Is such an 1Dv camera PROFITABLE? (See if I'm making sense!)

[Eric Smith]

I'm new here, and relatively new to looking at Canon DSLRs, but not new to photography. I majored in Fine Art Photography and mostly shot with 8x10 view cameras. Now, not only is Canon improving their TS-E lenses' functionality, but digital image quality and pixel count in DSLR-sized sensors are rapidly heading for a realm higher than most photojournalists, event, or portrait photographers even care about. This is fine art territory!


The second feature a starving artists needs, after big, beautiful image quality, is low cost. I don't think these two features have to be at odds with each other. How cheaply could a body be sold with a top quality, 30+MP sensor and all the functionality of a wood field camera minus the movements (essentially a box)?


I'm used to tripods, so it doesn't need high ISO settings. I take care of my equipment, so it doesn't need to be rugged. I'm used to carrying a big camera, several film holders, spot meter, etc., so it doesn't need to be lightweight or compact. View camera "burst rate" would be measured in sheets per MINUTE, so it doesn't need to be fast. View cameras don't have any in-camera metering. TS-E lenses cannot use autofocus. Fine art workflows don't require JPEG engines, wireless file transfers, etc. View cameras cannot shoot video--I'm a still photographer after all! View cameras don't have microphones or record EXIF data--we just write notes. Etc., etc. . .


If I could ask for a couple of special things, they would be a 24x30mm sensor (matches traditional proportions, and allows for greater tilt/shift movements without falloff)--perhaps rotatable 90 degrees like a view camera's ground glass; and a 4x5" zoomable liveview LCD for composition (upside-down and backwards, of course!). I'll give up the pentaprism (I know this is an SLR forum) and I don't care if I have to hunker under a dark cloth to see the LCD.


If cutting out all these unnecessary features significantly cuts the cost of a body with a top-level sensor, I would gladly accept the sacrifices and drop some money on the TS-E lenses. Am I alone in this? What percentage of a body's cost is the sensor? Which is more profitable for Canon--bodies or lenses?

[Daniel Browning]

I'm new here

Welcome! You've made an excellent post.

If cutting out all these unnecessary features significantly cuts the cost of a body with a top-level sensor, I would gladly accept the sacrifices and drop some money on the TS-E lenses. Am I alone in this?

No, but you are part of a relatively small demographic.

What percentage of a body's cost is the sensor?

I don't know.

Which is more profitable for Canon--bodies or lenses?

I think it's lenses, but I don't know.

How cheaply could a body be sold with a top quality, 30+MP sensor and all the functionality of a wood field camera minus the movements (essentially a box)?

I would guess about twenty million dollars. That ought to be enough for the the full team of engineers, designers, support personnel, and other overhead. Figure about $950 per camera for actual material costs, bringing the total to $20,000,950. Quite an expensive camera.


If you can get 10 other people to split the overhead costs between you, then you have $950 each for materials, plus $2,000,000 each in overhead, for a total camera price of just $2,000,900. Much more reasonable, but perhaps too much for a starving artist.


If you can get 10,000 people to buy the camera, then you're looking at $2,950 per camera. Get 1 million to buy the camera, and you're down to $970.


What if you look at it another way? Start with the 5D2, for $2,700. Now start taking away features and see how that affects price. First let's get rid of the rugged camera body and replace it with a cheap wooden box. That saves $100 off the material costs, bringing the camera down to $2,600. But now sales drop from 5,000 cameras per week to 100 cameras per week, because very few other people want that. Fixed costs drive that $2,600 up to the tens of thousands. So it goes with just about all the features.


There are a lot of features in my 5D2 that I have to pay for that I never want or use. But there are other people that do. As long as the increase in sales is more than the additional fixed and variable costs, then it will allow the camera to have a lower price.


In other words, removing features only lowers the price if the cost of that feature was much higher than the number of people who wanted it. If lots of people want it, then it can be included even if it's expensive. If it's a cheap feature, then it can be included if at least a few people want it.


So essentially, no, I don't think your 1Dv idea will be profitable. (Although I would buy one!)

[Eric Smith]

I would guess about twenty million dollars.

There is that pesky economic reality getting in the way again!

If you can get 10,000 people to buy the camera, then you're looking at $2,950 per camera.

Sold! Take the price of a new 8x10 field camera, add half a dozen film holders, and $2950 starts to look cheap. Beats $8000 for the body that sensor is going to come in and leaves the difference for a couple of TS-E lenses. Finding 10,000 buyers is going to be tough though...

(Although I would buy one!)

Great! Two down and 9,998 to go!


I do recognize that adding a feature, say video, can add enough sales to offset the costs. I was just hoping if you take it to an extreme, then maybe "the full team of engineers, designers, support personnel" could be reduced to a couple of people and a week of time. Oh well, thanks for your reply and for welcoming me to the forum!

[Daniel Browning]

I was just hoping if you take it to an extreme, then maybe "the full team of engineers, designers, support personnel" could be reduced to a couple of people and a week of time.

There are some companies set up to provide that sort of thing: off-the-shelf sensors, electronics, development kits, etc. Foveon, for example. But they still require a few man years to put together.