One thing that I have pondered from time to time is the historic $8000 introductory price tag of all Canon's 1Ds series bodies.

As THE best digital camera in the world, I guess any price whatsoever is justified. However, a couple of rough facts can be real eye-openers... One fact in particular is the cost of actually making a full-frame sensor. Contrary to what the price tag might imply, making a 21 megapixel full-frame CMOS sensor does not cost thousands of dollars per sensor; it is hundreds at the very most. True, full-frame sensors do cost many times more to make than a cropped-frame sensor, but still does not mean that a full-frame sensor is worth thousands...

But then, juxtapose the likes of the Canon 1D mk3 with the 1Ds mk3. The 1D mk3 costs $3500 less than the 1Ds mk3. The sensor size is the ONLY difference so theoretically, the sensor alone accounts for a $3500 price hike.

Right about now you are thinking to yourself, gosh, I wonder what the profit margin is on the 1Ds mk3? Could it be like, 50%+???

Next question, and this is where the little disaster warning light comes on: what if another company comes along and is massive enough to survive on substantially smaller profit margins? Like, THOUSANDS less?

*cough*Sony*cough*

Conclusion: Full-frame, high-resolution cameras are on the horizon, and a storm is coming for $8000 camera bodies. Sony and Nikon will both be coming out with 24 megapixel full-frame bodies in a month or two, and they will cost as little as $3500 and $5500, respectively.

It will be very, VERY interesting to see what happens in the "Canon pro camp" in the next 6 months...

Alright, just my daily two cents!

Take care,
=Matt=