# D7100?



## Petey33 (Jul 19, 2012)

I've been thinking a lot about how the D3000 and D5000 had models afterwards, like D3100, D5100, and D3200. Do you think there will be a D7100? If so, what features do you think it will have? I'd love it to have a swivel screen like the D5000 and D5100. I would love to buy one!

What do you guys here think?


----------



## KmH (Jul 19, 2012)

Yes, I expect there will eventually be a Nikon D7100. I would recommend you don't get your hopes up regarding a swivel screen on a D7100.


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 19, 2012)

Biggest thing will be the latest, greatest crop sensor and an upgrade to the processor.  Definitely an improvement in the speed it can write to the dual memory cards, as that's one of the big complaints you hear a lot from D7000 owners.  

Better video, ala the D800. 

Sometimes I think the D7000 struggles to decide if it's the ultimate consumer crop frame or if it's a pro grade crop frame.  Swivel screens are considered more of a consumer type thing.  For example, the D800 doesn't have a swivel screen, and neither does the D4.


----------



## Petey33 (Jul 19, 2012)

Oh alright. I am just a fan of moving screens, they help with those hard to get angles.


----------



## carolinajack (Jul 19, 2012)

Funny you mentioned this because I was just researching it today. I couldn't find any specs or anything yet but some people are speculating what we will have seen 3 new DSLRs from Nikon by the end of the year. The 3200 is already out, the D600 people think will be out in the fall. Naturally, it is time for an upgrade for the 7k. I, personally, would expect to see more MPs, better video and probably just the other stuff already mentioned. 

I'm not a huge fan of the swivel screen thing, either, but I do like the idea of using one for getting hard shots. I still kind of think it is a consumer idea, though. For me, the video is a consumer thing as well. The 7k is in one of those weird price ranges where some consumers and serious amateurs can afford it but it still seems very viable for pros.


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 20, 2012)

Petey33 said:


> Oh alright. I am just a fan of moving screens, they help with those hard to get angles.


+1

Sadly they are not that popular with the "big people" (i.e. the professionals and people who buy expensive cameras).


And about video, I would just want that they either give us a serious camera that can be used for both pictures and video, or leave the feature out. Right now its more of a gimmick than an actual feature on most cameras, just like lifeview.

I wished they would manage to include phase autofocus on the fotosensor, then all these troubles with lifeview and video would be over. Then again, it would probably also be the death of DSLRs. With high resolution electric viewfinders, the mirror turns superflous.


----------



## TonysTouch (Jul 20, 2012)

I think the D7000 is, by today's standards, due for an upgrade so I think we can expect the D7100 late this year or early '13. With that being said, we now know that the D600 is getting ready for its announcement. If the price of the D600 is around $1500 like speculated than I do not see a reason to anticipate the release of the D7100. According to the leaked images, the D600 looks to be a FF sensor in a D7000-like body. If priced right, this will be a great camera to transition from DX to FX. I personally see no reason to buy a DX camera if there is a new FF right around the corner for only a couple hundred more.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 20, 2012)

Petey33 said:
			
		

> Oh alright. I am just a fan of moving screens, they help with those hard to get angles.



The d5k has a swivel screen and I have yet to use it. I tried it when I first got the camera, and the AF mode and shutter lag are so slow I felt like I was watching paint dry. 

I found it much faster to set your focal length, aim the lens in the direction you want to go without using live view or the viewfinder. In doing this, you will find that your shots are much more accurate to your intended subject than you might think.

Case in point: using the swivel screen and live view to get to tricky angles is a waste of time; literally.


----------



## carolinajack (Jul 20, 2012)

Now more people I know shoot with DSLRs than I can imagine. A lot of those people just shoot full auto and never take the time to really learn but at least they're taking that small step. Unfortunately, I feel like too many functions are biased toward the amateur consumer. (Note: I am an amateur in every sense of the word but I study and practice at photography and make a concerted effort to improve my skills.) 

When my father-in-law found out that I was getting my first DSLR, he kept asking my wife if it shot video; she had no idea and he responded with saying that there is no point in getting a camera that doesn't shoot video. Although I do sometimes use the video that my camera shoots, I would much rather just have a dedicated video camera.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 20, 2012)

carolinajack said:


> Funny you mentioned this because I was just researching it today. I couldn't find any specs or anything yet but some people are speculating what *we will have seen 3 new DSLRs from Nikon by the end of the year*. The 3200 is already out, the D600 people think will be out in the fall. Naturally, it is time for an upgrade for the 7k. I, personally, would expect to see more MPs, better video and probably just the other stuff already mentioned.


We already have: D4, D800, D3200


----------



## ZenNonna (Jul 20, 2012)

I must have missed something I don't understand what makes a swivel screen special. I bought a D5100 and returned it for a D7000 cause I hated that swivel screen. It felt like a video camera or something.  So what am I missing what do I need to know???


----------



## TonysTouch (Jul 20, 2012)

ZenNonna said:


> I must have missed something I don't understand what makes a swivel screen special. I bought a D5100 and returned it for a D7000 cause I hated that swivel screen. It felt like a video camera or something.  So what am I missing what do I need to know???



The D5100 is a consumer product designed for those moving up from point and shoots. Video is a huge component for POS's so it is only natural that they incorporated some nifty video features into the D5100. 

I currently own a D5100 and the swivel screen can be a hassle. But there a couple benefits. I only really use the screen for self-family portraits and occasionally video. But once again, these are consumer uses not professional. 

There is one thing I love about the swivel screen. You can flip it to protect the screen during travel. But if you like the camera and hate the screen, just leave it facing out and closed and don't touch it. You will forget it is there.


----------



## orb9220 (Jul 20, 2012)

Yep the biggest negatives for swivel screen for me. 1) When I need it the Sunlight Says No! and washes out the screen. 2) Just another moving part to wear out and break. Or sticking out there where us dumb humans will accidentally do it.

Give me an Optical Viewfinder any day. The Bigger,Brighter the Better.
.


----------



## Nikanon (Jul 20, 2012)

How about a D7100 with Touch Screen??


----------



## TonysTouch (Jul 20, 2012)

orb9220 said:


> Yep the biggest negatives for swivel screen for me. 1) When I need it the Sunlight Says No! and washes out the screen. 2) Just another moving part to wear out and break. Or sticking out there where us dumb humans will accidentally do it.
> 
> Give me an Optical Viewfinder any day. The Bigger,Brighter the Better.
> .





Nikanon said:


> How about a D7100 with Touch Screen??



Please God NOOOOOO!!!


----------



## Patriot (Jul 21, 2012)

I'll say no to the touch screen, but the GUI could use an upgrade or something.


----------



## greybeard (Jul 21, 2012)

The flip screen would be really nice if the auto focus worked better when in live view.  I've used it with my D5100 and it does come in handy for odd angle shots but the autofocus is hit or miss.  jmho


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 21, 2012)

greybeard said:
			
		

> The flip screen would be really nice if the auto focus worked better when in live view.  I've used it with my D5100 and it does come in handy for odd angle shots but the autofocus is hit or miss.  jmho



I met a guy a couple of weeks ago that only shoots in live view on his 5100. There's no way I would.


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 21, 2012)

As a programmer I honestly cant believe how inefficient they designed the interface of their cameras. Seriously, if I have a nice button with LEFT, UP, RIGHT, DOWN, then why didnt they do a 3D menu ?!? Much faster to operate than having to scroll endlessly

If they do a touch screen, menu surfing could get again much faster. However, it has to be pointed out that menu surfing should still only be done for RARELY NEEDED options. Also, the screen would be full of fingerprints all the time, which I could see as a problem. Whats the point of getting more and more higher resolution monitors when they cant show the picture clearly anyway ?

A touch screen could however be a nice option for cameras like this one: Casio EX-V8




AaronLLockhart said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 LOL it takes the D5100 2 seconds to shoot a picture in lifeview. And its a PITA to keep reenabling it all the time again. On the plus side, contrast autofocus is always on spot.

(Oh, and if you want to shoot FAST on the D5100 in lifeview: you can do that if you use manual focus. Now dont ask me how thats supposed to work...)


----------



## carolinajack (Jul 21, 2012)

SCraig said:


> carolinajack said:
> 
> 
> > Funny you mentioned this because I was just researching it today. I couldn't find any specs or anything yet but some people are speculating what *we will have seen 3 new DSLRs from Nikon by the end of the year*. The 3200 is already out, the D600 people think will be out in the fall. Naturally, it is time for an upgrade for the 7k. I, personally, would expect to see more MPs, better video and probably just the other stuff already mentioned.
> ...



Yeah, I misspoke. The posts that I've read on those speculations are outside of the D4 and D800. So I guess that would mean 5 new cameras by the end of this year or maybe 3 new with the announcement of 2 more coming up in 2013. It's all just guessing and speculating, anyway.


----------



## bunadski (Jul 24, 2012)

The D7000 is a weather proof camera. Putting a swivel screen will make it non-weather proof, and a weak point on the sturdy camera body. I think this is the major reason why camera manufacturers do not put swivel screens on higher end models.


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 24, 2012)

I dont see why a swirvel screen cant be waterproof.


----------



## KmH (Jul 24, 2012)

No Nikon DSLR is weather or water proof, they are only weather resistant , with some models more resistant than others by benefit of their weather sealing.


----------



## TonysTouch (Jul 24, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> I dont see why a swirvel screen cant be waterproof.



Sure it could be weather resistant. Hell they could make the camera waterproof. But let's face it, many of these things we are listing are adding $$ to the price tag and may bumb the cost too far to be placed in the prosumer level and then probably not be a 7X00.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 24, 2012)

TonysTouch said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > I dont see why a swirvel screen cant be waterproof.
> ...



Are you implying that Nikon's markup on the hardware is not that great? I tend to disagree. I bet 90% of their product line is built for under $1,000.00/ea. from start to MSRP.


----------



## KmH (Jul 24, 2012)

I don't get how that relates to Nikon's markup on a per model basis.

No doubt, Nikon sells way more of the D3200 and D5100, than they sell D7000's and their prosumer and pro models. In fact, I would expect that Nikon's entry-level lineup is where they make the majority of the profits.
Also, I would expect Nikon sells most of it's cameras at wholesale prices to retailers, and not directly to the public at retail prices.

For every TPF member that buys a D3200, there are thousands of other people out there that buy one.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 24, 2012)

KmH said:
			
		

> I don't get how that relates to Nikon's markup on a per model basis.
> 
> No doubt, Nikon sells way more of the D3200 and D5100, than they sell D7000's and their prosumer and pro models. In fact, I would expect that Nikon's entry-level lineup is where they make the majority of the profits.
> Also, I would expect Nikon sells most of it's cameras at wholesale prices to retailers, and not directly to the public at retail prices.
> ...



That's simple. It doesn't cost them much more to make a 7000 than it does a 3200, if it costs any more at all. My point being, there is plenty of profit margin to waterproof the units without removing it from the "prosumer" budget area.

Mind you, Nikon would put an even bigger markup on a waterproofed unit because it's a wow factor. I'm just saying the margin is plenty large enough to play with on their units.

All "wholesale" means is it is 30% off of MSRP. The margin probably isn't that large from retailer to end user as well. However, you can bet on the manufacturing end, it's a pretty big margin. I'd say probably keystone, maybe a bit less. Let's say it is keystone, at wholesale they still have a 70% profit margin.


----------



## TonysTouch (Jul 24, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> TonysTouch said:
> 
> 
> > Solarflare said:
> ...



We all know that the more features a camera has, the heftier the price. Many camera companies don't just base their camera level on just specs and body features alone. If Nikon were to add a swivel screen, waterproofing and touch screen, along with all of the other improved specs, they will raise the price. But the real question is, how expensive can a camera get before it is too high to be considered a prosumer level camera?


----------



## Marc32 (Jul 24, 2012)

I think the better question would be how can they bring the price of cameras down? Does anyone think the price of the D7000 will drop any further with the pending release of the D600 or whatever Nikon decides to replace the D7000 with? They've got the D5100 marked down $200 right now, and the D7000 at $100 off. Is it even within the realm of possibility that the D7000 body only could drop to $999 or lower if Nikon is really coming out with something new? Or maybe $499 for the D5100? If Nikon really does have an ace up their sleeve, this might be a good time to pick up a great camera on the cheap. Consider that these models are battle tested and proven. The new 24mp and 36mp sensors are still new. One could buy a current body for a great price and wait until the kinks get ironed out of the new lineup. I would think the second generation of the high mp sensors would be better with the bugs worked out.

Personally, I'd pass on the D7100 for just that reason.  I'd be more in the hunt for a great deal on a outgoing D7000 (or D5100) that is still a capable camera for a fraction of the cost.  Plus, I wouldn't have to deal with Nikon's inevitable firmware and availability issues with all their new releases.


----------



## TonysTouch (Jul 24, 2012)

Marc32 said:


> I think the better question would be how can they bring the price of cameras down? Does anyone think the price of the D7000 will drop any further with the pending release of the D600 or whatever Nikon decides to replace the D7000 with? They've got the D5100 marked down $200 right now, and the D7000 at $100 off. Is it even within the realm of possibility that the D7000 body only could drop to $999 or lower if Nikon is really coming out with something new? Or maybe $499 for the D5100? If Nikon really does have an ace up their sleeve, this might be a good time to pick up a great camera on the cheap. Consider that these models are battle tested and proven. The new 24mp and 36mp sensors are still new. One could buy a current body for a great price and wait until the kinks get ironed out of the new lineup. I would think the second generation of the high mp sensors would be better with the bugs worked out.
> 
> Personally, I'd pass on the D7100 for just that reason.  I'd be more in the hunt for a great deal on a outgoing D7000 (or D5100) that is still a capable camera for a fraction of the cost.  Plus, I wouldn't have to deal with Nikon's inevitable firmware and availability issues with all their new releases.



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. I have no problem with staying one generation behind. You are still getting great cameras for a fraction of the price. Except for the D600. I've been scouring for a cheap FX camera.

PDAs far as the price drops go look at what current cameras have done. The D3000 is now 2/3 SRP now that the 3rd gen has come out. The D5000 is now 8/10 SRP. The replacement for the D7000 is going to spark a price drop. It's very hard for a store to keep selling a camera for the same price when the newer version is sitting right next to it. Most people don't have a problem coughing up a couple hundred bucks for the newer model. Instead, they have to give people a reason to buy the older product so they can clear their shelves.


----------



## KmH (Jul 24, 2012)

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 (Jul 24, 2012)

> 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 (Jul 24, 2012)

Marc32 said:


> > 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 24, 2012)

KmH said:


> 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 (Jul 25, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > 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).
> ...



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.



AaronLLockhart said:


> 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 (Jul 25, 2012)

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 (Jul 25, 2012)

TonysTouch said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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



moomoos said:


> 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 (Jul 25, 2012)

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 (Jul 25, 2012)

Solarflare said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## TonysTouch (Jul 25, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Jul 25, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> TonysTouch said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



What is this product your plant manufactures?


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 25, 2012)

TonysTouch said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 25, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> TonysTouch said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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


----------



## TonysTouch (Jul 25, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> TonysTouch said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Jul 25, 2012)

TonysTouch said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > TonysTouch said:
> ...




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.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 25, 2012)

The differences are in:

- R&D, as noted. This cost is disproportionately borne by the new high-end gear.
- BoM cost, as noted but not detailed. Bigger sensors, more machined metal parts and less injection molded stuff, more powerful CPUs, more precision optics (pentaprism, viewfinder) etc, etc,
  and as you know higher BoMs gets multiplied since you're holding inventory and rejecting parts and so on and so forth, so every $1 in the BoM is several of real cost, and a whole bunch of $ of retail.
- Calibration, there are several optical paths that need to line up perfectly to make this thing work right. Higher priced models have more stringent calibration, which costs more man hours.
- Testing, higher priced models are tested to higher standards, which costs more man hours, and note that rejected units go back in as another cost multiplier.
- probably several other items I have forgotten, it's been a few years since I've built product you can kick.

Sure, actual cost to assemble the thing is trivial. If only the assembly cost was a substantial part of delivering a product like this to the consumer, one would be fully justified in complaining about the price differences!


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 25, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Sure, actual cost to assemble the thing is trivial. If only the assembly cost was a substantial part of delivering a product like this to the consumer, one would be fully justified in complaining about the price differences!




This is very true! However, the original point is that any manufacturer has enough markup that making minor changes, (IE: Tight sealed rubber gaskets in all of the joints to waterproof) the unit could be sold at the same exact price it's suggested without those changes, without affecting the company's profitability. I'm not saying they would, just that they _&#8203;could._


----------



## TonysTouch (Jul 25, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, actual cost to assemble the thing is trivial. If only the assembly cost was a substantial part of delivering a product like this to the consumer, one would be fully justified in complaining about the price differences!
> ...



Funny, because I remember stating




TonysTouch said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > I dont see why a swirvel screen cant be waterproof.
> ...



I simply stated to begin with that added features like the ones mentioned will bump the price, not whether or not it would mean less profit to the company to keep the same price.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 25, 2012)

TonysTouch said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...




and i simply asked a question as to whether or not you were implying that the margin were so low that waterproofing would result in a mandatory price change, and here we are.


----------



## TonysTouch (Jul 25, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> TonysTouch said:
> 
> 
> > AaronLLockhart said:
> ...



I never implied anything about the mark-up. I only said that if Nikon adds more features they will add a bigger price tag. After that my only real argument was price to make different size sensors.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 25, 2012)

TonysTouch said:


> I never implied anything about the mark-up. I only said that if Nikon adds more features they will add a bigger price tag. After that my only real argument was price to make different size sensors.




Well, man, this was one hell of a conversation to get to that answer


----------



## TonysTouch (Jul 25, 2012)

I said it earlier, but apparently not clear enough.




TonysTouch said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > TonysTouch said:
> ...


----------



## amolitor (Jul 25, 2012)

Margins at the low end are pretty skinny, I bet.

A $700 body+kit lens probably leaves the Canikoungony factory for $300 or so. I haven't a clue what the cost of goods is, but I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around less than $100. These are bespoke chips in there, being built in fairly low numbers (as chips go), and when you start adding up a couple bucks here and a couple bucks there for injection molded bits and pieces it adds up. I dunno what it costs to assemble and test the things. Testing and calibration are gonna be pretty minimal, and you've got enough volume to justify some pretty decent jigs etc, but if you can turn parts into cameras for less than $50 I'm surprised. Add in some packaging, some manuals, a few cables and a this and that I am having a real hard time envisioning this thing costing under $200 just to get a box with a camera inside it onto a pallet.

Now add in your cost of warranty and service for the model (dollars per unit sold), specific marketing campaigns etc etc etc (not including overall branding costs, just the model-specific marketing, but still amortized over all the units sold) and suddenly you're talking maybe 10-20 percent margins, tops. Add 50 cents in worth of rubber in there, and another 20 cents to assemble it, and after you apply all the multipliers suddenly you're not hitting your $699.89 target any more, it's gotta sell for $710 to make the margins work all the way down the distribution chain, and now you're not going to move enough units to justify the business case for the model and the whole thing collapses in your lap.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 25, 2012)

amolitor said:


> Margins at the low end are pretty skinny, I bet.
> 
> A $700 body+kit lens probably leaves the Canikoungony factory for $300 or so. I haven't a clue what the cost of goods is, but I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around less than $100. These are bespoke chips in there, being built in fairly low numbers (as chips go), and when you start adding up a couple bucks here and a couple bucks there for injection molded bits and pieces it adds up. I dunno what it costs to assemble and test the things. Testing and calibration are gonna be pretty minimal, and you've got enough volume to justify some pretty decent jigs etc, but if you can turn parts into cameras for less than $50 I'm surprised. Add in some packaging, some manuals, a few cables and a this and that I am having a real hard time envisioning this thing costing under $200 just to get a box with a camera inside it onto a pallet.
> 
> Now add in your cost of warranty and service for the model (dollars per unit sold), specific marketing campaigns etc etc etc (not including overall branding costs, just the model-specific marketing, but still amortized over all the units sold) and suddenly you're talking maybe 10-20 percent margins, tops. Add 50 cents in worth of rubber in there, and another 20 cents to assemble it, and after you apply all the multipliers suddenly you're not hitting your $699.89 target any more, it's gotta sell for $710 to make the margins work all the way down the distribution chain, and now you're not going to move enough units to justify the business case for the model and the whole thing collapses in your lap.



that would be true in a situation that you are talking about end user. As the unit goes through a set of hands, it costs more money. If the camera is $700.00 MSRP, that is a price set by the manufacturer. They then sell it to their retailers for wholesale, which is 30% off of that, which would be $490.00. It probably cost them $300.00 to produce that unit (there's no way that these cameras cost more to build than a computer, and that's about what the cost of the average computer for a manufacturer to build), leaving $190.00 profit for the manufacturer out of the gate with retailers. Now, the warranties are an added bonus to beef up that profit margin back up, as they just dropped 30% of it to Best buy when they sold it to them. 

On the retailer's side, the purpose of the retailers warranty, such as the one that Best Buy sells you, is done so that they can make a decent margin on the product, because by the time it makes it through their hands, the margin is so diluted (for best buy, as their overhead then becomes involved) that there is little to no money to be made on the hardware, so they have to make it up in the warranty.

So, the margins are probably very thin, but only on the retail end.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 25, 2012)

I think you might be underestimating the prices these things cost.

There's custom chips in there, and the volumes on those chips are nowhere near what the PC makers are seeing. The assembly is considerably more technical because of the tight packing, AND there are precision mechanical and optical subsystems that have to be dealt with (assembly, testing, calibration, etc) that PCs simply don't have. It's more like cell phones, but worse than them as well because of the precision mechanicals and opticals.

Add to this that at least for the higher end cameras, you're building in batches.

How does it change the economics of your manufacturing plant in this situation:

You can build 20 similar products with overlapping BOMs, but every product has at least a handful of components which are unique to it. Suppose that 5 of those products are low volume, so you can build a year's supply in one week. Now you have to either carry parts inventory, or source batches of parts for each batch. For each batch, you have to re-program the factory, re-train workers on model-specific test and calibration, fool around with inventories (either sourcing or pulling warehoused parts), possibly dig out and reinstall and recalibrate/test a couple of model-specific test jigs. Then you run one or more lines for a week or whatever, then you idle again to re-tool for another model. Now you've got $20M or $100M in built inventory that you have to warehouse and distribute over the next year.

The higher end DSLRs probably have fiddly little bits of injection molded crap in them that have cost 10x as much to carry as inventory as the actual part cost. For every one of those parts, you get to make the choice of maintaining tooling in storage and pulling it out once every N months, when it's time to build a batch, or just build a million parts, scrap the tooling, carry the parts forward, and then scrap 200,000 parts out when the model is finally discontinued. Ditto machined metal parts. Ditto some chips (you hope to share a lot of electronics with other models, but you might also design a nextgen chip for the flagship DSLR, and by the time you push that technology down into the prosumer model you've spun the chip a couple times and integrated more crap onto it, so you still need to carry the first gen chip specifically for the flagship model). What do you do when your flagship is mature and the sensor manufacturer is discontinuing that sensor? You buy too damn many sensors, carry them as inventory, and scrap when the model is discontinued, right?

The flagship DSLR cost, I suspect, is driven at least as much by inventory concerns as by actual parts and build cost.

At the lower end, you're building more of them so you can manage your inventory a lot more JIT-like, AND you've probably streamlined all the tech so your parts counts and parts costs are reduced, but at this point you have to trim margins to sell the thing.


----------

