[zmohie]

I have to ask - do you own a car?

Yes
Pajero

[reh321]

no wonder i mentioned that the question is a mixed complex and simple.
i pre ordered one to use my k mount lenses.
i didnt mean that k1 is not a good camera but i want to know is it worth for ricoh!

As others have said, the answer is not complex, but simple:

(1) prestige

(2) publicity {I've seen more chatter about Pentax on other Photo Forums in recent days than in the previous year}

(3) as a result of (1) and (2), more stores carrying Pentax products

(4) as a result of (1) - (3), fewer people leaving Pentax for Canikon and more starting off with Pentax, so more business for Pentax APS-C products

(5) knowledge that can trickle down to Pentax APS-C products

(6) money from K-1 sales; to paraphrase Everett Dirksen {former U.S. Senator}, "a few yen here and a few yen there; soon you're talking about real money"

[traderdrew]

Years ago I remember reading a point made by Falk Lumo saying there were bloggers who were talented photographers using Pentax. They inevitably moved on to other brands because the lure of FF cameras. I considered doing this myself but I decided being one of the best wildlife photographers would cost me quite a bit of time and money. I still don't quite understand why so many good wildlife photographers prefer FF cameras.

[monochrome]

Yes
Pajero

Do you think Mitsubishi sources parts from other companies, leaving potential profit on the table, when they could design and make every single part themselves?

If it is nonsense why share your thoughts.
I was trying to make a different thread far away from the capability of the camera and the specifications which are repeated through the forum. A different method of interest about the cost and profit.
And please don't misunderstanding my point.
The point from first is to think outside the box.

Considering the cost of original engineering, research, development, patents, licenses and manufacturing design it is FAR more profitable to creatively assemble sourced components than to OEM self-source every piece.

Ricoh makes MUCH MORE MONEY THIS WAY - higher Return On Invested Capital - than the way you infer.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 03-28-2016 at 03:31 AM.

[reh321]

If it is nonsense why share your thoughts.
I was trying to make a different thread far away from the capability of the camera and the specifications which are repeated through the forum. A different method of interest about the cost and profit.
And please don't misunderstanding my point.
The point from first is to think outside the box.

When Ford Motor Company originally made their River Rouge plant, the theory was that they would receive raw materials as input and build not just automobiles, but every single piece, at the plant. That "thinking outside the box" has been done, and found to be wanting. The efficient/profitable thing is to have specialty parts made by specialists.

[ivanvernon]

When Ford Motor Company originally made their River Rouge plant, the theory was that they would receive raw materials as input and build not just automobiles, but every single piece, at the plant. That "thinking outside the box" has been done, and found to be wanting. The efficient/profitable thing is to have specialty parts made by specialists.

Yes, this is exactly correct. In modern manufacturing, many companies can appear to outside observers to be nothing more than assembly companies. What is difficult to see, of course, is the engineering necessary to design products as the coordinating efforts between manufacturer and suppliers that is necessary to develop suitable components. It is very often true that outside supplier, for several different reasons, can manufacture better components than the manufacturer which sources these components. There are two good reasons for this: (1) greater specialization and attention to a single component and (2) increased motivation to produce a high quality item. If an independent auto supplier produces the best steering wheels in the world, it may find a customer in Toyota, but if its product is not of high quality it may not find a market at all. If Delco produces the best automotive electronic products in the world, it will sell them to GM, but if it does not produce the best automotive electronic products in the world it will sell them . . . to GM! Economic factors also favor parts specialization, as a parts supplier, by having several customers, can spread its overhead expenses over a larger number of units as well as achieving higher quality and lower costs as the learning curve is extended.

Criticizing Ricoh/Pentax for purchasing most of their components clearly misses the mark. The more they can source outside, the better will be their quality and the lower their costs.

[lsimpkins]

Hi there
as many are waiting the k1 shipping i have a simple but complex question to kill time untill we hold the k1 on our hands!
it is: what the benfit will pentax/ricoh gain from releasing k1!when we are knowing that:
the sensor,the engine,the motherboard the shutter unit are not pentax made
the new lenses are also tamron rebadjed.
pentax only has the name and the black box!
note: i pre ordered k1 and i have k200d./k5+2k5sii+k3+k3ii+k01.

One obvious answer is that I am sure Ricoh wants to make money on the K-1. As to other reasons for its introduction, there are probably many, but that is best answered by Ricoh.

As to how money is to be made on the K-1 when Ricoh makes very little, if any, of the components, you obviously do not understand the contract manufacturing model. Today's top line companies, whether you are talking Apple, Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, Canon, Motorola, et al., do much of the design work and then turn the manufacturing of the subassemblies and often final assembly over to contract manufacturers. Ricoh, as well as the others, recognize that contract manufacturers do their jobs better than they could hope to do it, and do so without the expense of developing their own captive factories or assembly lines. So yes, others will share in the revenue created by the sale of every K-1, but it is Ricoh who will also profit financially and in the other tangible and intangible ways that others have mentioned.

[Kunzite]

If it is nonsense why share your thoughts.
I was trying to make a different thread far away from the capability of the camera and the specifications which are repeated through the forum. A different method of interest about the cost and profit.
And please don't misunderstanding my point.
The point from first is to think outside the box.

If you post nonsense, be prepared to be called on it. No, we are not obliged to quietly accept everything.

If this is thinking outside the box, then believing the Earth is flat is thinking outside the box, too (neither is). Despite the evidence surrounding you, you're basically claiming that designing and manufacturing complex devices can't possibly work, if some component outsourcing is employed.
monochrome asked if you have a car; that's a good example but not the best. Do you own an iPhone?

And I'll note once again the misinformation contained in the first post (which is what really irks me, together with the attempt at minimizing the hard work of those amazing engineers). Using fake assumptions is not thinking outside the box, either.

[ludiakolio]

I think,Pentax is the single brand that makes from optics to medium format with all the new and old lenses.Now there is FF.It's a very good news.Well done Ricoh,we discuss here,Pentax is alive.That's the benfit.A good manager can take a good financial profit from the brand "Pentax".

[redrockcoulee]

In the old days the camera maufacturer made everything from scratch. Take Hasselblad for example, all made in their factory, no not the lens of course they were all made by Zeiss. But then Zeiss didn't make the shutters in the lenses that was either Prontor or Copal.

[HopelessTogger]

I've just had a look at the price of Tamron 2.8/15-30 and 2.8/24-70 for other mounts. Typically £850 and £650, respectively for official UK copies. Can be had cheaper on grey import.

Why is the 15-30 Pentax (Tamron) £1499 and the Pentax (Tamron) 24-70mm £1149?

This is a pi$$ take.

[BigMackCam]

Why is the 15-30 Pentax (Tamron) £1499 and the Pentax (Tamron) 24-70mm £1149?

This is a pi$$ take.

Ricoh are charging what they feel they need to for those lenses to be profitable. They aren't just badged Tamron units - they have Pentax-specific differences; coatings, bodies, perhaps optical tweaks and electronics / firmware (I don't know on the latter). The prices will undoubtedly come down in time, but for now, they are what they are. There are other options available - such as Tamron's own 28-75 f/2.8, and various current / legacy primes - so those who aren't comfortable with the pricing of the new lenses can choose those other options. My own full-frame camera is Sony A-mount compatible... you should see the price of some of those lenses

[HopelessTogger]

Ricoh are charging what they feel they need to for those lenses to be profitable. They aren't just badged Tamron units - they have Pentax-specific differences; coatings, bodies, perhaps optical tweaks and electronics / firmware (I don't know on the latter). The prices will undoubtedly come down in time, but for now, they are what they are. There are other options available - such as Tamron's own 28-75 f/2.8, and various current / legacy primes - so those who aren't comfortable with the pricing of the new lenses can choose those other options. My own full-frame camera is Sony A-mount compatible... you should see the price of some of those lenses

I've got E mount and the price of the new 2.8 zooms is likely to be hilarious and one reason I'll no longer pursue the Sony mirrorless system.

I just can't see tweaks making that much price difference, I mean they've removed the in lens stabilisation I think, should make them cheaper. Hopefully they come down to something sensible.

[BigMackCam]

I've got E mount and the price of the new 2.8 zooms is likely to be hilarious and one reason I'll no longer pursue the Sony mirrorless system.

I hear you I only just recently got into the A-mount, knowing full well that it may be on the wane, but I wanted the camera badly - regardless of silly lens prices. I love the SLT technology, even though it has a detrimental impact at higher ISOs. In time, if the A-mount does come to an end, maybe I'll benefit from the reduction in lens prices I'm fascinated to see if an A99 MkII ever makes it to production!

I just can't see tweaks making that much price difference, I mean they've removed the in lens stabilisation I think, should make them cheaper. Hopefully they come down to something sensible.

Well, you can be sure that Ricoh would like to price the products as competitively as possible. If they could sell the lenses at half the price and still make good money to offset the investment in the new K-1, they would. Even removing unnecessary technology (eg. shake reduction) from a product requires design and tooling changes, and costs money. Anyway, I'm sure the prices will come down in time

[pathdoc]

I've got E mount and the price of the new 2.8 zooms is likely to be hilarious and one reason I'll no longer pursue the Sony mirrorless system.

I just can't see tweaks making that much price difference, I mean they've removed the in lens stabilisation I think, should make them cheaper. Hopefully they come down to something sensible.

The problem with removing a mechanism that used to be there is that in the case of ILIS, the mechanisms would be closely integrated with the focusing system and at least some of the lens elements. Taking that out means effectively redesigning the entirety of the focusing and/or zoom systems and the overlap between the two (while leaving it in means you have to have it work hand-in-glove with your IBIS, which might be even more problematic). And then you have to map the light paths at all focal lengths and write/proof-test the in-camera distortion- and aberration-correction transfer functions to make the lens fully compatible with the body... That all costs $$$.

As always, it is the early adopters who take the hit. It's the price you pay for having the new toys first.