When will these people get it? Telephotos CAN shrink

"Martin Brown" wrote:

The cost of manufacture necessarily increases faster than area of the chip
which is slightly more than the product of the linear dimensions. That is
not a bit unless you are a deranged clueless halfwit.

Here are the numbers:

4/3rds = 17.3 x 13mm = 225mm^2
APS-C = 23.6 x 15.7m = 370mm^2
35mm = 36 x 24mm = 864mm^2

So the bare sensor is at least 4x more expensive than a P&S 4/3s device
and 2.3x more than an APS-C on silicon area alone. This ignores the
reduced yield and increased wastage with larger die sizes on a wafer.

We heard that NINE years ago when the US$8000 or so 1Ds came out.

Then, SIX years ago, the 5D came out for US$3000, it was probably just as
true.

Today, nine years later, I'm sure that FF sensors are many times more
expensive than APS-C sensors.

But that's not the question.

The question is: how much cheaper are FF sensors today than they were six
years ago.

I can fit all sorts of curves through those two points. And they all have
the cheapest FF camera being a lot less than US$3000. But I don't see a FF
Rebel anywhere.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article , David J.
Littleboy wrote:

The cost of manufacture necessarily increases faster than area of the chip
which is slightly more than the product of the linear dimensions. That is
not a bit unless you are a deranged clueless halfwit.

Here are the numbers:

4/3rds = 17.3 x 13mm = 225mm^2
APS-C = 23.6 x 15.7m = 370mm^2
35mm = 36 x 24mm = 864mm^2

So the bare sensor is at least 4x more expensive than a P&S 4/3s device
and 2.3x more than an APS-C on silicon area alone. This ignores the
reduced yield and increased wastage with larger die sizes on a wafer.

We heard that NINE years ago when the US$8000 or so 1Ds came out.

Then, SIX years ago, the 5D came out for US$3000, it was probably just as
true.

Today, nine years later, I'm sure that FF sensors are many times more
expensive than APS-C sensors.

But that's not the question.

The question is: how much cheaper are FF sensors today than they were six
years ago.

I can fit all sorts of curves through those two points. And they all have
the cheapest FF camera being a lot less than US$3000. But I don't see a FF
Rebel anywhere.

that's because people are lining up to buy the rebel and 5d iii at
their current price points.

nikon and canon aren't stupid.

nospam writes:

In article , David J.
Littleboy wrote:

The cost of manufacture necessarily increases faster than area of the chip
which is slightly more than the product of the linear dimensions. That is
not a bit unless you are a deranged clueless halfwit.

Here are the numbers:

4/3rds = 17.3 x 13mm = 225mm^2
APS-C = 23.6 x 15.7m = 370mm^2
35mm = 36 x 24mm = 864mm^2

So the bare sensor is at least 4x more expensive than a P&S 4/3s device
and 2.3x more than an APS-C on silicon area alone. This ignores the
reduced yield and increased wastage with larger die sizes on a wafer.

We heard that NINE years ago when the US$8000 or so 1Ds came out.

Then, SIX years ago, the 5D came out for US$3000, it was probably just as
true.

Today, nine years later, I'm sure that FF sensors are many times more
expensive than APS-C sensors.

But that's not the question.

The question is: how much cheaper are FF sensors today than they were six
years ago.

I can fit all sorts of curves through those two points. And they all have
the cheapest FF camera being a lot less than US$3000. But I don't see a FF
Rebel anywhere.

that's because people are lining up to buy the rebel and 5d iii at
their current price points.

nikon and canon aren't stupid.

But apparently Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic, Fuji, and so forth are. *If*
the sensor prices are low enough as some people think, that'd be a great
way for the smaller players to steal tons of sales from the big
players.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

I can fit all sorts of curves through those two points. And they all have
the cheapest FF camera being a lot less than US$3000. But I don't see a FF
Rebel anywhere.

that's because people are lining up to buy the rebel and 5d iii at
their current price points.

nikon and canon aren't stupid.

But apparently Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic, Fuji, and so forth are. *If*
the sensor prices are low enough as some people think, that'd be a great
way for the smaller players to steal tons of sales from the big
players.

except that none of the ones you list are interested.

olympus and panasonic have 4/3rds and they're not about to do full
frame especially since not a single lens they make would work.

pentax discontinued all their full frame lenses (stupid, since some
were *very* good), so you won't see a full frame pentax any time soon,
if ever.

fuji is no longer making dslrs at all, so nothing from them either.

that leaves sony. there have been some rumblings about a cheaper full
frame sony, but nothing yet. meanwhile, people are lining up for
nikon/canon full frame slrs at $3k but not so much for sony, so they
have a reason to cut prices. nikon/canon don't, at least not yet.

On 16/03/2012 1:31 a.m., David J. Littleboy wrote:


The question is: how much cheaper are FF sensors today than they were six
years ago.

I can fit all sorts of curves through those two points. And they all have
the cheapest FF camera being a lot less than US$3000. But I don't see a FF
Rebel anywhere.

$3000 x 117/77 = $4558 --- that's the exchange rate adjusted price for
an original Canon 5d today.


The 5DII was close to a FF Rebel - perhaps a FF 20d.
If they made one using a penta-mirror, an even worse AF system - if that
was possible, smaller buffer, slower mirror assembly with longer
blackout time, cheaper metering system, etc that would that make you happy?

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , David J.
Littleboy wrote:

The cost of manufacture necessarily increases faster than area of the
chip
which is slightly more than the product of the linear dimensions. That
is
not a bit unless you are a deranged clueless halfwit.

Here are the numbers:

4/3rds = 17.3 x 13mm = 225mm^2
APS-C = 23.6 x 15.7m = 370mm^2
35mm = 36 x 24mm = 864mm^2

So the bare sensor is at least 4x more expensive than a P&S 4/3s device
and 2.3x more than an APS-C on silicon area alone. This ignores the
reduced yield and increased wastage with larger die sizes on a wafer.

We heard that NINE years ago when the US$8000 or so 1Ds came out.

Then, SIX years ago, the 5D came out for US$3000, it was probably just as
true.

Today, nine years later, I'm sure that FF sensors are many times more
expensive than APS-C sensors.

But that's not the question.

The question is: how much cheaper are FF sensors today than they were six
years ago.

I can fit all sorts of curves through those two points. And they all have
the cheapest FF camera being a lot less than US$3000. But I don't see a
FF
Rebel anywhere.

that's because people are lining up to buy the rebel and 5d iii at
their current price points.

nikon and canon aren't stupid.

Yes they ARE as stupid as you if they don't believe there are any potential
buyers of FF DSLR's *NOT* willing to pay $3000.

I'll bet money we see one sooner or later!

Trevor.

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
nikon and canon aren't stupid.

But apparently Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic, Fuji, and so forth are. *If*
the sensor prices are low enough as some people think, that'd be a great
way for the smaller players to steal tons of sales from the big
players.

Except people wanting a FF DSLR also want a few lenses etc, and having been
caught by the smaller manufacturers dropping in and out of the market at
will, changing lens mounts etc. and destroying any investment in lenses,
flashes etc, many people are sticking with Canon and Nikon these days. And
one of the main reasons Olympus, Sony, Pentax, Fuji etc. are currently bit
players in the DSLR market at any sensor size IMO.

Trevor.

In article , Trevor
wrote:

I can fit all sorts of curves through those two points. And they all have
the cheapest FF camera being a lot less than US$3000. But I don't see a
FF Rebel anywhere.

that's because people are lining up to buy the rebel and 5d iii at
their current price points.

nikon and canon aren't stupid.

Yes they ARE as stupid as you if they don't believe there are any potential
buyers of FF DSLR's *NOT* willing to pay $3000.

except they don't have an unlimited supply of full frame sensors and
what they do have they are selling at $3k (or more).

I'll bet money we see one sooner or later!

eventually.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
Yes they ARE as stupid as you if they don't believe there are any
potential
buyers of FF DSLR's *NOT* willing to pay $3000.

except they don't have an unlimited supply of full frame sensors and
what they do have they are selling at $3k (or more).

Of course not, they need lower prices to drive higher volumes to justify
more manufacturing plant. Until they make the first move, nothing happens.

Trevor.

In article , Trevor
wrote:

Yes they ARE as stupid as you if they don't believe there are any
potential buyers of FF DSLR's *NOT* willing to pay $3000.

except they don't have an unlimited supply of full frame sensors and
what they do have they are selling at $3k (or more).

Of course not, they need lower prices to drive higher volumes to justify
more manufacturing plant. Until they make the first move, nothing happens.

if you are supply constrained, you won't get higher volumes.