Why are large capacity digital backs so expensive?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Icarebecauseyoudo

Guest
It seems to me that every type of technology is swiftly replicated by the chinese and japanese and the price plummets, if it didn't originate there in the first place

Here's one exception

Was looking at an Anngram picture gate 8000, a scanning back

only £23,000

Admittedly the market is limited, but why does no one just mass produce this technology?
 


Icarebecauseyoudo said:
It seems to me that every type of technology is swiftly replicated by the chinese and japanese and the price plummets, if it didn't originate there in the first place

Here's one exception

Was looking at an Anngram picture gate 8000, a scanning back

only £23,000

Admittedly the market is limited, but why does no one just mass produce this technology?
Click to expand...
I think you said it yourself right there - you can get comparable results with top end DSLRs and lenses for a fraction of the price and they are arguably more versatile.

Would be nice if there was a budget option like, although I'd rather just shoot film. As I think you would... :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
andy m said:
I think you said it yourself right there - you can get comparable results with top end DSLRs and lenses for a fraction of the price and they are arguably more versatile.

Would be nice if there was a budget option like, although I'd rather just shoot film. As I think you would... :)
Click to expand...

Certainly for the foreseeable future

I could by a high end digital back, but I would not dare take it out in the field at those prices

I just don't see why the technology isn't easily replicated Andy. Granted some have patents I suppose, but there are always ways around those
 
Because A. digital backs are generally bought for medium and large format cameras and the price of CMOS chips rises exponentially with size, B. it's low demand boutique kit C. as Andy says, and low demand.

If you can live with APS-C size shots then just buy a 50D and use an adaptor to mount Hasselblad lenses on it!
 
smoker said:
Because A. digital backs are generally bought for medium and large format cameras and the price of CMOS chips rises exponentially with size, B. it's low demand boutique kit C. as Andy says, and low demand.

If you can live with APS-C size shots then just buy a 50D and use an adaptor to mount Hasselblad lenses on it!
Click to expand...

That explains why, but I just ask 'why?' again.

Do the larger chips have no other applications?

B and C are the same btw ;)
 
smoker said:
Because A. digital backs are generally bought for medium and large format cameras and the price of CMOS chips rises exponentially with size, B. it's low demand boutique kit C. as Andy says, and low demand.

If you can live with APS-C size shots then just buy a 50D and use an adaptor to mount Hasselblad lenses on it!
Click to expand...
Interesting...how does the shutter work, with it being part of the lens?
 
And why can't new, powerful, but mass produced chips be programmed to perform the same tasks as these CMOS chips?

I'm at the conclusion that large format digital capture is still in it's infancy, and buying now would be the equivalent of buying a very expensive ZX81

But at some point in the future it will become cost effective. Friend of mine as already switched to a linhof and phase one back for 4x5 stuff
 
The were rumours that an aftermarket digital back for the Pentax 645 series was available in China it was 15 MP and allegedly reasonably priced but I cannot find any evidence of it actually being available. I did notice the new Pentax 645D is going for about 10 grand and apparently it has the same sensor as a Hasselblad so I would suggest that the high price of digital backs is simply the fact that they can charge for them so they do - supply and demand and all that. I did see a website from some russian bloke who had some shots he took in Western China with a Hasselbald and the their fancy digital back and they did look superb mind.
 
Three reasons, one is the limited market. Which means the R&D costs and tooling/setup have to be paid for by less people.

Say for argument, both the small and large chips cost £1 to produce and £1 million in development.

If you sell 1 million small chips, the cost per chip is £2

If you sell 10,000 large chips, the cost per chip is £101

The second problem is that the actual failure rate will increase exponentially with the size of the chip and number of CMOS sensors on it, so they probably have to throw away a huge number of the larger sensors.

The third reason of course is that people will always pay over the odds for a premium product and they will reap that!
 
Roger said:
Three reasons, one is the limited market. Which means the R&D costs and tooling/setup have to be paid for by less people.

Say for argument, both the small and large chips cost £1 to produce and £1 million in development.

If you sell 1 million small chips, the cost per chip is £2

If you sell 10,000 large chips, the cost per chip is £101

The second problem is that the actual failure rate will increase exponentially with the size of the chip and number of CMOS sensors on it, so they probably have to throw away a huge number of the larger sensors.

The third reason of course is that people will always pay over the odds for a premium product and they will reap that!
Click to expand...

cheers Roger

If they produce chips with one or two duff sensors, I'll have to sit next to the bin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Icarebecauseyoudo said:
cheers Roger

If they produce chips with one or two duff sensors, I'll have to sit next to the bin
Click to expand...

Actually, thats probably a 4th reason. A lot of sensors do have duff pixels, but in the 13 million or so, you don't normally spot them - so I would guess there is a certain percentage that is permissible (just like your lcd tv or monitor may have 3 or 4 duff pixels and they don't call it a fault).

Now if I was paying a few grand for a sensor, I'd be a whole lot more fussy and less likely to accept that.
 
Roger said:
Actually, thats probably a 4th reason. A lot of sensors do have duff pixels, but in the 13 million or so, you don't normally spot them - so I would guess there is a certain percentage that is permissible (just like your lcd tv or monitor may have 3 or 4 duff pixels and they don't call it a fault).

Now if I was paying a few grand for a sensor, I'd be a whole lot more fussy and less likely to accept that.
Click to expand...

So I take it the sensors have to be integral to the chip, the chip is basically the sensor?

So the data can't just be processed with a generic cheap chip?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top