Does it make sense? An $1800 Full frame DSLR from Canon

[Benjamin]

<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Arial;"]Does it make sense? An $1800 Full frame DSLR from Canon&hellip;<o></o>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Arial;"]Back to 2005 Canon was the first one to offer a full frame 5D at $3000 and that triggered a revolution. Although today the 5D MarkII is an excellent camera but it&rsquo;s no longer along in its category &ndash; Nikon has a D700 for the same price which does a much better job on high ISO and speed. Sony has an A900 which can&rsquo;t quite stand against the Canon IMO but offers just a little bit more resolution.<o></o>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Arial;"]Would it make sense to bring the full frame DSLR&rsquo;s price down once again? Such as a FF DSLR with 16MP or so like a downgraded 5D II that comes @ $1800. There seems to be quite of a price jump from the 50D to the 5D II though. I also assume that Canon pumped up their XSi so much from the previous XTi is to leave space for the upcoming XS at that time, which is just a refurbished XTi IMO. If the same philosophy is to be applied to the 5D II, a FF DSLR like a refreshed 5D MarkI will see the light shortly.<o></o>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Arial;"]Am I wrong, again?... [*-)]<o></o>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Arial;"]Benjamin<o></o>

[Dallasphotog]

I think you have interesting ideas, but I'm not sure what drives Canon. There was a thread on this Forum about what photographers wanted in the future and it went all over the map. Canon probably just thinks we are all crazy.


It seems like full frame cameras aren't much of a priority as Canon only has two selections. However, maybe the long waits for the 5DMKII will send a message that there are a lot of photographers who value full frame bodies.


I'm stuck in the middle. I have a 1DMKII which was pretty good for sports and weddings. Now, the best sports camera seems to be the 1DMKIII, but the 5DMKII looks like a great wedding machine. I really can't justify both or worse buying both of the MKIII models.


I'll probably end up with the 1DMKIII and bet that it will be a good enough wedding camera.

[Jon Ruyle]

Well, it would be cool. I'm not holding my breath, though. To make it cheaper, you'd have to do more than lower the resolution, and I'm not sure there would be much market for a "bare bones" ff dslr. Not sure what they would have get rid of to bring the price down that much.


Do you really think the D700 does a much better job at high iso than the 5DII? From comparisons I've seen, they look pretty close. I would even give the 5DII the edge for black and white (it seems to me to have more chroma noise but less lumanance noise... I say "seems to me" because I haven't done anything scientific... just looked at samples taken by other people)

[Keith B]

I'd say for 21MP compared to a 12MP, the 5Dmk2 is far more impressive. It really isn't an oranges to oranges.


From the sounds of it, the only thing I'm envious of is the Nikon focusing abilities.


The lack of focus points really bites me in the rear often when shooting wide angle portraits when I want the subject of to the side. Recomposing is obviously not going to give me a well focused image.


Off topic I know.

[ShutterbugJohan]

I don't know if it makes sense, but I hope you're right. It would be a very pleasant surprise to have a more affordable FF D-SLR on the market.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

Sure why not an entry level FF camera around $1500-1800? I was hoping that Canon would keep the 5D and give it some new features and facelift.

[Mark Elberson]

Sure why not an entry level FF camera around $1500-1800? I was hoping that Canon would keep the 5D and give it some new features and facelift.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Providing I could convince my wife that I "need it", I would be 1st in line to purchase it! I would be fine with the 5D's 12MP Full Frame Sensor. I would love it to have Digic IV processing and extended ISO range along with the new 3'' VGA LCD.

[Daniel Browning]

Would it make sense to bring the full frame DSLR&rsquo;s price down once again? Such as a FF DSLR with 16MP or so like a downgraded 5D II that comes @ $1800.

It would be nice, but the cost of the full frame sensor is not going down any time soon.

First of all, the cost of a sensor rises exponentially with area.

Image sensors don't follow Moore's Law. Most other silicon wafer electronics, such as computers, can double performance every 18 months for the same price level. Or they can halve the price every 18 months for the same performance level. The reason this is possible is that transistors shrink: so you can do the same thing in less area or more things with the same area.

Image sensors don't get much benefit from shrinking, because the total size of the sensor *must* remain the same.

The 5D2 has a $1,500 premium over the 50D, despite the fact that the 50D is more advanced in many ways (gapless microlenses, autofocus, smaller pixels, etc.). In fact, some of the 5D2 features, such as autofocus, are more in line with the $800 500D, not the $1200 50D.

The price difference is due to the large sensor. The 5D1 had a similar price premium over the most comparable APS-C camera of its time: the 20D. This price premium has shrunk very little since the 5D1.

Back to 2005 Canon was the first one to offer a full frame 5D at $3000 and that triggered a revolution.

This might be a different breakthrough than you think. The largest semiconductor mask (reticle) only goes up to APS-C sizes (1.6X). Up to that size, cost rises exponentially with area.

For larger-than-APS-C, it's a whole different ball game: two or more reticles must be stitched together. Stitching accelerates the costs even faster than the already-exponential rate of increase. Canon's 1.3X format (1D-series) is a single stitch of two reticles, and full frame is two stitches of three reticles.

With a single stitch, manufacturing yields drop to less than 25% (!) of normal yields, so imagine how low the yield drops with two stiches: on top fo the yeilds for three reticles. The breakthrough of the 5D1 was that Canon found a way to increase stitching-related yields enough to get the price premium as low as $1,500. It's still massively expensive compared to 1.6X, but at least now the difference is a little more down to earth (depending on your perspective it might still be astronomical).

Research and development is another factor, but it must be considered in the context of the amortization over the number of cameras sold. The R&amp;D budget for APS-C can be higher than full frame because sales are in the millions. I believe that's why the 5D2 just re-hashed the same old autofocus as the 5D1: they saved money by reusing the same old design and same old parts rather than adapting the newer, more expensive autofocus like they did in the 50D.

Cost is not related to the number of megapixels. A 1 MP sensor costs just as much as a 21 MP sensor because they have the same area. Higher research and development can cause a difference, unless it also has higher sales, in which case the amorization comes out the same per camera.

When it comes to full frame cameras, everyone seems to wonder the same thing: Why can't someone build the *cheapest* full frame camera possible. No frills like high MP, FPS, autofocus, build quality, etc. Just a cheap full frame camera.

But that's exactly what Canon, Nikon, and Sony have done. The "extras" they put in are so inexpensive that they add very little to the cost of the camera, compared to the sensor size. If Canon ripped out the cheap "extras", such as 6 MP, 1 FPS, no video, small LCD, etc., they might save $200 per camera, but then sales would be so much lower that amorization would eat the difference and then some: it'd be a higher price.

The cost of full frame is not going down any time soon. I don't like it any more than anyone else, but it's the reality of semiconductor manufacturing. Our only choices are to buy a used 5D ($1200), even though a similarly-equipped APS-C, the 20D, is much less (~$250).

[Benjamin]

Thanks everyone for the thoughts! Especially Daniel: wow, what a wonderful analysis - that answers my big question in mind!


I now have hadthe 50D for 2 months and I think I will stick to it for at least 3 more years, it's a great camera in my opinion dispite those critical comments and reviews on the internet. I probably will save my digital FF plan for later, maybe after Canon comes up with a FF 1D or a 5D III with better focus system and speed - I guess that will not happen in a short while either.


I'm happy withmyAPS-C, robust, fast, advanced50D, at least now.[]

[Jon Ruyle]

I'm actually inclined to think in the other direction. That is, I'd pay more for a full frame camera that had a 45-point autofocus. Yeah, I know that camera exists and its called the 1DsIII. But it just doesn't seem right that the fancier af and the weather sealing almost triple the cost of the camera. Somethin' ain' right there. I'd pay $1000 more for a 1D-like autofocus, but not $4300 more.


Obviously, Canon is better at making money than I am, though... they must know what they're doing.


Maybe one day camera components will be interchangable the way computer components are. Then you could buy whatever sensor, autofocus, body, features, etc you needed, and not pay for what you don't want.