D7100?

[KmH]

I would think it costs them quite a bit more (from their cost perspective) to make a D7000 than it does to make a D3200, considering the additional hardware, and manufacturing steps (labor).

 

[Marc32]

I say wait. With the new announcements coming up the currents cameras are probably going to stay at the same price range until these cameras hit the market.

You really think so? I'd agree with you about the D7000. I think some kind of replacement/reorganization is going to come about pretty soon for that slot in Nikon's lineup. The D5100 didn't come out until 6 months or so after the D7k, so I'm not sure there is a imminent replacement for that body. I think $549 for the D5100 body only is pretty decent.

Assuming someone wanted a DSLR today, but either didn't want to spring for a D7k at over $1000, or wanted to wait and see how the upcoming announcements panned out...What would you choose, a new 5100 or a gently used D90 if they both carried the same $600 or so price tag?

 

[TonysTouch]

I say wait. With the new announcements coming up the currents cameras are probably going to stay at the same price range until these cameras hit the market.

You really think so? I'd agree with you about the D7000. I think some kind of replacement/reorganization is going to come about pretty soon for that slot in Nikon's lineup. The D5100 didn't come out until 6 months or so after the D7k, so I'm not sure there is a imminent replacement for that body. I think $549 for the D5100 body only is pretty decent.

Assuming someone wanted a DSLR today, but either didn't want to spring for a D7k at over $1000, or wanted to wait and see how the upcoming announcements panned out...What would you choose, a new 5100 or a gently used D90 if they both carried the same $600 or so price tag?

This one really depends on what you are using it for and what you need in a camera.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

I would think it costs them quite a bit more (from their cost perspective) to make a D7000 than it does to make a D3200, considering the additional hardware, and manufacturing steps (labor).

The entire process for the tech in these cameras is all automation. There is no labor. You're talking cents on the dollar difference, when you calculate how many units per kilowatt hour is being produced by machines in a mass manufacturing plant. I'm not disagreeing that with more parts results in more cost, but you're talking about maybe a $50.00 in manufacturing cost difference by end product. I'd bet that the majority of their entry level units are assembled for $250.00 or less, and their prosumer models are just a couple of hundred above that, and their pro models a couple of hundred above the prosumer models. More tech involved as the scale goes up, but on a manufacturing level, the hardware is just that, hardware. The machine doesn't recognize that the sensor in a D4 is more valuable than the sensor in a D1X. A sensor is a sensor is a sensor to the machines.

In other words, that $2,800 D800e didn't cost any more to make than the D700, and the D700 didn't cost any more to make than the D300, so on and so forth. As long as the materials are the same, cost of build will not increase. Now, that isn't to say that Nikon won't put a huge markup on it because it's the latest and greatest. However, once again, their margin compared to build cost is probably insanely high. They are able to do this because Nikon has a good name, regardless of the cost of building the product.

Take PC's for an example. You can buy a $580.00 laptop, and you can probably find a laptop with the same specs, for a lot more money that sells because of the brand name. Hasselblad is a heavy example of exactly what I'm talking about. They definitely do not have $30,000 worth of tech in their equipment. Hell, they probably don't even have $4,000 of tech in the equipment. However, they sell those cameras for $30k+ because Hasselblad is a high end name, and people who want "the best" will pay that to have their camera say "Hasselblad" on the front of it. I'm not saying they aren't great cameras. However, they are far and beyond what is invested into the build of the machine in their pricing.

 

[TonysTouch]

I would think it costs them quite a bit more (from their cost perspective) to make a D7000 than it does to make a D3200, considering the additional hardware, and manufacturing steps (labor).

The machine doesn't recognize that the sensor in a D4 is more valuable than the sensor in a D1X. A sensor is a sensor is a sensor to the machines.

This is absolutely absurd. There is an astronomically huge difference between sensors build-wise. as technology advances, ships get smaller and smaller and the cost to produce them shrinks as well. With cameras, this is not the case. Cameras are one of the few exceptions where the larger the chip (sensor) the better the product. The large sensor of a full frame camera is many times more difficult and more expensive to make. With a sensor, you cannot replace a part of it if there is a defect, and the larger the sensor, the greater the possibility do a defect. Due to this, many more full frame cameras are thrown out during the inspection phase than APC chips. So you are not only paying for your sensor, but also the ones they had to throw away to make that one.

Also, the larger the sensor, the more difficult it is for the camera to focus, expose, process the photos, and maintain high shutter rates. This means more advanced technology and higher prices.

In other words, that $2,800 D800e didn't cost any more to make than the D700, and the D700 didn't cost any more to make than the D300, so on and so forth. As long as the materials are the same, cost of build will not increase.​

That $2,800 D800E is made from technology that has been updated since the release of the D300 and D700. Technology that costs a lot more to make and very likely to have defects present. There is a reason why camera cost as much as they do and why certain cameras cost more than others. I mean I am sure you can understand the increased level of technology, expensive technology, required to process a 36mp FX image compared to a 12.1mp FX one from a D700 or even more so than the image from a 12.3mp DX D300.

 

[moomoos]

plus dont forget the huge r&d departments whislt not a build cost its a cost nonetheless an one they have to spread across their line up

 

[AaronLLockhart]

This is absolutely absurd. There is an astronomically huge difference between sensors build-wise. as technology advances, ships get smaller and smaller and the cost to produce them shrinks as well. With cameras, this is not the case. Cameras are one of the few exceptions where the larger the chip (sensor) the better the product. The large sensor of a full frame camera is many times more difficult and more expensive to make. With a sensor, you cannot replace a part of it if there is a defect, and the larger the sensor, the greater the possibility do a defect. Due to this, many more full frame cameras are thrown out during the inspection phase than APC chips. So you are not only paying for your sensor, but also the ones they had to throw away to make that one.

Also, the larger the sensor, the more difficult it is for the camera to focus, expose, process the photos, and maintain high shutter rates. This means more advanced technology and higher prices.


That $2,800 D800E is made from technology that has been updated since the release of the D300 and D700. Technology that costs a lot more to make and very likely to have defects present. There is a reason why camera cost as much as they do and why certain cameras cost more than others. I mean I am sure you can understand the increased level of technology, expensive technology, required to process a 36mp FX image compared to a 12.1mp FX one from a D700 or even more so than the image from a 12.3mp DX D300.

Right :roll:, I don't know how I'd know anything about manufacturing costs, I only manage a manufacturing facility.

Like I said, you're talking very small production cost increase. You can deny that all you want to, but it's 100% the truth. Call it absurd all you want, I see it on a daily basis. Not only is our product manufactured... our product is crucial in the part of other manufacturers. We have over 2,000 service address', so I see a lot of manufacturing plants

plus dont forget the huge r&d departments whislt not a build cost its a cost nonetheless an one they have to spread across their line up

Although R&D is high cost, you break it down for payoff to the ridiculous. In other words, this gets broken down to a "per unit" cost as well. The more units you can produce in a short amount of time (Hence the need for automation), the less expensive R&D becomes. This is exactly why Volkswagen can spend 44 billion dollars in research and development on their vehicles on a new model year. If they have five plants, and each plant produces 5 million vehicles per year, the cost of R&D per unit is a minute $1,760 per car. Doesn't seem like such an outstanding investment anymore, does it? Now, remember, the average Volkswagen now is $25k+.

Like I said, there isn't a single person on this entire forum that can argue this with me. I do this every single day as a primary profession.

 

[Solarflare]

Just for the record, computer chips get LARGER, not smaller, over time.

Thats why sensors started with APS-C for DSLRs, progressed to full frame, have now reached medium format, and will in a probably not too far away day progress to view cameras in large format.

And foto sensors are extremely bulky compared to computer chips. Foto sensors have resolutions like a little less than 5 micrometer per pixel in a DSLR. Thats extreme coarse compared to the fine structures in a central processing unit of a personal computer, which have reached 32 or 22 nanometer - over a hundred times smaller.

 

[o hey tyler]

Just for the record, computer chips get LARGER, not smaller, over time.

Really now? I wonder what Intel would say about that?

 

[TonysTouch]

Just for the record, computer chips get LARGER, not smaller, over time.

Really now? I wonder what Intel would say about that?

If that were so, computers would grow in size as technology advances, not shrink like they are. The first substantial computer was the ENIAC, which was 1800 sq ft. I guess you are right though, that's not much bigger than an IPad.

 

[TonysTouch]

This is absolutely absurd. There is an astronomically huge difference between sensors build-wise. as technology advances, ships get smaller and smaller and the cost to produce them shrinks as well. With cameras, this is not the case. Cameras are one of the few exceptions where the larger the chip (sensor) the better the product. The large sensor of a full frame camera is many times more difficult and more expensive to make. With a sensor, you cannot replace a part of it if there is a defect, and the larger the sensor, the greater the possibility do a defect. Due to this, many more full frame cameras are thrown out during the inspection phase than APC chips. So you are not only paying for your sensor, but also the ones they had to throw away to make that one.

Also, the larger the sensor, the more difficult it is for the camera to focus, expose, process the photos, and maintain high shutter rates. This means more advanced technology and higher prices.


That $2,800 D800E is made from technology that has been updated since the release of the D300 and D700. Technology that costs a lot more to make and very likely to have defects present. There is a reason why camera cost as much as they do and why certain cameras cost more than others. I mean I am sure you can understand the increased level of technology, expensive technology, required to process a 36mp FX image compared to a 12.1mp FX one from a D700 or even more so than the image from a 12.3mp DX D300.

Right :roll:, I don't know how I'd know anything about manufacturing costs, I only manage a manufacturing facility.

Like I said, you're talking very small production cost increase. You can deny that all you want to, but it's 100% the truth. Call it absurd all you want, I see it on a daily basis. Not only is our product manufactured... our product is crucial in the part of other manufacturers. We have over 2,000 service address', so I see a lot of manufacturing plants

Like I said, there isn't a single person on this entire forum that can argue this with me. I do this every single day as a primary profession.

What is this product your plant manufactures?

 

[AaronLLockhart]

What is this product your plant manufactures?

I already knew you were going to ask that. It doesn't matter what my product is. It has nothing to do with how a plant operates.

 

[o hey tyler]

What is this product your plant manufactures?

I already knew you were going to ask that. It doesn't matter what my product is. It has nothing to do with how a plant operates.

For the lack of a definitive answer, I am going to guess Feminine Hygiene Products.

 

[TonysTouch]

What is this product your plant manufactures?

I already knew you were going to ask that. It doesn't matter what my product is. It has nothing to do with how a plant operates.

The difference between manufacturing cameras and other products is huge. Without knowing what the product is, you can not make a viable comparison.

It may not have anything to do with how the plant operates, but it sure as hell has to do with the costs involved to make the product.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

What is this product your plant manufactures?

I already knew you were going to ask that. It doesn't matter what my product is. It has nothing to do with how a plant operates.

The difference between manufacturing cameras and other products is huge. Without knowing what the product is, you can not make a viable comparison.

It may not have anything to do with how the plant operates, but it sure as hell has to do with the costs involved to make the product.

All plants have a CoDB, just like photography does. My product line is too large to explain to you what all we produce. It also costs A LOT less to create my product versus a digital camera. However, the principles of a manufacturing plant are the same, and that is my direct point. This is exactly why assembly lines were introduced to the manufacturing scene, and ultimately automation is in place at this point.

The cost of my product versus the cost of a camera has absolutely nothing to do with anything I have said. It still costs me to make my product, and it costs Nikon to make theirs. A business is a business is a business. You could take me out of my plant tomorrow, put me at Nikon, and once I got the "ropes" of how they handle their inventory and paperwork, I could operate that plant just as effectively as the one I operate now. The type of product being produced once again, has absolutely nothing to do with the logistics side of manufacturing.

Once again, Nikon's machines do not know the difference between a D4 sensor, or a D40 sensor. Even if it's larger, you're talking a few cents more for board and a few cents more of copper and solder to put the chip together. The machine doesn't say "Oh crap, a D4 senser, we better squirt $200 worth of solder on this thing so that the cost matches the MSRP."

Which is exactly why I :roll: my eyes... you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.