Why do full-frame camera bodies cost so much more than APS-C models?
Asked 9/13/2014
3 views
2 answers
0
Full-frame cameras often cost much more than APS-C bodies. Ignoring lenses, what mainly drives that price gap? I'm interested in the broad factors behind the difference, such as sensor manufacturing cost, lower production volume, yield/rejection rates, and whether larger full-frame bodies also cost more because they need bigger components like the mirror and prism. Ballpark reasoning is fine; I’m not looking for exact current factory costs.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
11y ago
2 Answers
11
In the "Canon's Full-Frame CMOS Sensors" whitepaper, dated August 2006, you can read the following, which kind of answers your question, although the manufacturing technology and the costs have probably changed to some degree since 2006:
Thin disks of silicon called “wafers” are used as the raw material of semiconductor manufacturing. Depending upon its composition, (for example, high-resistivity silicon wafers have much greater electrical field depth -- and broader spectral response -- than low-resistivity wafers) an 8" diameter wafer could cost as much as $450 to $500, $1,000 or even $5,000. After several hundred process steps, perhaps between 400 and 600 (including, for example, thin film deposition, lithography, photoresist coating and alignment, exposure, developing, etching and cleaning), one has a wafer covered with sensors. If the sensors are APS-C size, there are about 200 of them on the wafer, depending on layout and the design of the periphery of each sensor. For APS-H, there are about 46 or so. Full-frame sensors? Just 20.
Originally by user32301. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user32301
11y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
A big part of the premium comes from sensor manufacturing, but not just because a full-frame sensor has more area. Larger chips mean fewer sensors per silicon wafer, and wafer defects hurt yield much more severely on large sensors. So full-frame sensors are disproportionately more expensive than APS-C sensors, not merely ~2× more because they’re larger.
There are also system-level costs. Full-frame DSLRs need larger supporting parts such as the mirror, pentaprism, and often a larger body, which adds material and manufacturing cost.
Another factor is volume: APS-C cameras generally sell in higher numbers, so design, tooling, and engineering costs are spread across more units. Full-frame bodies sell in smaller volumes, so each camera carries more of that overhead.
Finally, market positioning matters. Full-frame bodies are usually aimed at more advanced users and are commonly built to a higher standard, which can further raise price. So the premium is best explained by a mix of sensor yield economics, larger physical components, lower production volume, and higher-end product positioning—not by one simple per-sensor cost difference alone.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI11y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why are Leica cameras and lenses so expensive?
Do more autofocus points significantly increase a camera manufacturer's cost?
Is full frame significantly better than APS-C for macro photography?
Why do larger image sensors waste more wafer area, and can manufacturers fill the gaps with smaller sensors?
Can a crop-sensor zoom lens cover a larger sensor at some focal lengths?