comparison (because it's what I've got)- it is highly weather sealed, built on a tough metal chassis, has lots of bells and whistles, and so on. Not unlike the multi-thousand dollar cameras, with exception of those cameras having an image sensor that measures 24x36mm rather than 16x24mm.</p>

<p>So, put a piece of black tape over the brand names on the all small sensor and large sensor cameras, disregard bells and whistles that are not core to the function of the camera and concentrate only on the sensor. Why is sensor size driving the price of the "full frame" cameras to be up to 10 times more expensive than their smaller sensor cousins? (If we use sensor size as the main determining factor, the M4/3 cameras should be retailing for about $50-100.) I will not argue one bit the inherent image benefits that the larger sensor provides, but I have a hard time accepting any justification for such a dramatic price difference between the two formats when the main difference between the cameras (regardless of brand) is the size of that sensor. From an electrical engineering standpoint, what makes the technological differences between the sensor sizes justify such a dramatic price difference?</p>

<p>Or is it as simple as for every one 24x36mm sensor produced, 100 (or 200 or 1000...) 16x24mm sensors are produced? If that were the case, sensor manufacturers could/should simply stop making small sensors and start making only large quantities of large sensors at a price much closer to that of the small sensor cost. After all, how often do we read on forums, such as this one, of people clamoring for the next great APS-C sensor camera? Heck, no! They are looking for the next great full-frame sensor camera, the same thing they've looked for since the very first digital SLR. The camera makers seem to have us, hook, line, and sinker.</p>

<p>I do not write this to be a troll. I don't like forum trolls, but I also don't like feeling like the proverbial lemming- I don't want to fall off the financial cliff chasing technology that may not necessarily justify such dramatic increases in purchase price. Damn marketing departments... <em>cause the customer to have an emotional need for our product and he/she will pay whatever we ask. </em>Do I wish for a full frame camera? Sure, I do. Could I afford one? With time I could pay the price they ask, if it's on the "affordable" end of the model spectrum. Will I buy one? Not likely, I don't want to be led to the free fall off that financial cliff while the laughter from the camera manufacturer echos from the canyon walls.</p>

<p>Without us, manufacturers of cameras (or any product) have no need to exist. Maybe it's time we start talking with our pocketbooks. We need to start being a more savvy camera consumer. Hey camera makers- want us to buy those large sensor cameras? Start charging a realistic price for them. My fellow photographers, let us unite and force the camera manufacturers to, as the kids say, get real with camera prices.</p>

<p>Thank you. Curmudgeon mode off.</p>

<p>I'm with you Steve.<br>

That's why I use a 60 year old film camera for full frame.<br>

I buy only what I can afford.<br>

The manufacturers will charge as much as some fool will pay.<br>

Why would someone buy a 18 or 24 megapixel camera to get a 6 X 4 inch print?<br>

Bragging rights!</p>

<p> I guess camera stuff has always been expensive but my goal is to spend as little as I can. The good news is I am easy to please and most any camera is fine for me. </p>

<p>Large chips have always been more expensive that small chips. A full frame sensor is about 2.5 times the number of pixels as a crop sensor with equivalent pixel density. Even lower density FF sensors will have a much higher discard rate than smaller. The manufacturing process isn't perfect. Faster processors let them map dead pixels etc so the sensor doesn't need to be perfect to end up in a camera, but it still needs to be near-perfect.</p>

<p>Remember it took quite a long time before any full frame sensors were available at all. You can bet your life that if Canon or Nikon could've come out with a full frame sensor in the beginning, you would've never seen APS-C or the bastard compromise APS-H. I'm sure they experimented in lab runs and found out that yield rates were impossibly low, thus the small sensor ...</p>

<p>Think back to when LCD screens first became available. Lots of dead pixels because the manufacturers literally couldn't make even a 15" one without dead pixels. 17" screens were insanely expensive. When the first LCD tvs came out, a 32" cost *a lot*. It took years for the price to drop to the $500 "sweet spot" where it was predicted that most tube tv owners would be willing to pay to switch. Now look ... cheap laptops have excellent 15" or 17" screens, dead pixels are cause to return one to the manufacturer, colors are better, etc.</p>

<p>But it took a long time and LCD screens are far simpler to make than a low-noise high-density photo sensor.</p>

<p>Things are moving along quite nicely, I think. $2K for the latest FF bodies is sweet compared to what we saw just five years ago. Five years from now improvements in manufacturing will drive all sensor prices nice and low, I believe. Patience.</p>

 

<p>Steve, quit whining, full frame pro grade SLRs have always been approx $2k in current dollars since the 1960s. Economies of scale and micro electronics have led to drastic price reductions and similar increases in features and performance. Look at the price of a mechanical Rolex watch if you want sticker shock.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Tell you the truth I was shocked when I purchased my first full frame camera a Canon 5D. The camera looked like a glorified 20D so all I was paying for (2 grand) was the sensor. These days the 5D II and 5D III offer live-view, sensor cleaning and other technical goodies that were not available back then, but then again consumer digital cameras are also offering the same technical goodies. A while back Sarah Fox posted a really good article on why FF sensors are so costly. Maybe you can do a search on PN and see if you can locate it. </p>

<p>Two reasons. First, the sensor really is much more expensive. Second, the market supports it. People going for full frame cameras are usually the ones who will pay this sort of money, and if you don't want to pay over $2000 there are very good DX options. A D7000 is basically the same as a D600 but with the smaller sensor and under $1000. That's a heck of a good camera.</p>

<p>We have had a few threads on this topic. The main reason is that FX (24x36mm) sensors cost a lot more than DX or APS-C (16x24mm) sensors. Some people suggest the cost difference is about 10x (Thom Hogan said a few years ago that it was $500 vs. $50); Wikipedia suggests that a 20x difference.</p>

<p>For example, you can read these previous threads:</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00ape7">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ape7</a></li>

<li><a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00aNFb">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aNFb</a></li>

</ul>

<p>One issue to keep in mind is that if manufacturing cost of two products is $500 vs. $50, i.e. a $450 difference, retail price difference would be about 3x to 4x of that difference. If we use 3x as an example, a $450 cost different would be reflected by a $1350 retail price difference.</p>

<p>"Second, the market supports it."</p>

<p>This would be my theory. The sensors have enormous features in an age where clean rooms support insanely fine features and they've had a full decade to figure out how to do it, with only a slight increase in devices/unit area (11MP to 22MP and now 36MP is nothing like Moore's Law). I wouldn't be surprised if the original FF Canon was a loss leader, but by the time the 5D came out (now 6 years ago) I'm sure they were making money, and by now, they can't not be making a killing. (My intuition; your theory may vary.)</p>

<p>"<strong>But in reality, what makes any of these +$2000 cameras worth their suggested retail prices?"</strong></p>

<p>US$2000 for a camera that womps all over 645 and gives 6x7 a run for its money in a 35mm SLR size package is a seriously amazing deal. If you aren't using the capabilities of these cameras, then it isn't worth it, of course.</p>

 

<p>Simply wait. My Kodak DC280 was a state of the art 2 MP point & shoot. In 2001 I paid $450 for it. At that time it was one of the few 2 MP cameras on the market. Today I can buy a 14 MP P&S camera for under $100.</p>

<p>Market forces are at work here. Simply put, you want it and they've got it.<br>

You have to decide if it's a good purchase for you. Every single one of us will calculate the answer for this a little differently. It's a very personal thing. Paying a lot of attention to marketing depts and everyone else's opinion is not a good way make this calculation (provided you have the background).<br>

And if you think these prices are bad, go out and try shopping for a sailboat. You'll come back and buy a 5d3 with a big smile on your face.</p>

<p>You can buy a used original Canon 5D in perfect working condition for around $500 now. That's less than I paid for my refurbished T1i a few years ago. If I really wanted FF, I could afford it without breaking into too much of a sweat, but I like the smaller and lighter APS-C cameras and lenses. I can't ever see myself buying into FF. Instead, I recently bought a 20D to complement my T1i. I am having lots of fun playing around with it, and I paid $150 for a body that has seen only studio use, and had some minor scratches on the base plate from a tripod mount as the only signs of wear.</p>

<p>This is a great time for anybody wanting to buy a DSLR - and a great time to be doing photography. Back in the day, it didn't take me long to burn through $150 worth of slide film and E6 developing!</p>

<p>I would like to add this !:<br /> I think, this topic has another side of economic in which the company took in its consideration " who can pay more ". DSLR mainly manufactured for professionals who has income from the use of tools, where as amateurs always seek for a more cheep equipments. At the end :</p>

<p>Gain from large numbers ( amateurs ) in low profit = Gain from small numbers ( professionals ) with max. profit</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why would someone buy a 18 or 24 megapixel camera to get a 6 X 4 inch print?<br /> Bragging rights!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or they like the opportunity to crop heavily and still have something that can print at 4x6. Not everyone has a 500mm lens, and if using a 200mm lens, you'd have to crop quite a bit. Not so easy with a 6 MP sensor to still end up with a nice print.</p>

<p>Besides, the MP count of a given camera model is set by the manufacturer, so even if you'd rather pay less for larger pixels at a lower count, but still have all the other advanced features (or even some of them), you can't. If I have to buy an 18+ MP camera to get better low light capability, better AF, etc, so be it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Large chips have always been more expensive that small chips. A full frame sensor is about 2.5 times the number of pixels as a crop sensor with equivalent pixel density. <strong>Even lower density FF sensors will have a much higher discard rate than smaller.</strong> The manufacturing process isn't perfect.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>^This.</p>

<p>Steve, third post answered your question. It's not some grand conspiracy. Read a little about microchip manufacturing and it will become obvious to you why the costs are exponential. I shoot 35mm digital and film but I only shoot MF film. People are upset about 35mm full frame sensor prices?! Look at the prices of old used cropped frame medium format sensors! I mean trying to come up with a 6cm x 6cm flawless piece of silicon even if it is only 18 megapixels is going to be an expensive affair. So no conspiracies. No big bad corporations trying to be mean. Just manufacturing reality. A certain percentage of those nice shiny silicon wafers with all those chips are going to be tossed out as unusable trash. That means whatever chips do make it off the wafer are going to have to bare the entire cost of the wafer and have to produce all the profit. The bigger you make the chips the more chance any individual chip is going to have a defect and it also leaves fewer chips to spread the cost over.</p>

<p>In fact a lot of the other features in digital cameras are relatively cheap and easy to implement. If you look at Canon you will often seen certain features implemented in their CHEAPER cameras and trickle UP to the their more expensive models. I guess after they test it out on us non pros. With the FF cameras you pay a chunk for the larger silicon and also for the better build quality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>US$2000 for <strong>a camera that womps all over 645</strong> and <strong>gives 6x7 a run for its money</strong> in a 35mm SLR size package is a seriously amazing deal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Errr... no.</p>

<p>In many ways, I agree with the OP. I also know that getting a perfect FF sensor built costs more. However, we rarely see the same camera with a FF sensor. We see all sorts of add-on stuff that ALSO increase the price. I know I'm in the minority, but, I often wonder, just what could Nikon have left OFF my D7000 and kept the price lower, OR put a FF sensor in it for the same price or not much more ?</p>

<p>I know, very few would purchase a new DSLR with just the features of an old professional film body, but I would be one. No need for a poor movie camera mode for me. No need for the scene modes. No need for ISO settings above 6400 that must be " noise free ". I know you start needing high ISO when your stuck with f5.6 lenses that many consumers buy. </p>

<p>The difference in cameras vs computers stuff, that was mentioned is that computer stuff DOES get cheaper as well as better. Camera stuff doesn't get cheaper. They sell for about the same amount but they just keep adding features to justify keeping the price the same. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Camera stuff doesn't get cheaper."</p>

<p>Huh? FF started out in the US$10,000 range. The 5D, 5DII, 5DIII, D700, D800, Sony 24MP FF were all US$3,000 cameras. The new guys are US$2,000. That's cheaper. A lot cheaper. Not cheap enough according to the OP, of course. But cheaper.</p>

 

<p>Cameras, at least the DSLR type have not followed the same curve as TVs, MP3 players, Computers, camcorders, DVD players etc. All that stuff is gotten MUCH cheaper over the same time period and gotten more in them.<br>

Look at the Nikon D1... about $5000 when it came out as I recall. The D3 ? That's right about $4700. The D4 ? Around $6000 as of now. <br>

How about something less high in the product line ? Maybe the D70. That went for about $1000. The D90 ? About $1100 I think. The D7000 came out at $1199, I think.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Uh, I thought this thread was about non-pro FF dSLRs. Which have gotten cheaper. As a user of non-pro FF dSLRs, I like the trend. I suspect that if Canon comes out with a new version of the 6D in 2015 or so, I'll be buying it, after getting 6 years of use from my 5DII. But I don't expect it'll be under US$2,000.</p>

<p>But the APS-C dSLRs aren't consumer products in the sense TVs, MP3 players, computers are. By multiple orders of magnitude. So expecting that sort of behavior in prices isn't justified. And not everything gets cheaper. Aren't cars still expensive? (I don't own one, so I wouldn't know.)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Like many people I bought a personal computer in 1982 because I thought word processing software would allow me to be more productive and efficient than I was with my manual typewriter. I didn't realize I was getting on a technological treadmill in which I would be constantly running to stay in place, changing hardware, storage formats, and software every few years. The rapid innovations in digital photography offer a similar treadmill if you try to stay at the cutting edge.</p>