Is the 1Ds worth what Canon is charging ??

[mrchips]

I have owned the D30, and currently the D60, and now I am ready to join the 10 MP + club. As a Canon fan (I have never owned any other brand) I see a big difference in price between the Canon 1Ds and the Kodak Pro 14n. I have looked at the cameras and honestly don't see the reason for 3,000 difference in price.

OK some will say the Canon is 3fps and the Nikon is only 1.8 fps. The 1Ds has a better ISO range but the Nikon has a 3d Matrix metering.

At this point I have a 70-200 2.8 L IS and a 100-400 L IS. so replacing them with the the 80-200 and 80-400 VR is no problem. Am I missing something in the difference between the 2 Cameras, or should I get the Kodak and the new lenses. Plenty of time for a decision and all imput is helpfull, lets just not turn this into a Canon/Nikon(Kodak) mudslinging event. :-)

[Jagan]

The price is so high so that people like us will covet the camera and do our best to rationalize the cost.

Do what I did, switch hobbies temporarily. $3000 can be put toward a lot of fun and creative things. Besides, it's not like great cameras are going to disappear while you're gone. When you come back you will find lower prices, and there will be no buyers remorse either.

I hate buyers remorse, don't you?

-Jagan

[Ralph Wagner]

That question will get a least a dozen different responses. Depending on profit margin, etc. only Canon knows for sure. But, you know that any company will try to get the maximum profit that will survive in the market place. My opinion - it is probably inflated a certain % over the perceived viable selling price. As it is said, 'You can always come down, but you can't go up.' I will wait and let the water seeks it level and then make a decision if I want to buy one.

Regards,
Ralph Wagner

[oops]

Michael Reichmann gives the price of the 1Ds his usual candid and insightful opinion at:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1Ds-Pricing.shtml

Plus, a personal 5 part review linked at the bottom of the pricing article. Good read.

[mrchips]

Thanks for the link, but he is using bad logic in his use of high cost low yeild CMOS. I say that because if thats the biggest reason why a full frame CMOS SLR is expensive $7,999 US, how does Kodak make a camera that is Full Frame CMOS that has 2.8 more megapixels and retails it fior $4,999 US. They must have perfected a lower cost of manufacturing the chip or Canon is tyrying to just make a lot of money from a Professional Camera. I am not trying to bash Canon but something just doesn't adsd up in my book. :-)

[oops]

I wasn't aware of the Kodac CMOS sensor. I'll put my money on corporate greed until proven otherwise. Thanks for the info.

Chris

[Chad]

mrchips wrote:
Thanks for the link, but he is using bad logic in his use of high cost low yeild CMOS. I say that because if thats the biggest reason why a full frame CMOS SLR is expensive $7,999 US, how does Kodak make a camera that is Full Frame CMOS that has 2.8 more megapixels and retails it fior $4,999 US. They must have perfected a lower cost of manufacturing the chip or Canon is tyrying to just make a lot of money from a Professional Camera. I am not trying to bash Canon but something just doesn't adsd up in my book. :-)




why does a f5 cost more than a N80 ??

this is the reason the build of the two are totally dif

also Kodak skipped the AA filter and a few other shortcuts ???

each will have its place in the market

[mrchips]

why does a f5 cost more than a N80 ??

this is the reason the build of the two are totally dif

also Kodak skipped the AA filter and a few other shortcuts ???



Sorry but I'm looking for something a little more concrete than an F5 vs an N80

You may be right on the AA filter but I have searched the 1Ds docs and find no reference to it.

Kodak has made the AA filter removable in the 760 series after finding that most professional that use them like an IR filter over the AA for sharpness.

What other shortcuts??? were not talking $1,000 but $3,000.

[mfulton]

mrchips wrote:
Thanks for the link, but he is using bad logic in his use of high cost low yeild CMOS. I say that because if thats the biggest reason why a full frame CMOS SLR is expensive $7,999 US, how does Kodak make a camera that is Full Frame CMOS that has 2.8 more megapixels and retails it fior $4,999 US. They must have perfected a lower cost of manufacturing the chip or Canon is tyrying to just make a lot of money from a Professional Camera. I am not trying to bash Canon but something just doesn't adsd up in my book. :-)



The Kodak 14N doesn't actually use a Kodak sensor. They use a sensor from some Belgian company. I think this camera's been in in development since before Kodak's own chip was ready.

However, it's likely that the cost of the Canon chip and the chip in the Kodak are actually about the same.

This is because the number of pixels on the sensor isn't really a factor in the cost of producing the chip. The cost of producing a chip is based on the total surface area and percentage of good chips to bad in the production process.

Surface area is a consideration because of the cost of the raw materials that are used. Chips are made in large wafers, and it takes a fixed amount of materials to make a wafer of a given size, regardless of what kind of chips are in the wafer. Since the chips are about the same size, the number of chips per wafer is probably about the same for each type. That means the cost of the raw materials for the wafer is going to be about the same.

The cost of an individual chip is basically a matter of dividing the wafer cost by how many good chips you get out of it. So if a wafer costs $10000, and you get 100 good chips out of it, then each chip's cost is $100. But if you only get 78 good chips, then each one's cost is $128, and so on.

Since each chip is made in a different plant, there COULD be a difference in production yields, but it's not really likely to be a very big difference. Certainly not a difference that accounts for much of the difference in the price in the cameras.


Mike