Are higher megapixel sensors harder to manufacture and therefore cost more?

[camgarner]

I would think that their pricing has more to do with gaining rapid market share.  Considering the delivery problems and pricing of the X1D it makes sense to take advantage of this.  Not to mention the margin they will make with the lenses.  Also, if this is a platform than Fuji will build on I would go for share.  Certainly could discourage other potential entrants.

[eronald]

Masks for tighter geometries are more expensive but the minimum geometry in a photographic sensor is not dictated by the pixels which are enormous compared to the minimum feature size so that can pretty much be ignored if the two sensors are manufactured on the same technology node.  As for BSI, that likely requires at least a couple more mask layers so an equivalent BSI sensor would be a bit more expensive to one that uses traditional methods.  Stacked sensors would also add cost and complexity.  Steppers from ASML that employ phase shift technologies and or multiple displaced exposures are handled within the tool but of course those tools are more expensive.  The capital outlay for smaller and smaller geometries goes up exponentially.  When I started in the industry we were at the 2 micron node and the equipment for an entire factory could be purchased for the approximate price of a single stepper capable of 0.12 microns.  I started with Intel in 1983 and retired from there in 2010.

There is also the issue of CFA deposition. I'm not sure the yield here is defined by the area - it may be in terms of number of cells.

Edmund

[voidshatter]

If Fuji is paying at least $3K for the sensor, how can they sell a complete camera for $6500, including dealer markup?

Forward pricing?

Jim

The pricing for the IMX161 sensor is not necessarily the same for all camera manufacturers. It may decrease over time as the fab process improves. I wouldn't be surprised if Fuji and Hasselblad are getting it at a cheaper price in 2017. Meanwhile, Sony might want to clear their inventory when demand is less than supply.

Also, back to 2014, Pentax might needed a smaller profit margin than Phase One/Hasselblad did, because the 645Z was produced in significantly higher volumes.

[eronald]

The pricing for the IMX161 sensor is not necessarily the same for all camera manufacturers. It may decrease over time as the fab process improves. I wouldn't be surprised if Fuji and Hasselblad are getting it at a cheaper price in 2017. Meanwhile, Sony might want to clear their inventory when demand is less than supply.

Also, back to 2014, Pentax might needed a smaller profit margin than Phase One/Hasselblad did, because the 645Z was produced in significantly higher volumes.

I'd rate the 2017 volume pricing of the 50MP sensor at something like $800.
The price decreases substantially as yields go up, and this chip will have been on the market for a long time in 2017 - although it may have been out of production due to earthquake damage to the fabs.

Edmund

[Jim Kasson]

I'd rate the 2017 volume pricing of the 50MP sensor at something like $800.

Edmund, can you tell me something about the business model for a large-market producer like Fuji? I'll show you what I mean by model with an example. When I worked at Rolm, before we had direct sales this was our model, with all numbers expressed in percent of sales.

COGS: 40%
R&D: 10%
G&A: 5%
Marketing, sales, and service: 25%
Taxes: 10%
Profit: 10%

COGS was about 75% material, so you could multiply parts cost by about 3.3 to get sales price after discounts. Of course, not all sales prices were set that way, but on average they were.

If going through a retail channel, the items would be marked up, and all those numbers would be divided by, say 1.5 to get them in terms of retail price.

What's the model look like for Nikon, Canon, Fuji, etc?

Thanks,

Jim

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would guess the 44x33 mm sensors would be a bit cheaper, else we would not see them in cameras priced well below 10k$US.

I guess that the Nikon D7200 would be a good example of where the image sensor industry is standing now, as demonstrated by the enclosed image. That sensor is 24 MP APS-C, so the pixel design applied to 44x33 mm would yield 86 MP. I would guess that 86 MP sensor could be made at 44x33 mm at about the same cost as the present 44x33 mm sensor, obviously depending on production numbers. Would that be a reasonable assumption?

On the other hand, the full size sensors are around 54x44 mm, surface area is about 2160 mm while 44x33 is 1452 mm. With a very high yield process on large wafers the production cost would scale surface, but yield figures cause much higher costs.

If we assume 3K for the existing 50 MP 44x33 mm sensor, we could than assume 4500 $K based on sensor surface and perhaps twice taking yield and wafer size aspects into account. Is that somewhere reasonable?

So, we would come up with the following figures:

Size	MP	Cost
44x33	50	3K
44x33	86	3K+
54x40	100	9K

What's your take?

Best regards
Erik

It's been reported elsewhere that depending on quantities and customization (SKU) the 50mp 44x33 sensor is being sold by Sony from $3K to $4K per unit.  I can't vouch for the accuracy of those reports but that sounds reasonable accurate based on my experience in the industry.

[E.J. Peiker]

Hi,

I would guess the 44x33 mm sensors would be a bit cheaper, else we would not see them in cameras priced well below 10k$US.

I guess that the Nikon D7200 would be a good example of where the image sensor industry is standing now, as demonstrated by the enclosed image. That sensor is 24 MP APS-C, so the pixel design applied to 44x33 mm would yield 86 MP. I would guess that 86 MP sensor could be made at 44x33 mm at about the same cost as the present 44x33 mm sensor, obviously depending on production numbers. Would that be a reasonable assumption?

On the other hand, the full size sensors are around 54x44 mm, surface area is about 2160 mm while 44x33 is 1452 mm. With a very high yield process on large wafers the production cost would scale surface, but yield figures cause much higher costs.

If we assume 3K for the existing 50 MP 44x33 mm sensor, we could than assume 4500 $K based on sensor surface and perhaps twice taking yield and wafer size aspects into account. Is that somewhere reasonable?

So, we would come up with the following figures:

Size	MP	Cost
44x33	50	3K
44x33	86	3K+
54x40	100	9K

What's your take?

Best regards
Erik

Since I'm retired from there I no longer have access to the proprietary area vs. defect density costing tools but in my estimation, it would be more like 2.2 times the cost of the 50mp sensor assuming they use the same process technology to make it.

As for whether an 86mp 44x33mm sensor would cost about the same to make as the 50mp one, ultimately in the long term it would be in the same general ballpark but probably slightly more expensive due to higher defect sensitivity (more circuit elements per unit area) as long as it uses a similar process technology. Of course initially it would cost more for all sorts of reasons.