If I were the decision maker at Nikon ....

Msmoto

@TTJ

The semantics of the photo world may indeed retain the term DSLR, even when no reflex mirror is present. I can see an eye level viewfinder which uses an LCD screen and all of this is in an enlargement on the top of the camera which resembles the current DSLR body. This may be a way to retain a "feel" for the camera similar to current designs.

Or, maybe they will call it an "electronic" SLR……ESLR.

spraynpray

@sevencrossing: So you've gone from 'no D400' to 'D400 will be full frame'? That is pretty bizarre don't you think? Can you explain how the DX equivalent to the D4 will fit into the line-up after it goes FX? Do you think Nikon will remove the main difference between the D400 and the D4? No, that is too bizarre for me. :O

sevencrossing

@ spraynpray
what is bizarre, is the idea of me becoming a decision maker; let alone a decision maker at Nikon

Given some people think Nikon will not make another pro Dx is seems logical the D400 will be FX

brownie314

And the sensor cost was $1000+ not $100. Just a few years ago FX sensors cost $2500+ to produce.

I don't know where the numbers from TTJ - it is probably what the camera manufacturers want us to believe... It is just hard for me to accept that a 24x36mm piece of wafer + some circuits ( let's say any electronic part ) can cost $1,000 at a time when you can buy any brand notebook for $359, a tablet for under $150, a Samsung LCD 52" 3D flatscreen TV for $450. We are talking purely about the sensor as whatever goes around it is similar in both APS-C and FF DSLRs.

I agree. And this is what I have been saying for a long time. And even if a FF sensor does cost this much, currently, I have a hard time believing it is actually the sensor size that is causing the problem. It must be problems due to lower volume production. Because I can't see a DX sensor costing more than $75 bucks. And lets say a FF sensor is 4x larger. So, all things being equal, it should cost $300.
My guess is that a FF camera is seen as a premium product, so camera manufacturers can charge more for them. It has little to do with the cost of the parts involved.
And the argument for lenses for FF being more expensive - well if you want high quality lenses for your DX body, you are probably already buying FF lenses anyway. Nikon does not give you many choices for high quality DX lenses.
I can see Nikon going fully FF. Unless Nikon wants to "go small" and try to compete with olympus,panasonic,and sony - they have to "go big" and make cost competitive bodies that outclass the competition in image quality. Maybe this new Df is the first shot across the bow of mirrorless - but somehow I think it will be stratospheric cost wise.

kenadams

It doesn't scale like that, brownie. Wafers are round to start with, out of which you'd like to get a rectangular sensor - there's leftovers right there on the edges. Now, if you increase the size of the rectangle, the empty useless space on the edges becomes larger, resulting in more cut out garbage and disproportionally fewer useable sensors, which is more expensive. What is more, with the sensor being bigger, the probability of there being a flaw right in the middle of a singular sensor increases. So not only do you use the available wafer space less efficiently, what's left is much more prone to be useless.

brownie314

It doesn't scale like that, brownie. Wafers are round to start with, out of which you'd like to get a rectangular sensor - there's leftovers right there on the edges. Now, if you increase the size of the rectangle, the empty useless space on the edges becomes larger, resulting in more cut out garbage and disproportionally fewer useable sensors, which is more expensive. What is more, with the sensor being bigger, the probability of there being a flaw right in the middle of a singular sensor increases. So not only do you use the available wafer space less efficiently, what's left is much more prone to be useless.

Yeah, I have heard all of these arguments before too and have read the Canon white paper on this topic also. Not sure why everyone is so keen on defending manufacturers justifications for high prices. I am sure that scrapping due to flaws has the same problems in DX as it does for FX. It may be slightly worse with FX, but it could not account for huge price differences. And the edge problem - I am sure there is some effect there, but it could not be so large that it makes FX sensors cost 10X as much as DX. None of this passes the smell test for me.
The prestige of owning a FX sensored camera - that is what is costing so much. Not the cost of the parts.

TaoTeJared

Material costs for everything are minimal and equate to just a very small amount of end cost. A sensor is a completed device, not a chip or a single transistor. It takes many millions of dollars to build the facilities, the machines, the staff to create such said device. And every couple of years, everything is re-tooled for new designs. To believe that doesn't go into the cost of something is an active attempt to ignore reality or just shear ignorance.

manhattanboy

Not to be argumentative. But how will converting to all FF, increase Nikon's profits?

By "forcing" people to buy more expensive glass. But any new ff camera can use DX glass in crop mode

@JakesGT: You have completely forgotten about all the other manufacturers that make lenses to fit Nikon cameras. I know one person that bought D7100 and just transferred the stinking old beaten up Tamron off her D40 on to it. There is no guarantee people would buy a Nikon lens to fit their new FF body.

This is 100% correct! If Nikon stops DX production, whose to say Canon and the mirrorless won't pick up all of their business instead!

I agree the DX line is too confusing. It's counter-intuitive to the general public that a "7100" is worse than an "800", when a "3200" is worse than a "7100". Their naming system is stupid and should be dumped.
I suggested this in another thread but a simple naming system like DXE for DX entry and DXP for DX pro would convey a lot of information and simplify things. They could do the same for the FX line as well, but the D4 kinda of throws off that scheme. Nikon's core strength is in optics and they need to be producing more innovative lenses than concentrating on camera bodies.

brownie314

Material costs for everything are minimal and equate to just a very small amount of end cost. A sensor is a completed device, not a chip or a single transistor. It takes many millions of dollars to build the facilities, the machines, the staff to create such said device. And every couple of years, everything is re-tooled for new designs. To believe that doesn't go into the cost of something is an active attempt to ignore reality or just shear ignorance.

Exactly my point, thanks for backing me up. So the costs of tooling and fab facilities is a problem for FX and DX. And the fact that DX has a higher turnover rate, means manufacturers must retool more often for DX. So any higher scrap rate, or edge effects from making larger FX sensors would be dwarfed by the higher turnover rate and therefore much higher retooling rate for DX. So, that is a formal proof that FX is actually much cheaper than DX. Q.E.D.

kyoshinikon

the other big problem is that nikon is now too big to focus on a smaller market. They need a profit to sustain their massive overhead. to restructure to a niche market would come at a loss. A different type of company would be Leica. Leica is a niche market and is not concerned about growing exponentially in sales every year the way canikon does. They probably dont have a board of executives looking just at numbers with a sole goal of growing profits and units sold. Sure leica is a business and strives for growth but Leica is more interested in who buys, not how many are sold. Thwe people who run nikon want more and going in the direction they were in in the 1970's wont help them reach the goal. With that said parts of nikon aren't completely blind to the ninche market. This new FD is a good example of that. However they are careful at the niche products they release. The oddoties they release do support the more consumer and mass oriented products.

TaoTeJared

Exactly my point, thanks for backing me up. So the costs of tooling and fab facilities is a problem for FX and DX. And the fact that DX has a higher turnover rate, means manufacturers must retool more often for DX. So any higher scrap rate, or edge effects from making larger FX sensors would be dwarfed by the higher turnover rate and therefore much higher retooling rate for DX. So, that is a formal proof that FX is actually much cheaper than DX. Q.E.D.

WTF?!? It is absolutely opposite of what you just stated. I would suggest actually researching and learning basic business, manufacturing and cost analysis before you continue to comment.

It is very clear through the complete incomprehension of just basic business practices and the denial of standards that exist, this discussion is more about people wanting to stomp in circles and complain about their own decision not to spend what it costs to get a FX sensor. In comparison, we are in the cheapest periods in photographic history. The cost is the cost - either you suck it up and pay for it, or you don't - It is your choice. Blaming others or companies because you choose not to pay the cost, then suck it up and move on.

I'm done - this is like trying to explain trigonometry to someone who just started crying because they don't understand that the triangle on the paper doesn't mean they get ice-cream.

brownie314

TaTejared,
Get a sense of humor. Stop crying.
I was clearly joking. Obviously you didn't get it and have no sense of humor.
You don't need to explain trigonometry to me, I have taken graduate level differential equations and real analysis courses. You don't need to explain manufacturing to me, I have been a new product development engineer for 10 years and have always worked closely with manufacturing and business strategists.
I love these forums, always brings out people who need to be on medication and get steamed over stuff that doesn't matter.
So go see your doctor and see if you can get on stronger medication. Then watch the comedy channel for a few hours and try to understand sarcasm and some basic humor.
All of this talk of cost of manufacturing for different sensor sizes is ludicrous for all of us who are on the outside looking in. None of us really knows the real situation. I have seen products produced at costs that no one would have expected due to favorable manufacturing and material cost situations. We just don't know what these things really cost. So unless there is some purchasing agent on this forum who is working at CanNikon and knows the real cost of these things, then we are all just pissin in the wind.

WestEndBoy

The ONLY reason for DX's existence is that it is cheaper then FX and DSLR's would not be available to the masses without it. The argument about reach not important. You can crop any image and get any reach you want, but the quality will proportionately suffer (probably proportionate in the way quality suffers by buying a smaller sensor). Exactly how much chips cost at this point in time is irrelevant except to know that FX will be at least double and probably more.

What is relevant is that as with all chips, FX chips will come down in price and someday, they will be $19.99 per chip. It is not a matter of "if", but "when".

So, "if I were a decision maker at Nikon", I would milk DX for what it is worth for as long as I can but recognize when to abandon it, recognizing that FX price deflation will eliminate my ability to compete based on sensor size, and ensure that the company is focused on planning for the future. This means producing ever better lenses and making great cameras suitable for both "mommy taking pictures of little Junior", amateurs at various levels of enthusiasm and professionals.

shawnino

Point of Privilege:

Is there a way to ignore a user's comments--that is, have them disappear from the thread for me when I'm logged in? (If not, can we add that?)

Thanks.

spraynpray

I'd pay money for that facility!

Paperman

Well, we all saw Nikon again being greedy with the Df pricing - everyone loves its looks but feels foolish to pay near D800 money for a D610 spec DSLR. It will probably sell only to the elite & enthusiasts & some granddads ( no offense - I am almost that age ) with money at this price where as it could have sold to those tens of thousands like me "stuck" with a D300 with a pricing near the the $2,000 mark. And it was the right time to move masses to FF ( with a repriced D610 as well )

Coming back to the discussion about FF sensor costs ... We can now see that 2 cameras sharing similar FF sensor can be $800-900 apart ( D610 & Df ) . We also see that 2 cameras sharing again FF but not similar sensors being almost priced the same ( Df & D800 ).

It just makes my belief that the FF sensor itself is not a considerable cost in FF DSLRs.

WestEndBoy

The cost of the inputs is not directly relevant to what a company charges for its products.

What is directly relevant is how many customers will buy a product at various price points. This is where the costs become indirectly relevant. You put these costs in the model, clearly differentiating between fixed (research, plant construction within a certain production range, some administration) and variable costs (corporate income tax, labour, materials, marketing, selling, some administration).

Ignore all sunk costs. No use crying over spilt milk. No decision you make will influence those.

Finally, you compute profit for various values of quantity (say "x"). There are two more considerations:

1.
Is there a value of x that produces a profit? If no, stop here. If yes, proceed to step 2.
2.
Compute the value of x that produces the highest profit.
3.
Produce accordingly.

Paperman, you said, "It just makes my belief that the FF sensor itself is not a considerable cost in FF DSLRs.

If you consider the above, you can see that it might be a considerable cost or it might not be. There are dozens of significant variables in the model I just described with wide ranges of possible values for each variable. The total must be profitable, that is all.

However, I suspect that the sensor size is a major consideration. If it wasn't, Pentax, Samsung or somebody else would release a $500 camera with a full frame sensor. Unless you are someone who believes that camera manufacturers are evil capitalists colluding to milk us poor photographers..................oh my!

Paperman

However, I suspect that the sensor size is a major consideration.

As high as $1000 ? - as was the discussion initially ....

I wrote as a continuation of the discussion about the sensor ( itself/ the part ) cost. You have probably missed that part. What you are saying is not any different from mine - that the cost of the FF sensor is not the determining factor for the high price. It is a choice. Does Nikon want to market it as a niche product & charge a premium or price it low to sell to the masses ?...

I just say they bet on the wrong horse and the market will show it - just like it did in the 1 Series ...

WestEndBoy

Hmmm....point taken. As high as $1,000? Note that a D800 does not cost Nikon $3,000. My wild guess is $2,000 - they need to make a profit. So given the markup, as high as $666 is probably a better question.

What did the last heavily produced professional grade film camera cost - say the F5? A little over $3,000. A D4 is almost double and the existence of the sensor is the major difference.

If it was only $500, why not slap a FX sensor into a 3200, fatten it up slightly so it all fits, and sell a full frame digital camera for $1,000. But no one is doing that, so it makes me think that the sensor is quite expensive.

And so much of the sensor is a fixed one time start up cost. Volume considerations are huge.

In short, I don't "know", but close to $1,000 would not surprise me.

However, consider the benefits of Moore's law, which is apparent by watching the declining price of Nikon's top range Full Frame cameras. From D3 to D700 to D600. In four years I think a full frame camera will be available for $1,000.

And then Nikon will stop investing anything in DX lenses and milk the line with one more generation of cheap DSLRs......and finally DX will be only for compacts.

spraynpray

Bearing in mind the majority of Nikon buyers do not read this forum, I say that Nikon may or may not have got it wrong. I can see the meeting now - they need to make some real profit as the difficult market is hurting them so they need to produce a product that appeals to a different sector to the usual upgrading DSLR market and they cleverly produce a retro body with ltd edition lens that does just that. Will they flood the market and hope for hot-cakes or supply it gently to keep the prices up? Time will tell and I hope they got it right for our sakes.

shawnino

Agreed s-n-p, so maybe somebody can explain this to me:

Let me motivate the question this way: I happen to be an atheist. Ordinarily that's way TMI for a camera forum but bear with me a second. When people talk to me about religion, I "just don't get it". Now consider the NRForum readers subset in the camera world. Never mind people who shoot Canon, Pentax, Leica, Sigma, etc. As s-n-p points out, the majority of even the Nikon Buyers (let's call Nikon Buyers a "camera religion") don't read NRF. That might make us on NRForum less of a religion and more of a cult. We love photography, but most people here also have a passion for gear, gear rumours, the physics of optics, and so forth.

Cults can sometimes have weird ideas. Even Camera Cults. So:

1) Can our wishes (D400, D4-in-D800 body, pro DX lenses, fill in what you want...) be dismissed as the rantings of a fringe minority?

1B) If we were the decision makers at Nikon, would we help profitability, hurt it, or turn Nikon into more of a niche brand?

2) When I looked at the pictures of DF, I saw what Chris Nichols from Camera Store said: Retro? Top panel, absolutely. But it stops there. The back, bottom, and front aren't really retro at all. Is there a basis to think this way, or will 95% of the camera buying public just say "Yeah, that's retro". And I just don't get it again?