[davidsladek]

Now that Ricoh is moving to the on-demand production, why don't they offer K-1 IR (infrared) , quality IR conversion is a pretty difficult to get and expensive too, they should be able to do it inhouse easily and get rid of some of the K-1 II inventory...
thoughts?

[Kunzite]

I think that would create more K-1ii inventory, rather than getting rid of it?
Or, are you talking about a service operation like the K-1 -> K-1ii conversion?

[davidsladek]

I think on-demand production doesn't create significant inventory, but is rather a service as you alluded to. Making it official, using its marketing to market it would make it safer and more widely accessible, I think

I think that would create more K-1ii inventory, rather than getting rid of it?
Or, are you talking about a service operation like the K-1 -> K-1ii conversion?

[Medex]

I think on-demand production doesn't create significant inventory, but is rather a service as you alluded to. Making it official, using its marketing to market it would make it safer and more widely accessible, I think

IR conversion is not simple UV/IR-cut filter replacement by IR filter. There are some issues that should be solved additionally:
1. Sensor assembly positioning adjustment for infinity focus.
2. Exposure measuring sensor sensitivity adjustment (should be done in camera software.
3. Anti-reflective coating of IR filter.

If you shoot IR using DSLR you should know, that auto-exposure sensor does not work reliably in different lighting situations - sometimes exposure compensation is needed to be shifret to + or to - side. Probably it depends on subject you shoot and which reflects IR light (some reflect less, some - more). So, there is some practical issues to make optimal light meter work. And this translates into user satisfaction of product.
Another and probably more important issue is sensor assembly positioning adjustment for infinity focus. What lens should be used as a reference? Different lenses focus IR light a little differently, even having same focal length. Probably infinity focus should be done for smallest focal length, but then there is possibility to get misfocus using higher focal length lenses.
If Pentax would make mirrorless cameras then IR conversion would have less issues.
Moreover I think IR camera users would like to have possibility to get straight out of camera swapped channel JPEGs to enjoy shooting instantaneously. But this is already another discussion.

[davidsladek]

All the more reason for it to be done professionally by the manufacturer. I get your point about the mirrorless, I guess we can skip that hope at least for now. But there is a market for IR conversions so if Ricoh has the expertise (and they did it before) why not now that manufacturing is on demand...

IR conversion is not simple UV/IR-cut filter replacement by IR filter. There are some issues that should be solved additionally:
1. Sensor assembly positioning adjustment for infinity focus.
2. Exposure measuring sensor sensitivity adjustment (should be done in camera software.
3. Anti-reflective coating of IR filter.

If you shoot IR using DSLR you should know, that auto-exposure sensor does not work reliably in different lighting situations - sometimes exposure compensation is needed to be shifret to + or to - side. Probably it depends on subject you shoot and which reflects IR light (some reflect less, some - more). So, there is some practical issues to make optimal light meter work. And this translates into user satisfaction of product.
Another and probably more important issue is sensor assembly positioning adjustment for infinity focus. What lens should be used as a reference? Different lenses focus IR light a little differently, even having same focal length. Probably infinity focus should be done for smallest focal length, but then there is possibility to get misfocus using higher focal length lenses.
If Pentax would make mirrorless cameras then IR conversion would have less issues.
Moreover I think IR camera users would like to have possibility to get straight out of camera swapped channel JPEGs to enjoy shooting instantaneously. But this is already another discussion.

[Medex]

All the more reason for it to be done professionally by the manufacturer. I get your point about the mirrorless, I guess we can skip that hope at least for now. But there is a market for IR conversions so if Ricoh has the expertise (and they did it before) why not now that manufacturing is on demand...

...Because too many conversion variants - 590, 665, 720, 780, 830, 900 nm etc. Different adjustments of sensor assembly and user lens is needed for infinity focus callibration. This are issues with DSLR cameras

[Not a Number]

I'm not sure how this on-demand process works. How is Ricoh made aware of enough "demand" to even initiate the process? My feeling is that it is based mainly on research on target market groups in Japan. So you would have to show to Ricoh there is enough demand for them to proceed.

[Mikesul]

They would do it the way they did with the black K-3iii and a few other items: they would ask for preorders; if they get enough preorders they produce if not, not.

[TwoUptons]

I expect there would also be issues with the K1ii not really being actively "in production".

If there is an active production line, it is 'easy' to pull a unit off, do something special to it (like fit a different filter over the sensor), and finish it on another work stream (or return it to the main line).

If there is a big stack of already-completed units in a room somewhere, the process really isn't any different from a third party modification, and the advantages of doing it at the OEM level are mostly gone.

I expect the K1ii is in the latter situation, while it was easier to do the K3iii black and monochrome because those are in "active" production.

-Eric

[biz-engineer]

I would like it to be offered as a paid service, among other things where I think Ricoh are missing out of some business (e.g accessories).

[steephill]

Ricoh did announce an IR version of the KP in 2019. However it was only going to be available to bona fide researchers in museums etc, not the general public and possibly Japan only. So they can do it if they want to but I don't think they will.

[Kunzite]

I would like it to be offered as a paid service, among other things where I think Ricoh are missing out of some business (e.g accessories).

I'm not going to say "they shouldn't do that", as I have no clue how much people would be willing to pay for such a service. It should be significantly more expensive than the K-1 -> K-1ii upgrade (which was 500 euro), though.
The main problem is that we're indeed talking about a model they probably aren't producing anymore. Ricoh had to update the K-70 because they couldn't source all of the old components - and the K-1 is (slightly) older.

Good point (in the previous post) about the IR versions not being offered to the general public, and the 645D IR was the same. I remember Sony doing that, then having to recall the cameras because some people were using them to look through people's clothing.

[Medex]

Just interesting how much you are prepared to pay for K-1 or other APS-C Pentax model IR conversion?

[Michael Piziak]

I expect there would also be issues with the K1ii not really being actively "in production".

If there is an active production line, it is 'easy' to pull a unit off, do something special to it (like fit a different filter over the sensor), and finish it on another work stream (or return it to the main line).

If there is a big stack of already-completed units in a room somewhere, the process really isn't any different from a third party modification, and the advantages of doing it at the OEM level are mostly gone.

I expect the K1ii is in the latter situation, while it was easier to do the K3iii black and monochrome because those are in "active" production.

-Eric

I didn't know the K1ii wasn't actively in production. Does that mean they aren't actively producing any full frame bodies as of now?

Addendume: The camera is for sale in their shop on the Pentax USA (Ricoh) website....

[Bob 256]

The K-1 isn't the best choice for an IR camera since much of IR photography is done with a visually opaque filter over the lens which would render the K-1 optical viewfinder useless. The K-1 could still be used in Liveview but why would Ricoh offer a camera with an optical VF if it is only going to be used for IR? The existing inventory of K-1s already have the UV/IR blocking filters installed so it would be just as expensive for Ricoh to disassemble and remove those filters as it would be to have an outside source perform the operation (there are several who do this service), and I don't think sales of IR versions would be sufficient to have significant impact on K-1 inventory.

The ideal camera for IR is a mirrorless camera which is basically Liveview from the gitgo. These would show an IR image on the LCD screen (which could be used for focusing and include magnification options) and perform much like a color version but for the fact that they are optimized for IR. The use of an external UV/IR blocking filter would also allow those cameras to be used as a regular camera if the need arose.

It's not the sensor, but the installation of the blocking filter which makes most digital cameras functionally poor in the IR range. Without this filter, a sensor's inherent sensitivity to UV and IR would alter color rendition so it is needed in most digital cameras. It's not as simple as removing or not installing that filter. The thickness of the filter affects focusing and it must be substituted with an equivalent pane of transparent (AR) glass to allow proper AF (sidenote: the blocking filter assembly in the K-1 and other cameras also includes the ultrasonic dust shaking mechanism so that function goes away when it isn't included). Most second source companies that provide the conversion do a good job and their fees are comparable or better than what you might see in added cost to lower volume sales K-1 IR version, if that were to happen, but again, the K-1 is not a logical choice for an IR camera in the first place so it would be better that Ricoh offer an optimized IR camera from the beginning if they were to consider that need.