Hi,
Pixels are free, silicon costs. Sony could make a 12 or 16 MPixel camera but that would not convert into lower manufacturing costs. They could of course cut other corners, lesser quality in mechanical construction and so on, perhaps produce outside Japan.
Not exactly. The above is a conventional flawed view-point. Let me explain.
Yes, comparing the actual production cost of a 12MP FF sensor and a 24MP FF sensor, might get you to a relatively close number, since both are similarly sized Full-frame sensors. However, that is where the comparison/similarity ends.
Whether it be a 12MP FF sensor or a 12MP APS-C sensor, once you take the cost of the Silicon out of the equation, the underlying electronics and data pipeline architecture that will enable the crunching of all the data that comes out of the sensor, processing it, and then transporting it through the data pipeline onto the buffer or Flash-storage, is the SAME - *as long as* the FPS (frames per second) on both cameras are the same, since, the megapixels are the same (12MP vs 12MP).
Completely different dimension when you now introduce a 24MP monster into the mix with something like 5FPS. Now the kind of electronics and architecture required to extract those MASSIVE data volumes that come out of the sensor, process all of that in fractions of a second, and transport it via a data-pipeline architecture that is robust enough to support such MASSIVE data volumes, and finally onto the buffer or Flash-memory, is a whole different dimension, from doing the same task with a 12MP product.
I was frankly totally surprised that the A900 had 5FPS, with a 24.6MP monster resolution sensor and the whole package being sold for $3K USD. Even the 1DSMKIII, with its 21MP sensor and 5FPS, is moving FAR less amounts of data than the A900, since a full-RAW file (14-bit) in the Canon 1DSMKIII is around 24MB in size, while the A900 has a nearly 40MB RAW file. So when shooting RAW+JPEG at 5FPS, the A900 is processing/crunching/moving around 250+ MegaBytes (MB) of data PER SECOND and the kind of sophisticated and specialized architecture needed to pull it off, is where the LARGE cost factor comes in.
Remember that a Film camera (say a 1D version) and a Digital 1DSMKIII has a cost difference of around $6000. That $6000 difference, is over and above the cost of the outer shell and the "cheap bits" like the shutter, the mirror box and the other stuff and is almost ENTIRELY due to the electronics, including the cost of the sensor.
So yes, Silicon is expensive and pixels could be even more expensive......especially when one needs a decent enough FPS.
Bottomline, if Sony comes out with an A800 with a 12MP FF sensor, operating at 5FPS, they could borrow some of the "cheap bits" like the shutter and mirror box etc from the A900, and borrow the downstream electronics (CPU, Data pipeline electronics etc) from the A700 (same 12MP, right ?), and come out with a MUCH cheaper product that the Full-frame A900, without "cutting any corners".....remember the electronics in the A900 are several classes above the A700, since both are at 5FPS, but in case of the A900, it is a 24MP monster churning out TWICE as much data in the SAME time slice.....even moving to a 6FPS in the A900 would be an impossibility with currently available cutting edge processor and electronics technology, IMO, else the D3X would have done it at its $8000 pricepoint.