Why go full frame?

eskimochaos wrote in post #13209430
It also could be completely the opposite like many car brands that offer a wide range of automobiles. They don;t make money on the high end stuff - they make it on the cheap stuff.

Lexus, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, and Audi come to mind.

Wait, are you saying these manufacturers make more on cheaper vehicles???

I've been in the auto industry since the day I was born and I can tell you with 100% certainty that the more expensive the vehicle, the higher the profit. Also, trucks and SUVs have a TON of profit in them.

Also, discounts below cost are possible with manufacturer assistance. By the time you buy a product of any kind everybody's already made a buttload of money off you. You think you are paying cost but you're NOT. lol. Edmunds, etc does not have true cost. Only dealer invoice, which means nothing. Just pay the price....the lowest you can of course, but don't fool yourself.

rhys216 wrote in post #13209458
Well it mostly depends on how much the sensors cost.
FF sensors actually costs 2.5x more than a 1.6x sensor if every die candidate is successful. However yields decrease exponentially as you increase die sizes, so I'm guessing a FF sensor alone probably cost's around 3-4x more than 1.6x chips.
Then you have a little extra cost in terms of better shutters and viewfinders etc.

Just think about it.... Canon reduced profit on the 5Dmk2 by 500 dollars USD. 500 bucks will buy several different Rebel DSLR's models. I'm sure Canon has more profit yet on these. Surly they aren't selling them for a loss for 2000.00 USD.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13209561
Wait, are you saying these manufacturers make more on cheaper vehicles???

I've been in the auto industry since the day I was born and I can tell you with 100% certainty that the more expensive the vehicle, the higher the profit. Also, trucks and SUVs have a TON of profit in them.

Also, discounts below cost are possible with manufacturer assistance. By the time you buy a product of any kind everybody's already made a buttload of money off you. You think you are paying cost but you're NOT. lol. Edmunds, etc does not have true cost. Only dealer invoice, which means nothing. Just pay the price....the lowest you can of course, but don't fool yourself.

But which do they make more off of? They obviously sell more cheap cars thus they make more profit from the sum of the cheap cars sold than the occasional top model.

It's an extreme example but the LFA actually is sold at cost or slightly below it. The PS3 causes Sony to lose money every time they sell one but they re-coup on games.

davidc502 wrote in post #13209562
Just think about it.... Canon reduced profit on the 5Dmk2 by 500 dollars USD. 500 bucks will buy several different Rebel DSLR's models. I'm sure Canon has more profit yet on these. Surly they aren't selling them for a loss for 2000.00 USD.

No, but like I said, it depends on what percentage the sensor contributes to the cost of a camera.
It's very possible that Canon are selling the 5D at break even, making a good margin on the 7D and lower, as well as a making a good margin on the lower volume 1D and 1Ds sales.

eskimochaos wrote in post #13209430
It also could be completely the opposite like many car brands that offer a wide range of automobiles. They don;t make money on the high end stuff - they make it on the cheap stuff.

Lexus, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, and Audi come to mind.

They don't make any money from their high end vehicles eh? You have some data to back that up right?

Canon's highest selling and I would have to assume most profitable DSLR body is the Rebel, and the reasons are obvious, but that certainly doesn't mean they are not making some scratch from their top of the line models...same goes for car any manufacturer.

Yes, every once in a while a manufacturer while throw out a limited edition super car and claim to take a loss, but make no mistake that that car, motorcycle, or whatever... makes up the supposed loss in advertising for the company as it's plastered on every car show review, and car magazine. The Lexus supercar you speak of was only allowed to be sold to high profile people, why do you think that is?

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13209561
Wait, are you saying these manufacturers make more on cheaper vehicles???

I've been in the auto industry since the day I was born and I can tell you with 100% certainty that the more expensive the vehicle, the higher the profit. Also, trucks and SUVs have a TON of profit in them.

Also, discounts below cost are possible with manufacturer assistance. By the time you buy a product of any kind everybody's already made a buttload of money off you. You think you are paying cost but you're NOT. lol. Edmunds, etc does not have true cost. Only dealer invoice, which means nothing. Just pay the price....the lowest you can of course, but don't fool yourself.

It all depends on volume and pricing structure and how they apply these to different market segments.
Often one market segment subsidises another.

eskimochaos wrote in post #13209581
But which do they make more off of? They obviously sell more cheap cars thus they make more profit from the sum of the cheap cars sold than the occasional top model.

It's an extreme example but the LFA actually is sold at cost or slightly below it. The PS3 causes Sony to lose money every time they sell one but they re-coup on games.

More incremental profit on higher transaction price. There is virtually zero profit on a Versa and an unbelievable profit on a GTR. Same trend across the board.

LFA is not a good example, there is no volume or economy of scale. It is a "look at me" car for Lexus. it was never meant to be a money maker, it's a marketing expense.

PS3 is not a car, that is their strategy, just like your subsidized cell phone making money on the service plan. It's like saying Canon loses money on a 5Dii but makes it all back up on film (oh wait...).

A safe bet is Canon makes more profit margin on a lower volume item than the higher volume stuff. The Rebels are sold cheap due to competition, which as we all know, drives down prices. If Canon wants more profit on them, they risk losing sales to Nikon, Sony, etc.

rhys216 wrote in post #13209637
It all depends on volume and pricing structure and how they apply these to different market segments.
Often one market segment subsidises another.

depends on the industry. comparing different industries is always pointless unless that is the point. you can't illustrate the difference between two apples using an orange. however, you can certainly compare apples and oranges in a study independent of other apples and oranges.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13209651
depends on the industry. comparing different industries is always pointless unless that is the point. you can't illustrate the difference between two apples using an orange. however, you can certainly compare apples and oranges in a study independent of other apples and oranges.

Say that 3 times really fast.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13209648
A safe bet is Canon makes more profit margin on a lower volume item than the higher volume stuff. The Rebels are sold cheap due to competition, which as we all know, drives down prices. If Canon wants more profit on them, they risk losing sales to Nikon, Sony, etc.

Doubt it, due to the higher production cost (at least the 5Dii). I'm sure the 7D must have some very healthy margins, with the rebels be lower margin high volume sales.

Also Canon may make good margins on their glass, or they may subsidise their camera business from it's photocopier business ect.

rhys216 wrote in post #13209670
Doubt it, due to the higher production cost (at least the 5Dii). I'm sure the 7D must have some very healthy margins, with the rebels be lower margin high volume sales.

Also Canon may make good margins on their glass, or they may subsidise their camera business from it's photocopier business ect.

Glass is a great example. But I don't buy a copier based on my camera....I'd be really surprised if they don't look at them as separate profit centers.

That is a good point about the sensor. You may only be able to compare cost trends with similar sensor (crop to crop).

10megapixel wrote in post #13209669
Say that 3 times really fast.

nah, i don't like to repeat myself repeat myself.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13209694
Glass is a great example. But I don't buy a copier based on my camera....I'd be really surprised if they don't look at them as separate profit centers.

That is a good point about the sensor. You may only be able to compare cost trends with similar sensor (crop to crop).

I'm sure they do, but that doesn't mean they can't use such subsidiaries to subsidise others in order to remain dominant in that particular sector.
Canon have a very diverse product line, profits from products that are not facing so much pricing pressure can be used to fend off tough competition in other markets where their competition are trying to take market share.

rhys216 wrote in post #13209729
I'm sure they do, but that doesn't mean they can't use such subsidiaries to subsidise others in order to remain dominant in that particular sector.
Canon have a very diverse product line, profits from products that are not facing so much pricing pressure can be used to fend off tough competition in other markets where their competition are trying to take market share.

I agree they might; it's the only reason Mitsubishi still exists....especially in the US.

Not necessarily that I agree with that. If they only sell bodies to make money on lenses, cool. If they need to sell copiers to make money on camera equipment....dumb. Either way, I will still believe that they make money on every product they have for sale....I am always open to proof otherwise.

btw, if i have a PROFIT center that doesn't turn a PROFIT, then I KILL IT.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13209779
Not necessarily that I agree with that. If they only sell bodies to make money on lenses, cool. If they need to sell copiers to make money on camera equipment....dumb.

Not really, depends what the strategy is, they could be using the cash as a short-medium term strategy to subsidise a big R&D push in order to gain a technological edge, I mean just a decent patent portfolio can be a sound investment, but more importantly it would enable them later down the road to better compete, and if they are lucky, dominate the market place and be in a position to increase margins.
Tbh, they need to spend some cash to fix the noise/banding issues in the shadows so people can actually take advantage of the huge DR potential, and stop messing around with all this HAMSTTR.
Sony have obviously made BIG strides here as evidenced by the latest 16mp crop sensors.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13209779
Either way, I will still believe that they make money on every product they have for sale....I am always open to proof otherwise.

Whether they do or not, doesn't really matter as long as they are in the black as a whole.