Sensor Economics
August 27 (commentary)--Back when the D3 came out I made a number of comments about sensor costs, some of which have been embellished over the years into near Internet myth.

Basically, I wrote that I thought that a DX sensor was probably about US$50 in actual cost at the time, and an FX sensor, as far as I could tell, was about 10x more, or US$500. The part that got picked up more and embellished into mythdom, however, was my point that the rule of thumb in manufacturing is that one dollar of parts cost often ends up being about three dollars of consumer cost. In other words, a US$500 sensor cost implied US$1500 worth of price to the consumer. In other words, don't expect a US$1500 full frame camera (because all the other costs, when also multiplied by three would quickly push the consumer price higher).

Of course, Sony eventually had a US$2000 full frame camera (the now discontinued A850) and we now have rumors of Nikon (and not long after, Canon) getting ready to introduce entry-level full frame cameras at prices far lower than the current models, perhaps even below Sony's ending A850 price. So did something change?

Several things have changed. But I doubt that the DX/FX cost ratio has changed quite as much as some think it has, or that large sensor costs have reduced as much as people think.

One of the things that changed is the use of larger wafer sizes. Another is improvements in actually laying down the silicon. Improvements garnered by making smaller sensors with extremely small line size have had an impact, too, as a 24mp FX sensor doesn't have nearly as small features as state-of-the-art 24mp DX sensors; making changes to improve yield with smaller features should have implications on sensors with larger features, too.

A more interesting thing to contemplate is "what else is being made on the wafer?" Here's a challenge for you: take a 12" round area and in it place as many 24x36mm rectangles as you can. Notice something? Yep, you've got all these areas around the edges that aren't being used. Could you fit in some small chip designs in that space? You bet. It'd be nice if they were other smaller imaging sensors using a similar process. Hmm. Nikon is now creating its own sensors at CX, DX, and FX sizes. Have they figured out a yield benefit to mixing those intelligently?

I don't know the answer to that question, and I haven't been able to pry more than a few vague comments from those I know doing sensor fabrication. But the few comments I've managed to obtain do indeed lead me to believe that you could produce FX sensors somewhat cheaper now than you could five years ago. Not amazingly cheaper, but a step forward.

So let's back into the cost discussion a different way.

The D600 is rumored to be made in Thailand, the plant where all the DX cameras are made. It's rumored to basically use D7000 parts content where possible. Getting the sense that the overall product margins might be similar? Let's run the D7000 at introduction versus a US$2000 D600 at intro and see what happens:

D7000. US$1200 list. US$960 to Nikon. US$580 cost at 40% margin.
D600. US$2000 list. US$1600 to Nikon. US$960 cost at 40% margin.
A US$360 difference in cost mostly associated with the sensor. Make the DX sensor 1/10th the price (the factor I reported in 2007) and we have US$400 for an FX sensor, or about 80% of the US$500 price I guessed five years ago. Simply put: we don't need a drastic drop in sensor price to get a US$2000 FX body.

My guess is that Nikon thought that the hyped up market energy that would come from introducing a remarkable leading edge 36mp camera could generate really strong demand for something lower priced that maybe didn't quite go as far (e.g., the rumored 24mp D600). Introduce the D800 first, grab the "gotta have the best" customers first and get them to talk about how great it was, and then follow up with a lower priced option for those on more of a budget.

Which makes the next story all the more remarkable.

Random Statistic of the Week
August 27 (commentary)--Care to explain this? These are customer ratings of two cameras, with 1 being the lowest rating, 5 being the highest.

Camera One (average: 4.85 rating):

3 responses
1
1
12
180
Camera Two (average: 4.02 rating):

16 responses
9
18
9
87
Camera One is the D700, while Camera Two is the D800. The numbers came from Amazon US customer ratings a couple of days ago, so there obviously are issues right from the start, as Amazon's customer-entered reviews aren't necessarily without bias.

But my point isn't the exact number, it's that this is what happens when a camera company remains silent when they have a critical issue facing even a modest number of users. You guessed it: most of the non 5 ratings for the D800 mention the left sensor focus problem. The interesting thing is this: I've now found three sources of data in addition to my own that all suggest that the number of early D800's with problems, imagined or real, was well above 20%, and probably more like 33%. When that many customers think they have a problem, you as the manufacturer have a problem, simple as that. To not get in front of that and fix that impression tends to have longer-term consequences.

Nikon's continued silence boggles the mind.

Aiseh Haha you need the 14-24 =p

35mm 1.4 is a fine lens!
om/photos/41314547@N05/7886211416/]DSC_6324[/url] by Calvin Seak, on Flickr
Creamy bokehs!

Shot wide open, and jpeg and i usually use neutral for most snapshots ;D cheers!

---

Added on August 29, 2012, 10:54 pm

Haha thanks for sharing

eh KTCY,
gives you a juicier rumour.
hassy mirrorless
almost medium format
7k also
euro lah hahaa

Want to ask...If got 3k budget to buy some lens..which lens are worth to buy? Second hand also can...Currently I have out of lens and hope someone can helps me choose the lens...Only Nikon not sigma or tamron..

last time i recall your source said  D800 around RM7-8k?

Hrmm...I didn't plan go for Fx in future 10 years...What I think is gear doesn't means everythings...

Who knows in 2 years to come FX become like rm4000?
bt for me, 17-55 isnt really great after all..it's okay, bt not too great.why? cz u cant get nice bokeh like prime lens..n if u want landscape, u cant go super wide angle.
so..lets say rm3000.. jz have a 1855 kit lens or 18-105mm (if u havent sold it). and get 35mm/50mm prime. then get wide angle lens maybe 11-16mm? only thing lagging is super zoom lens..haha..i dun use the lens so nvm..btw i start to like the 18-105..maybe like it more than my tammy 1750..cz the extra zoom.

ONLY way to prevent from FX bug is avoid seeing sharp and bokeh-ish picture.. later u'll ask urself, why i cant do that?? lol
same here..when i bought d5100 my uncle say i'll outgrow it..din believe it..bt now i think wat he said was true..maybe cz i handle his d700 adi.

I’m amazed at the amount of confused people on this and other photog forums, Nikon has provided a series of cameras that tailor for everyone’s needs, yet there are people who can’t seem to grasp the concept that if you are looking for a square peg, don’t go to the “round pegs r us” store….!!!!

Let’s see if I can help some of you understand a very simple concept, instead of moaning and whining about what the camera you are looking at buying “does not” have compared to another model in the line up, why not look at what it “does” have compared to another camera in the line up.

So the entry level cameras, first off, these are not professional cameras, so stop moaning that they are small and plasticy, they are for novice photographers, at the moment the D3200 has a 24mp sensor, the D5100 has a swivel screen. make up your mind which is more useful for you and buy that one.

The D7000 and soon to come D600 are aimed at keen amateurs and semi pro shooters that need the more useful features of the pro cameras, but without the weight, size and cost of a full professional body, moaning that the D7000 or the upcoming D600 will only have 39 focus points is sad and pathetic, both these cameras have more focus points than the models below, they also have AF fine tune, they also have hyper sync, they also have commander mode, they also have bigger buffers….

Don’t compare a camera that is obviously “not” a pro camera to a pro camera…..

For all you people waiting for a pro DX body (D400) it will never happen, at least not if you have your head stuck in 2008, the D300 came out when Nikon did not have a full frame pro body, so the D300 was an upgrade of the D200 which was the smaller brother to the then top dog, the D2. When Nikon brought out the D3 the game changed for ever, Nikon had gone FX for their pro line up, the D700 became the smaller brother to the D3 and DX as a pro format was dead.

However I suspect that as the D300 was so new, but already obsolete as a pro camera, Nikon upgraded it to the D300s to keep it going for a few more years, and to possibly give the wildlife shooters a pro crop body to help with reach on there long lenses. Yes people, the crop factor is a reality, though some people have a hard time understanding it…..

So I repeat, there will never be a D300s replacement…. unless…..

Next, the D700 is gone and will never be replaced because Nikon cocked up and made too good of an all rounder in this camera, they wont repeat that mistake, the D700 has been broken up, you will find half of it in the D4 with better ISO, faster fps rate, larger and faster buffer….

The other half is in the D800, higher resolution in FX and DX modes….

Nikon has created a bigger gap between there flagship models to make you buy both, if that’s what you need, and lets face it, if you are a pro and make your living from photography then spending £10,000 on a couple of cameras and accessories is nothing….

There will never be a D700 replacement, Nikon will never give a pro a great “all rounder” again.

Getting back the the D300s replacement, it’s called the D800, maybe Nikon should have called it the D400/800 for those slow on the uptake. The D800 is an 18mp pro body DX camera that is also a 24mp FX camera (1.2x crop mode) and of course a 36mp FX camera, so three cameras in one all for the very reasonable price of £2,500…

The trade off is you lose 3fps but gain two FX modes up to 36mp….

So all you people whining about the D400 that will never come, just go out and buy a D800.

Look for what the new camera brings to the table from it’s predecessor, not what it doesn’t have, Nikon has not been around for 100 years by going backwards….!!!

In short, Nikon has never had an FX camera at this level in their line up, so therefor everything is a bonus, and nothing is a loss as there is nothing before it to compare it to, it can not be compared to any pro body camera, DX or FX as it is “not” a pro body, so all those whining about it not being a D700 or a D300s, grow up…..

The D600 is the big brother to the D7000, so it will do everything the D7000 will do but with a 10mp DX mode, and a 24mp FX mode, the only trade off for that that I can see at the mo is the 1/4000 max shutter speed, but that is easily fixed with an ND filter.

So in short if you are after a mid to advanced FX camera then this is it, if you want a pro camera, then it’s not.

Stop whining about what “it isn’t” and start celebrating what “it is”….!!!!

Happy shooting.

true oso..bt it's damn weird..i dno it's my camera or what..D5100 on 24-70 cant give sharp images. i seriously think it's body problem since the same 2470 works well on d700.
ya la..bt anyhow oso lose to FX ma.
bt oso true lar..if nt why isit called FF ?

That's y I dont want go for Fx cause body already 5k++...and glass at least 5-10k ++...lol!

shoot RAW also like that..
as far as i noe, lose to fx in DOF on the same lens lets say 35mm f/1.4..

ya..can lar..haha..lens oso mahal ma..
btw why 50mm 1.4G is so much cheaper than those 3 lenses? it's only 1.8k.

lol..i think cz it doesnt have those nano coating.. and those ED thingy..