Dear Paul
The market price is certainly not fixed among the different manufacturers of digital backs. A company has to price its products according to a certain gross margin to be profitable, respectively not to lose money, and to assure the survival for the company. The gross margin is what comes over the fix costs, which can easily be calculated. This gives the selling price. When it comes to digital backs, which is the main product (understand the product with which they need to make their profit) of the manufacturers of these backs, the leverage is very low: it simply needs a certain minimum margin. otherwise the company loses money. R&D is something which needs to be calculated in the price as well. Each new digital back costs 100s of thousands dollars or euros in R&D costs, in some cases over a million.
True, and you mention it yourself, the MFDB market is not a big market, and profit cannot be reached with mass sales and sales numbers like in the DSLR business. We are speaking about a market of a few thousands new digital backs every year, to be shared between the 3 players (4 and even more before).
The existing manufacturers are all located in countries with basically the same costs for salaries, taxes, etc ... These companies are also all of comparable size. It is only logical that the margin needed is more or less the same for those companies to not lose money.
There is no secret agreement between the back manufacturers like it has been said so many times and to keep the prices high. That doesn't make sense and wouldn't be possible.
Leica and Pentax are not back manufacturers and do certainly sell with another business model in mind and not for a market of a few thousands sales per year.
Best regards
Thierry
I used to think that the cost of MF was sort of fixed. There are limited players in the sensor manufacture which could hold the market at a given price. It has been around 25-30k for a long time. So my thinking was they would stay there. However Pentax introduces a camera with a 40 MP sensor for about a 1/3 of the cost. So either they have a better business model or the price has been somewhat artificially high. My guess is the latter.
D800 if it exists wouldn't be a game changer. A 36MP camera in that format is simply marketing over physics. There was a great video circulating of a presentation given by the inventor of CMOS technology and he explains it quite clearly. Sorry I forget the name.
Basically as I see the MF pricing the way it is because they can. You essentially have two chip makers and up till recently 3 back or camera makers. Not a whole lot of competition and not a very big market. The car market is a good example. Most four door family sedans are within a certain price range because the marketing department knows that is what you are going to spend. If your a Kia or a new maker you need to offer something similar or more at the same price. It is how you gain market share when you are not well known. Enter Pentax.
Nikon is not a factor because it is in a different class not better or worse just different.
Paul Guba
