Something that is still missing are steampunk mods of high end DSRLs.
I wonder what the Bobbys on the Streets of London would say if you appeared with something like this and nonchalantly declared that you are just snapping a couple of holiday pics.
Here's the Siddhartha Pod, winner of today's Steampunk artifact naming competition.
"I always thought that the rounded tops of modern cameras were molded in plastic"
All those fancy shapes that you see in today's products are the result of technologies such as 5-axis milling. Although curvy figures are much cheaper to produce in plastics, they can be obtained with almost any material. Parts like that camera jacket are awfully expensive (hundreds of dollars when finished), especially when compared to their 5$ plastic counterparts.
The first one surely cost several thousand dollars. After that, it is all a matter of volume, and where the production is to take place. On such parts, a lot of hand-finishing operations are usually required to ensure the best surface quality.
The production volumes on the high-end camera models is relatively low, so the amortizement for the tooling (casting molds, etc.) is quite steep, and that adds significantly to the cost.
A more accurate cost assessment would require examining the raw parts alongside the finished product. The amount of work required to polish the parts may be greatly reduced by judicious use and placement of thick finishes and other "ornaments"...
I also have no idea of what are the cheapest models sporting such metal jackets, but I suspect that the entry level for this is quite high.
Do keep in mind that the electronics (except the image sensor itself) are quite cheap. The viewfinder optics are pretty much run-of-the-mill parts and probably don't cost much either. So, most of the manufacturing money goes into the housing and mechanism, and that makes sense as the "in-hand feel" is what sells those toys.
If you look closely at the D300, you will see that only the top, bottom, lens-mount plate and at least some part of the back are metal. Everything else, including the grip and flash housing, is plastic. And the D300 is not cheap.
As an example of what I wrote earlier, you will notice on both models that no effort is made to polish the bulk of the lens-mount plate castings. This is a sure sign that this whole area will be "dressed-up" in the final product to reduce the cost (that area is not very susceptible to shocks anyway).
"If you look closely at the D300, you will see that only the top, bottom, lens-mount plate and at least some part of the back are metal. Everything else, including the grip and flash housing, is plastic. And the D300 is not cheap."
Countless books have been written on the topic, so we won't cover it here, that's for sure. But here's some food for thought.
It is estimated that the cost of GM's pension fund averages to about 4,000$ per vehicle produced. The intensive advertising typical of the automobile industry adds another 2,000$ to this. The dealer's cut may be a well-kept secret, but it is not zero. Let's make it 1,000$ on the cheapest car they sell, which has an MSRP of 13,000$ (by assuming that the dealer makes its money on options, and service). This leaves us with a net wholesale tag of 6,000$. To operate a monster like GM, the actual overhead factor has to be near 2, although management will claim much less (otherwise they wouldn't be able to justify their big salaries). Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and use a figure of 1.6, leaving us with a maximum of 3,750$ to build the car, and less if we are to make a profit selling it. More probably around 2,000$, and that's my point: you can certainly build a car for 2K$.
And yet I am convinced, backed by years of experience, than Nikon spends considerably more than this to build a D3.
Question: Why does Nikon build D3s?
Answer: To maintain a reputation on which they can sell lots of entry-level cameras. Cameras for which the above pricing decomposition applies. Mass production is where the real money is.
Note that the above discussion applies to manufacturing giants. Smaller outfits survive only by being leaner and smarter, and their costing distribution is very different. But they don't have anywhere near the means to entertain products like the D3, which sells for peanuts when you look at the whole picture.
Which brings me to my point: top-of-the-line products often deserve the awe they inspire, simply because that's the whole idea.
"I am confused, though: you say the pension fund alone is 4k, and then you say a car can be made for 2k. ??"
In my (admittedly very crude) analysis, I am interested only in finding out how much is spent on the factory floor and in raw materials. The pension plan of long-retired employees, the salaries of the clerks and bean counters, the high-flying execs and their perks are all irrelevant to the engineer who has to design and build the damn things.
"I think they make money on D3s."
Now, as to making money or not, please refine the concept? If you mean that the income is higher than the cost of the raw materials and labor, you are certainly right.
But the markup on the D3 is nowhere near the minimum 6:1 (if not 8:1) required to pay for the corporate jets, the golden parachutes, the fancy trade shows and advertising, [100 pages deleted], and let's not forget the stockholders.
"I also doubt that making a D3 is more expensive than making a modern car."
Unbelievable, but you are probably wrong. I repeat this: the cheapest modern car probably costs less to build than a D3, once you have the necessary capital and infrastructures. And I don't mean the manufacturing plant, that is amortized on the price of the cars.
You see, the low-end car benefits from a manufacturing volume orders of magnitude higher than that of a high-end camera and, roughly, your costs are cut in half for every tenfold increase in volume. Put it this way: 50 robots at 1M$ a piece used to build 1 million cars cost 50$ per car. The same fifty robots used to build 10,000 D3s is bankruptcy, plain and simple. And that's only one of a zillion similar examples.
Assembling a car requires no craftsmanship (nothing that you or I would call such, anyway). The skill goes into the tooling, but that is NRE (non-redundant engineering) and thus gets amortized over the whole lot of produced units. You say 100 M$ for an automated manufacturing plant? That's a mere 100$ per car.
The car may contain more parts, but it still is a whole lot simpler to build, and certainly requires no hand polishing of any kind, just slap the parts on and move to the next in line.
At the other extreme, D3s and Leicas are clearly the fruit of undeniable love for work well done. They are amorously hand polished, and every one of their components is subject to quality control criteria that would lead any mass-production business into bankruptcy.
Also, high-end products are by design harder to manufacture. Tougher materials are often much harder to work with, and so on. The concept of a flagship product in itself is to push the limits of what can be done. The sort of thinking that is the negation of mass production.
It all comes down to this: what you get for your money is a very relative concept. We don't like to think about it, but every time we buy a mass-produced consumer product, we contribute a lot more to [see the list above] than we spend on the actual, physical goods. The 6:1 ratio of real costs vs. selling price is a floor value for many large outfits. Many activity sectors, like toys, operate at 10:1 and often more. And I don't even want to know the ratios for medical supplies or military goods (if you'll excuse the apparent oxymoron).
The exception is when it comes to top-of-the-line products, where you get a whole lot more for your money. And you thought those products were outrageously expensive, didn't you? ;-)
P.S. Don't get me started on Ferraris and Leicas. Mass-production rules clearly do not apply for either, so the money is spent very differently, and in many cases foolishly. In this day and age, using hammers and anvils to hand-forge car body parts hardly makes any sense, no matter how you look at it. Yet this does appeal to some, because owning such parts proves beyond any doubt that you have money to burn. At least, the Leica has something more to show in the end, when in the right hands... ;-)
And yet in the digital age, Leica struggle to make a camera as good as an entry-level DSLR. Because their old craft does not make sensor chips and software.
Nice, innit? Like seeing robocop naked.
... Dang! Lookkit all the tech we get for our money! Awesome.
Something that is still missing are steampunk mods of high end DSRLs.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what the Bobbys on the Streets of London would say if you appeared with something like this and nonchalantly declared that you are just snapping a couple of holiday pics.
Here's the Siddhartha Pod, winner of today's Steampunk artifact naming competition.
"I always thought that the rounded tops of modern cameras were molded in plastic"
ReplyDeleteAll those fancy shapes that you see in today's products are the result of technologies such as 5-axis milling. Although curvy figures are much cheaper to produce in plastics, they can be obtained with almost any material. Parts like that camera jacket are awfully expensive (hundreds of dollars when finished), especially when compared to their 5$ plastic counterparts.
These are fun times to be a product designer!
Hundreds of dollars?? Surely not.
ReplyDelete"Hundreds of dollars?? Surely not."
ReplyDeleteThe first one surely cost several thousand dollars. After that, it is all a matter of volume, and where the production is to take place. On such parts, a lot of hand-finishing operations are usually required to ensure the best surface quality.
The production volumes on the high-end camera models is relatively low, so the amortizement for the tooling (casting molds, etc.) is quite steep, and that adds significantly to the cost.
A more accurate cost assessment would require examining the raw parts alongside the finished product. The amount of work required to polish the parts may be greatly reduced by judicious use and placement of thick finishes and other "ornaments"...
I also have no idea of what are the cheapest models sporting such metal jackets, but I suspect that the entry level for this is quite high.
Do keep in mind that the electronics (except the image sensor itself) are quite cheap. The viewfinder optics are pretty much run-of-the-mill parts and probably don't cost much either. So, most of the manufacturing money goes into the housing and mechanism, and that makes sense as the "in-hand feel" is what sells those toys.
Hundreds of dollars? Probably.
"I also have no idea of what are the cheapest models sporting such metal jackets, but I suspect that the entry level for this is quite high."
ReplyDeleteLooking at the picture of the D300 case, it seems like you may be right. The top of the metal does not go right to the skin as it does on the D3.
http://www.engadget.com/photos/nikons-pma-2008-booth-tour/616960/
ReplyDeleteIf you look closely at the D300, you will see that only the top, bottom, lens-mount plate and at least some part of the back are metal. Everything else, including the grip and flash housing, is plastic. And the D300 is not cheap.
ReplyDeleteAs an example of what I wrote earlier, you will notice on both models that no effort is made to polish the bulk of the lens-mount plate castings. This is a sure sign that this whole area will be "dressed-up" in the final product to reduce the cost (that area is not very susceptible to shocks anyway).
"If you look closely at the D300, you will see that only the top, bottom, lens-mount plate and at least some part of the back are metal. Everything else, including the grip and flash housing, is plastic. And the D300 is not cheap."
ReplyDeleteExactly.
Countless books have been written on the topic, so we won't cover it here, that's for sure. But here's some food for thought.
ReplyDeleteIt is estimated that the cost of GM's pension fund averages to about 4,000$ per vehicle produced. The intensive advertising typical of the automobile industry adds another 2,000$ to this. The dealer's cut may be a well-kept secret, but it is not zero. Let's make it 1,000$ on the cheapest car they sell, which has an MSRP of 13,000$ (by assuming that the dealer makes its money on options, and service). This leaves us with a net wholesale tag of 6,000$. To operate a monster like GM, the actual overhead factor has to be near 2, although management will claim much less (otherwise they wouldn't be able to justify their big salaries). Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and use a figure of 1.6, leaving us with a maximum of 3,750$ to build the car, and less if we are to make a profit selling it. More probably around 2,000$, and that's my point: you can certainly build a car for 2K$.
And yet I am convinced, backed by years of experience, than Nikon spends considerably more than this to build a D3.
Question: Why does Nikon build D3s?
Answer: To maintain a reputation on which they can sell lots of entry-level cameras. Cameras for which the above pricing decomposition applies. Mass production is where the real money is.
Note that the above discussion applies to manufacturing giants. Smaller outfits survive only by being leaner and smarter, and their costing distribution is very different. But they don't have anywhere near the means to entertain products like the D3, which sells for peanuts when you look at the whole picture.
Which brings me to my point: top-of-the-line products often deserve the awe they inspire, simply because that's the whole idea.
Crazy world, isn't it?
I think they make money on D3s.
ReplyDeleteI am confused, though: you say the pension fund alone is 4k, and then you say a car can be made for 2k. ??
I also doubt that making a D3 is more expensive than making a modern car.
"I am confused, though: you say the pension fund alone is 4k, and then you say a car can be made for 2k. ??"
ReplyDeleteIn my (admittedly very crude) analysis, I am interested only in finding out how much is spent on the factory floor and in raw materials. The pension plan of long-retired employees, the salaries of the clerks and bean counters, the high-flying execs and their perks are all irrelevant to the engineer who has to design and build the damn things.
"I think they make money on D3s."
Now, as to making money or not, please refine the concept? If you mean that the income is higher than the cost of the raw materials and labor, you are certainly right.
But the markup on the D3 is nowhere near the minimum 6:1 (if not 8:1) required to pay for the corporate jets, the golden parachutes, the fancy trade shows and advertising, [100 pages deleted], and let's not forget the stockholders.
"I also doubt that making a D3 is more expensive than making a modern car."
Unbelievable, but you are probably wrong. I repeat this: the cheapest modern car probably costs less to build than a D3, once you have the necessary capital and infrastructures. And I don't mean the manufacturing plant, that is amortized on the price of the cars.
You see, the low-end car benefits from a manufacturing volume orders of magnitude higher than that of a high-end camera and, roughly, your costs are cut in half for every tenfold increase in volume. Put it this way: 50 robots at 1M$ a piece used to build 1 million cars cost 50$ per car. The same fifty robots used to build 10,000 D3s is bankruptcy, plain and simple. And that's only one of a zillion similar examples.
Assembling a car requires no craftsmanship (nothing that you or I would call such, anyway). The skill goes into the tooling, but that is NRE (non-redundant engineering) and thus gets amortized over the whole lot of produced units. You say 100 M$ for an automated manufacturing plant? That's a mere 100$ per car.
The car may contain more parts, but it still is a whole lot simpler to build, and certainly requires no hand polishing of any kind, just slap the parts on and move to the next in line.
At the other extreme, D3s and Leicas are clearly the fruit of undeniable love for work well done. They are amorously hand polished, and every one of their components is subject to quality control criteria that would lead any mass-production business into bankruptcy.
Also, high-end products are by design harder to manufacture. Tougher materials are often much harder to work with, and so on. The concept of a flagship product in itself is to push the limits of what can be done. The sort of thinking that is the negation of mass production.
It all comes down to this: what you get for your money is a very relative concept. We don't like to think about it, but every time we buy a mass-produced consumer product, we contribute a lot more to [see the list above] than we spend on the actual, physical goods. The 6:1 ratio of real costs vs. selling price is a floor value for many large outfits. Many activity sectors, like toys, operate at 10:1 and often more. And I don't even want to know the ratios for medical supplies or military goods (if you'll excuse the apparent oxymoron).
The exception is when it comes to top-of-the-line products, where you get a whole lot more for your money. And you thought those products were outrageously expensive, didn't you? ;-)
P.S. Don't get me started on Ferraris and Leicas. Mass-production rules clearly do not apply for either, so the money is spent very differently, and in many cases foolishly. In this day and age, using hammers and anvils to hand-forge car body parts hardly makes any sense, no matter how you look at it. Yet this does appeal to some, because owning such parts proves beyond any doubt that you have money to burn. At least, the Leica has something more to show in the end, when in the right hands... ;-)
And yet in the digital age, Leica struggle to make a camera as good as an entry-level DSLR. Because their old craft does not make sensor chips and software.
ReplyDeleteFerraris are hand forged??
Your data are interesting.