The DSLR Market In A Year?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³, Dec 13, 2003.

  1. What do you think the typical DSLR specifications will be in a year? A ten
    megapixel for under 1K?
     
    Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³, Dec 13, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    R2D2 Guest

    "Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³" <> wrote in
    news::

    > What do you think the typical DSLR specifications will be in a year? A
    > ten megapixel for under 1K?
    >
    >
    >


    No way! Prices will stay about the same for a few years. We may see more
    models to choose from, like the Nikon D70 and the upcoming Minolta Maxxum
    Dslr.
     
    R2D2, Dec 13, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >> What do you think the typical DSLR specifications will be in a year? A
    >> ten megapixel for under 1K?


    >From: R2D2


    >No way! Prices will stay about the same for a few years.


    Keep in mind that the Canon dRebel sells for about $800 yet it's basically
    built on a $200 film body, and the 10D sells for about $1,500 yet is built on a
    ~ $400 film body. Both have only about $40-50 worth of electronics to make
    them digital instead of film.

    There's still a lot of room for prices to drop on these and similar models.
     
    Bill Hilton, Dec 13, 2003
    #3
  4. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Don Coon Guest

    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >> What do you think the typical DSLR specifications will be in a year? A
    > >> ten megapixel for under 1K?

    >
    > >From: R2D2

    >
    > >No way! Prices will stay about the same for a few years.

    >
    > Keep in mind that the Canon dRebel sells for about $800 yet it's basically
    > built on a $200 film body, and the 10D sells for about $1,500 yet is built

    on a
    > ~ $400 film body. Both have only about $40-50 worth of electronics to

    make
    > them digital instead of film.
    >
    > There's still a lot of room for prices to drop on these and similar

    models.

    $40-$50??? The sensor alone probably costs more than that. I think you're
    way off but have no objective data to offer; do you?
     
    Don Coon, Dec 13, 2003
    #4
  5. "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >> What do you think the typical DSLR specifications will be in a year? A
    > >> ten megapixel for under 1K?

    >
    > >From: R2D2

    >
    > >No way! Prices will stay about the same for a few years.

    >
    > Keep in mind that the Canon dRebel sells for about $800 yet it's basically
    > built on a $200 film body, and the 10D sells for about $1,500 yet is built

    on a
    > ~ $400 film body. Both have only about $40-50 worth of electronics to

    make
    > them digital instead of film.
    >
    > There's still a lot of room for prices to drop on these and similar

    models.

    And more competition in the digital camera arena. My feeling is that the
    digital camera consumer is a lot better informed than the typical film
    camera buyer who went to a local camera store and was persuaded by a
    salesperson trying to get the largest commission. The digital camera buyer
    has access to reviews and so forth. Name brands such as Nikon will not have
    the weight in the digital market as they do in film since people will be
    wanting overall performance.

    I am waiting for the Nikon D70 since I have some Nikon lenses. But I am more
    than open to getting something else if the D70 turns out to be the minimum
    camera it can be to target its market. I won't buy it for the NIKON
    lettering.

    Right now I am using a Sony P72 and am very impressed with it. If Sony makes
    a DSLR I would give it serious consideration.
     
    Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³, Dec 13, 2003
    #5
  6. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Richard S Guest

    Can you point me to any information on "upcoming Minolta Maxxum Dlsr"

    Thanks.

    On 13 Dec 2003 18:14:14 GMT, R2D2 <> wrote:

    >"Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³" <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> What do you think the typical DSLR specifications will be in a year? A
    >> ten megapixel for under 1K?
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >No way! Prices will stay about the same for a few years. We may see more
    >models to choose from, like the Nikon D70 and the upcoming Minolta Maxxum
    >Dslr.
     
    Richard S, Dec 13, 2003
    #6
  7. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    bmoag Guest

    Prices do not reflect the cost of production but what the market will pay. I
    would assume that fabrication costs for imaging sensors are somewhat higher
    than for CPUs because the volume is not as great, the physical size of the
    sensor is larger than a CPU and there may be a lower tolerance for defects.
    While there is no real structural difference between Athlon or Pentium CPUs
    that run at different clock speeds there are obvious differences between 2
    and 5mp imaging sensors that have the same physical size. Apart from the
    imaging sensor itself the cost of the electronics in a digital camera is not
    all that great but no one outside of the manufacturers knows the real cost.
    One reason is that the electronics are the same across camera lines and
    brands, both vertically and horizontally. The electronic innards of a Canon
    D10 and Digital Rebel are identical. I would assume the same relationship
    holds among high and low end p&S digital cameras as it is the volume of the
    parts sold, and not their components, that more determines the cost of
    manufacturing electronics.
     
    bmoag, Dec 13, 2003
    #7
  8. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³ wrote:

    > What do you think the typical DSLR specifications will be in a year?
    > A ten megapixel for under 1K?


    Don't get your hopes too high...

    Tough competition will *probably* result in the Nikon D70 (and
    Minolta, and possibly other brands) being better than the Canon
    300D in the sub-$1000 market, but they will all have 6mp cropped
    sensors.
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Dec 13, 2003
    #8
  9. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³ wrote:

    > I am waiting for the Nikon D70 since I have some Nikon
    > lenses. But I am more than open to getting something else
    > if the D70 turns out to be the minimum camera it can be to
    > target its market.


    I'd be really surprised if the D70 turned out to be a
    really bad DSLR.OTOH I don't expect it to include
    all the features of the D100.

    Let's see if my predictions will be anywhere on target:

    - No spot metering.
    - Smaller buffer.
    - No anti-shock.
    - Somewhat less sophisticated AF.
    - Single setting bank (the double bank
    is useful, but not really indispensable.)
    - Not compatible with MB-100 (meaning
    no voice annotation, no vertical grip, no
    extended battery life, no MC-20 use.)
    - No ISO 3200-6400 (never used it with
    my D100, IMHO not really a great loss...)

    It would still be better than the 300D, which is clearly
    the benchmark Nikon is set to beat.
    If the D70 turns out to be more crippled than the above,
    then Nikon will totally lose the sub-1K market.

    > If Sony makes a DSLR I would give it serious consideration.


    I don't believe they will, but you never know... Probably
    they will make more DSLR sensors to sell to Nikon and
    other brands.
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Dec 13, 2003
    #9
  10. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    bmoag wrote:

    > Prices do not reflect the cost of production but what the
    > market will pay.


    Not true for NEW equipment. Costs are very important
    to determine the price.

    > The electronic innards of a Canon D10 and Digital Rebel
    > are identical.


    ....yet the 300D costs $500 less. True, but that proves my
    point, since the very same components already paid off
    with the D60 and 10D and now they can sell them at a
    lower price (but since the 10D is still in production, they
    had to cripple the 300D or else the 10D would no longer
    sell.)
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Dec 13, 2003
    #10
  11. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    R2D2 Guest

    "Paolo Pizzi" <> wrote

    [SNIPPED NIKON PROPAGANDA]

    Paolo, Dubya's daughter owns a D100 system. That means you have to put
    Nikon on your boycott list. ;-)
     
    R2D2, Dec 13, 2003
    #11
  12. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    RB Guest

    "bmoag" <> wrote in message
    news:z2MCb.71090$...
    > Prices do not reflect the cost of production but what the market will pay.


    In the absence of a cartel I would thought prices to some extent *reflected*
    both. There will of course be other factors such as the cost of entering the
    market and perceived longer-term profitability. If margins are irresistably
    high that will attract investment and competition which will lead to reduced
    margins. I'm not sure why they should be so very different from any consumer
    item but please explain why if they are.
     
    RB, Dec 13, 2003
    #12
  13. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Bill Hilton wrote:
    > Keep in mind that the Canon dRebel sells for about $800 yet it's basically
    > built on a $200 film body, and the 10D sells for about $1,500 yet is built on a
    > ~ $400 film body. Both have only about $40-50 worth of electronics to make
    > them digital instead of film.


    Really? I've been unable to find data on the sensor cost. Where
    did you find this?


    --
    --Bryan
     
    Bryan Olson, Dec 13, 2003
    #13
  14. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Mark B. Guest

    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >> What do you think the typical DSLR specifications will be in a year? A
    > >> ten megapixel for under 1K?

    >
    > >From: R2D2

    >
    > >No way! Prices will stay about the same for a few years.

    >
    > Keep in mind that the Canon dRebel sells for about $800 yet it's basically
    > built on a $200 film body, and the 10D sells for about $1,500 yet is built

    on a
    > ~ $400 film body. Both have only about $40-50 worth of electronics to

    make
    > them digital instead of film.
    >


    I'm sure the sensor cost is much more than that.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Dec 14, 2003
    #14
  15. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >>>> What do you think the typical DSLR specifications will be in a year? A
    >>>> ten megapixel for under 1K?


    >>>No way! Prices will stay about the same for a few years.


    >"Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message


    >> Keep in mind that the Canon dRebel sells for about $800 yet it's basically
    >> built on a $200 film body, and the 10D sells for about $1,500 yet is built
    >> on a ~ $400 film body. Both have only about $40-50 worth of electronics
    >> to make them digital instead of film.


    >From: "Don Coon" coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com
    >
    >$40-$50??? The sensor alone probably costs more than that. I think you're
    >way off but have no objective data to offer; do you?


    No, just an educated guess ... but I do have a degree in Electrical
    Engineering, 20 years experience designing CMOS chips for computers, cell
    phones, graphics chips etc as a designer and design manager, and six US patents
    for chip design.

    You'd be surprised how little CMOS chips cost to manufacture, especially in
    very high volumes. We could buy fabricated CMOS wafers from TSMC (Taiwan
    Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp) for $200-300 each (cheaper than we could make
    them on our own state-of-the-art fab line) depending on the technology (number
    of layers of metal and gate geometry widths) and there are a lot of possible
    good chips on each wafer for these smaller sensor sizes ... just a quick
    back-of-the envelope calculation for the Canon 10D/300D sensor says there are
    about 90 die sites on an 8" wafer, for example, and while the actual number of
    good die would be highly confidential I'd expect anywhere from 20 to 40 good
    ones, depending on the defect density of their process. Even at $300/wafer and
    only 20 good die that's still only $15 ... and it's probably lower than that.
    (You have to add a few bucks for packaging and test, but that's relatively
    cheap). Move up to 12" wafers (which would admittedly be more expensive than
    $300) and you have over 200 possibles on each wafer, probably 40-100 good ones
    per wafer in a good fab line.

    If you don't think prices are coming down consider the Canon consumer grade
    dSLRs ... the 3 Mpix D30 initially sold for $3,000, then dropped to $2,400 with
    a 1 GB microdrive tossed in within a year. The D60 doubled the pixel count
    about 15-18 months after the D30 intro but initially sold for I think $2,200
    and then $1,999 ... the 10D was a better camera than the D60 but was introduced
    at $1,500 even while the D60 was still selling like crazy and I've heard Canon
    says they can still make a good profit on the 10D at $1,000 ... and the 300D
    uses the same basic electronics (sensor, processor, etc) as the 10D yet sells
    for $900 since it's built with a cheaper body.

    Canon is making a lot of money on each unit sold, and they deserve it to pay
    off all the design engineers (like moi) and software nerds who made it possible
    :) But once they get into high volume production the unit costs of the
    electronics are peanuts except for the really large sensors. They have a lot
    of room to lower prices on the existing products or to bring out better
    products with higher pixel counts for the same amount of money, I feel. Check
    back in a year and we'll see.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Dec 14, 2003
    #15
  16. dy (Bill Hilton) wrote in
    news::

    >>>>> What do you think the typical DSLR specifications will be in a
    >>>>> year? A ten megapixel for under 1K?

    >
    >>>>No way! Prices will stay about the same for a few years.

    >
    >>"Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message

    >
    >>> Keep in mind that the Canon dRebel sells for about $800 yet it's
    >>> basically built on a $200 film body, and the 10D sells for about
    >>> $1,500 yet is built on a ~ $400 film body. Both have only about
    >>> $40-50 worth of electronics to make them digital instead of
    >>> film.

    >
    >>From: "Don Coon" coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com
    >>
    >>$40-$50??? The sensor alone probably costs more than that. I think
    >>you're way off but have no objective data to offer; do you?

    >
    > No, just an educated guess ... but I do have a degree in
    > Electrical Engineering, 20 years experience designing CMOS chips
    > for computers, cell phones, graphics chips etc as a designer and
    > design manager, and six US patents for chip design.
    >
    > You'd be surprised how little CMOS chips cost to manufacture,
    > especially in very high volumes. We could buy fabricated CMOS
    > wafers from TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp) for
    > $200-300 each (cheaper than we could make them on our own
    > state-of-the-art fab line) depending on the technology (number of
    > layers of metal and gate geometry widths) and there are a lot of
    > possible good chips on each wafer for these smaller sensor sizes
    > ... just a quick back-of-the envelope calculation for the Canon
    > 10D/300D sensor says there are about 90 die sites on an 8" wafer,
    > for example, and while the actual number of good die would be
    > highly confidential I'd expect anywhere from 20 to 40 good ones,
    > depending on the defect density of their process. Even at
    > $300/wafer and only 20 good die that's still only $15 ... and it's
    > probably lower than that. (You have to add a few bucks for
    > packaging and test, but that's relatively cheap). Move up to 12"
    > wafers (which would admittedly be more expensive than $300) and
    > you have over 200 possibles on each wafer, probably 40-100 good
    > ones per wafer in a good fab line.
    >
    > If you don't think prices are coming down consider the Canon
    > consumer grade dSLRs ... the 3 Mpix D30 initially sold for $3,000,
    > then dropped to $2,400 with a 1 GB microdrive tossed in within a
    > year. The D60 doubled the pixel count about 15-18 months after
    > the D30 intro but initially sold for I think $2,200 and then
    > $1,999 ... the 10D was a better camera than the D60 but was
    > introduced at $1,500 even while the D60 was still selling like
    > crazy and I've heard Canon says they can still make a good profit
    > on the 10D at $1,000 ... and the 300D uses the same basic
    > electronics (sensor, processor, etc) as the 10D yet sells for $900
    > since it's built with a cheaper body.
    >
    > Canon is making a lot of money on each unit sold, and they deserve
    > it to pay off all the design engineers (like moi) and software
    > nerds who made it possible
    >:) But once they get into high volume production the unit costs of
    >:the
    > electronics are peanuts except for the really large sensors. They
    > have a lot of room to lower prices on the existing products or to
    > bring out better products with higher pixel counts for the same
    > amount of money, I feel. Check back in a year and we'll see.
    >
    > Bill
    >
    >

    That was my experience with our chip manufacturing plus we had a much
    better yeild on regular featured dies that just endlessly repeated the
    same pattern like sensors (or memory). The other thing is that sensors
    have huge feature sizes compared to the state of the art stuff today so
    the margin of error is greater and the fab can be older and mostly
    written off stuff, ergo cheaper chips. By the way some older fabs have
    really great yeilds.
     
    Mike Latondresse, Dec 14, 2003
    #16
  17. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    stacey Guest

    R2D2 wrote:

    > "Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³" <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> What do you think the typical DSLR specifications will be in a year? A
    >> ten megapixel for under 1K?
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > No way! Prices will stay about the same for a few years.


    ???

    Why would you say that? This same MP dSLR camera would have been $5000 a few
    years ago.

    --

    Stacey
     
    stacey, Dec 14, 2003
    #17
  18. "bmoag" <> wrote:

    > Prices do not reflect the cost of production but what the market will pay.


    You bet! I've got US$3,000 sitting in a savings account waiting for a
    full-frame over 9MP camera.

    And Canon can read my mind. (I hope.) More power to them if they succeed.
    Even if the camera only costs them US$30 to produce, it's fine by me.
    They'll deseverve every penny of that US$2,700 difference if they get such a
    camera to market next year.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 14, 2003
    #18
  19. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Bill Hilton wrote:
    >>"Bill Hilton" wrote:
    >>>Keep in mind that the Canon dRebel sells for about $800 yet it's

    basically
    >>>built on a $200 film body, and the 10D sells for about $1,500 yet is

    built
    >>>on a ~ $400 film body. Both have only about $40-50 worth of

    electronics
    >>>to make them digital instead of film.

    >
    >>From: "Don Coon":
    >>I think you're
    >>way off but have no objective data to offer; do you?

    >
    > No, just an educated guess ... but I do have a degree in Electrical
    > Engineering, 20 years experience designing CMOS chips for computers, cell
    > phones, graphics chips etc as a designer and design manager, and six

    US patents
    > for chip design.


    Then you should darn sure know better than to make a guess and
    state it as a fact.


    --
    --Bryan
     
    Bryan Olson, Dec 14, 2003
    #19
  20. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    DJ Guest

    On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:10:01 GMT, Bryan Olson <> wrote:

    >Bill Hilton wrote:
    > >>"Bill Hilton" wrote:
    > >>>Keep in mind that the Canon dRebel sells for about $800 yet it's

    >basically
    > >>>built on a $200 film body, and the 10D sells for about $1,500 yet is

    >built
    > >>>on a ~ $400 film body. Both have only about $40-50 worth of

    >electronics
    > >>>to make them digital instead of film.

    > >
    > >>From: "Don Coon":
    > >>I think you're
    > >>way off but have no objective data to offer; do you?

    > >
    > > No, just an educated guess ... but I do have a degree in Electrical
    > > Engineering, 20 years experience designing CMOS chips for computers, cell
    > > phones, graphics chips etc as a designer and design manager, and six

    >US patents
    > > for chip design.

    >
    >Then you should darn sure know better than to make a guess and
    >state it as a fact.


    I'd say Bill's educated guess was a pretty good one. Being an engineer and by
    nature probably conservative, when questioned he produced some plausible
    estimates to support his initial off the cuff guestimate. Being also an
    electronics engineer, albeit not a chip designer, I'd say he's probably close to
    the mark. In fact, given the telephone numbers these things are made in I'd
    suggest he may have over-stated the raw manufacturing cost of the electronics.
    DVD players are *retailing* here in Australia for about USD50 at the moment.
    Except for the sensor they must contain a comparable amount of silicon to a
    300D.

    DJ
     
    DJ, Dec 14, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. deryck  lant

    The Age of the Mass Market DSLR is about to Dawn

    deryck lant, Aug 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    333
    deryck lant
    Aug 19, 2003
  2. W6DKN

    Nikon D70 just smoked the $2,000 DSLR market...

    W6DKN, Jan 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    1,038
    digiboy
    Feb 2, 2004
  3. Bill Hilton

    article on dSLR market

    Bill Hilton, Jul 11, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    1,054
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    Jul 13, 2005
  4. Jonathan Walker
    Replies:
    153
    Views:
    2,343
  5. Simon Finnigan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    542
    Simon Finnigan
    Mar 3, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page