prizes of cameras

[5711]

<p>hello there!</p>

<p>i recently started to compare prizes of cameras.<br>

also i try to find information on how they cost in production.</p>

<p>by doing so i started to compare cameras like the h5d to film or full frame dslrs</p>

<p>i would like to get any information on the h5d, phase one or leaf i can get.<br>

i am curious..how much does the actual production of a chip not even double the size cost and why the hell<br>

are those things comming along with prizetags like 43k euros.</p>

<p>i try to udnerstand this,...well ..more or less i figure it is the name..but..why not</p>

<p>i would be very happy if anyone can shed some liught on this or give me any links that might be useful.</p>

<p>i am not interested in "this is better because" kind of awnsers.<br>

that is not in my interest at all, stay objective please.</p>

<p>thanks in advance</p>

<p> </p>

[brad_trostad]

<p>Its not just about the name (although that clearly plays some part in it). It is supply and demand. It is a function of the cost of goods(the price of all the components), the cost to assemble, costs for R&D, etc. </p>

<p>If the world only demanded 10,000 iPads, they wouldn't be $400 (unless their competitors were selling 5,000,000 of a similar thing with many shared parts). The price would be much higher because someone would have to make those LCD touchscreens but their volumes would be so low they would have to charge more to recoup their fabrication costs.</p>

<p>I'm sure the Hasselblad and Phase costs fall into this same bucket. They aren't producing 5,000,000 of these larger imagers. And no one else is either. So let's say they only sell 10,000 on 2-3yrs, then the cost to make those not so common imagers will be quite high. And because it is such a large imager, better colors, etc then the surrounding processor(s), memory, etc are also more expensive than a typical DSLR.</p>

<p>Often you will see the price for gadget run about 3-6x (or more) the cost of the goods to make it. Any less and it just won't be profitable enough to justify making them and supporting them later on.</p>

<p>Finally, there is demand. What if they could only make 5,000 of those cameras a year and 10,000 agencies / photogs want them Then they can charge even more.</p>

<p>I just wish there was a 50MP back for my old 500cm (which there is) for under $3000 (which there is not)</p>

 

[Brad Cloven]

<p>Price is what the seller believes they can get for the value they have created in the product, given the competitive environment.</p>

<p>Cost of production is nearly irrelevant. If they create the greatest camera in the history of the world for $0.01 of production cost, they can still charge you $10,000.00 and you'd be happy to pay it.</p>

<p>Smart (most) Companies price based on the value created, not the cost of production. However, if the value they create in the market is lower than their cost of production, then they will stop producing. Otherwise, companies profit maximize, as described above.</p>

<p>This is Economics. There is not a nefarious gnome somewhere doing "cost plus" pricing.</p>

[brad_trostad]

<p>Its Brad vs Brad (how often does that happen!)</p>

<p>I agree with what you said, but I look at this this way. Apple believes their watch is worth $350 so they will charge that much but only if they think they are going to make some money after all is said and done.</p>

<p>Lets say it cost them $200 to make that watch, I don't know a whole lot of electronics manufacturers who would even take this on unless the volumes were assured to be in the millions. Or if related sales (ie the phones) would also increase. My guess is that Apple has already worked with (putting it nicely) its suppliers to get that cost of goods down to below 1/3 the selling price and know apple it may be below 1/4.</p>

<p>And there is also the fact that you are often not first. Hasselbad does this, Phase one does that, Leaf comes out this, Hasselbad responds with that. By then pricing is more established (unless it is a totally new market - such as the first iPad).</p>

<p>So if you are Hasselbad and about to come out with another high resolution camera or back, you know you can't just price it at $1,00,000 and get it (well maybe NASA will by 10). So you have a more realistic upper number in mind. Then you look at your costs to produce. If that ratio is anywhere near 1:1 I don't know many companies that will move forward unless they have hug sums of money off shore (Apple!) to subsidize it until the volumes increase and costs drop. </p>

<p>If I had to guess, it's probably cost Hasselbad $2,500-$6000 to make a $40,000 camera. That's probably 7x-10x COG's to final price to buyer. I bet they would love to sell 1,000,000 cameras a year and charge $9,000 but until there is a demand, they need to make a lot more money of each sale to recoup initial investments. So they can't really go that low on the number either.</p>

<p>Also, the people in the middle to make some money on these products as they will be expected to support them and they aren't selling 50 a day. So their sale channel is getting a decent cut as well. </p>

<p>I know there is no magic ratio. But in complex electronic devices these ratios are not uncommon.</p>

<p> </p>

[5711]

<p>well, yeah</p>

<p>as far as i am concerned everyone who owns a d800 would go for a hasselblad if they were affordable.</p>

<p>seems to me to be politics rather than actual demand.<br>

like they say they let you go to shutterspeeds like 30 seconds on this and that pack because otherwise it would not be quality hasselblad can stand for...thats a lot of..well..i think it is weird because everyone knows it anyway that quality suffers..right?<br>

the new cmos sensors appear to be produced by sony<br>

now isnt that ironic..</p>

<p>i srsly would be interested in some numbers <br>

where can i find any on the topic?<br>

any ideas would be highly appreciated!</p>

<p>thanks</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>Norbert -</p>

<p>In the elcetronics/office machine market I work in, a few similar principles apply-</p>

<p>1. development costs are divided by the number of units sold - so for specialist cameras that are beyond the needs of most camera users, the total number of units sold is lower, and the cost of R&D per unit is higher. (R&D prices can be astronomical).<br>

2. because professionals and ambitious amateurs will pay for it. (If you build it, they will come.)<br>

3. professional level photographers expect & need higher levels of support. This means better spare parts availability, faster turn around on repairs, stocking of replacement items and more support staff. All of this adds to the price of the camera.<br>

4. huge sensors are inherently more expensive than APS-C (DX)/full frame/etc. sensors, due in part to the relatively lower yield from chip manufacturing.</p>

<p>And so on. I have never seen actual costing-out figures tho for you question. In my world, a high speed printer drum costs us about $300 to make. We sell to distributors. The final price a print shop pays for the 'installed' drum is on the order of $1800.</p>

<p>Jim</p>

[brad_trostad]

Actually it makes a lot of

sense that they partnered

with Sony. Sony can develop

the these niche large imagers

and then sell more than if

they only put them in their

own cameras. The means

volumes increase and they

mitigate risk in their huge

semiconductor investment.

 

If you we're a investor

looking to buy hasselblad,

all you would see is a money

put if you had to go it alone

in designing and producing

those large imagers.

 

Canon seems like the odd man

out these days with nothing

in the field to match the

Sony based imagers.

 

I suspect you will never know

the true cost to make the

hssselblad or phaseone

cameras. If you find a

credible source it would be

very interesting to know the

actual numbers.

[5711]

<p>yeah jim..you're right</p>

<p>a physicist working the chip industry told me that it "might" has to do with the crop beeing rly bad with large sensors.. supposedly they are quite tricky to produce so they have to throw alot away.<br /> this should define the price a bit<br /> the rest is politics and managment.<br /> well...ill try to get numbers because i think it is very funny to know.</p>

<p>a friend of mine runs a photography shop</p>

<p>it is really not that funny to see what i have to pay and what it is actually worth</p>

<p>uuhh..worth and photography in almost one sentence ..haha...well..i let it be like this..a honest mistake ;) jk</p>

<p>srsly though, thank you all for your replies.<br>

cheers</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>i am not interested in "this is better because" kind of awnsers.<br /> that is not in my interest at all, stay objective please.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not even if it is the answer to whatever exactly your question is?</p>

<p>OK.</p>

<p> </p>

[glen_h]

<p>The cost of chips increases much faster than linear in area. The defect density is close to constant, so the probability of one increases with area.<br>

Not knowing the exact numbers, a 24x36mm sensor might be produced with a 50% defect rate. (They test and throw away half.) A 60x60mm sensor might have a 95% defect rate, and might cost 50 or 100 times as much to produce.<br>

Free market assumes reasonable competition to keep the price down. There isn't so much competition in MF digital.<br>

It is also interesting that MF film cameras are staying high while 35mm SLR prices fall like rocks.</p>

[5711]

<p>hm seems about right.</p>

<p>well..nikon f6, f5, f4 ,f3 and leica cameras are still quite pricy<br>

when i started to take photography more serious in..i dnot know. 2004 maybe<br>

i was really wanting a mamiya but they were way too expensive.</p>

<p>now you get them for like 500 euros and the lenses are rly cheap too</p>

<p>unless your not going for the hasselblad 2003cw or the ultra wide one, theyre quite cheap too.</p>

<p>so "high" in that sense is quite relaitve.<br>

for a nikon d7100 kit youll get a good hasselblad kit ..well..</p>

<p>anyways..the chipproduction numbers are really very much interesting, but i did not find anything usefull.</p>

<p>must be something to it</p>

[5711]

<p>btw, dear jdm from weinberg</p>

<p>i wrote that to avoid awnsers like yours.<br>

and by writing this here, i am quite sure i will feed the trolls.</p>

<p>it is really easy though...i want to find numbers about the production costs, to put things into perspective.<br>

if you check ym portfolio, you will see that i use a wide range of gear. also developing film myself...so i am very much aware why mf might be better for certain purposes.</p>

<p>feel free to comment, but at least be constructive like the others here, which is really very much appreciated.</p>

<p>thanks</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Glad to been of help.</p>

[5711]

<p>there seems to be no age-restriction for trolling on the internt.<br /> i am very glad you enjoy yourself that much on the last couple of years you've got left.</p>

<p>it is the same with those old ladies in the supermarkets at the cash-box..screaming in your back:<br /> "new cash box please!"</p>

<p>i then usually let them skip as they do not have that long to live anymore.</p>

<p>in that spirit i let it slide from now on, and hope you enjoy yourself</p>

<p>cheers mate</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Personal attack, eh? Way to go, you callow youth you! :)<br /> <br /> Even in my advanced years, I do know where the shift key and the punctuation keys are, however.</p>

<p>I wonder if you are old enough to understand the phrase, "chip on your shoulder"?</p>

[5711]

<p>.</p>

[5711]

<p>i am old enough to know<br>

in fact, as it is typical for those who you call callow youth, i do even know it better, very much so, at lest.<br>

also i must return the compliment, the remark about my writing was a brilliant move</p>

<p>those who troll should be able to cope with beeing trolled back.<br>

easy as that</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>those who troll should be able to cope with beeing trolled back.<br /> easy as that</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and how!</p>

[5711]

<p>by trolling even more :)</p>