[barondla]

Wondering if Ricoh/Pentax has considered using Kickstarter or Indiegogo to help finance a new camera or update an older one? The long K-1 gestation time probably works against such an idea, but if one was near completion, who knows?

As an example they have a Q #10 protype macro lens that was never realeased. That system is on hold and they are probably unsure if it would be profitable. A Kickstarter would give them some of that info.

There must be ideas they are weighing to improve the next generation of K-1. Crowd funding could point to which ideas to proceed with and free up funds to do so.

Thanks,
barondla

[biz-engineer]

That's a very good question. For example, I would think that Ricoh could release a monochrome version of the K1, but they don't, and they don't even consider to get paid for producing such model, interesting. Leica (small market share) are doing such things, which Ricoh Imaging with its limited engineering resources doesn't even seem to consider for Pentax. They'd eventually do a silver version of a camera which compared to a monochrome version is no value. I'd pay for a monochrome version of the K1, while I'd no bother paying the money for a silver edition. Ricoh could have released monochrome version of the K1 instead of release a K1 II, they'd have sold a lot more of them.

[pschlute]

Errr.... no.

To paraphrase a popular quote in my country these days, "they would rather be dead in a ditch"

[microlight]

Does that mean that they will actually do it?! (controversial...)

[Mikesul]

I think Ricoh executives are truly conservative about such things.

[Not a Number]

You could "crowd fund" by buying Ricoh's current products.

[biz-engineer]

I think Ricoh executives are truly conservative about such things.

It would require them to study the market for five years, they'd have to think about it for a long time.

---------- Post added 03-11-19 at 19:47 ----------

You could "crowd fund" by buying Ricoh's current products.

The current K1 purchase contract don't come with an obligation for Ricoh to make the lenses. Ricoh could sell the camera body and never provide any lens, customers couldn't get a refund.

[reh321]

The current K1 purchase contract don't come with an obligation for Ricoh to make the lenses. Ricoh could sell the camera body and never provide any lens, customers couldn't get a refund.

I don't understand your response. Someone who didn't find a K-1 to be usable wouldn't purchase one in the first place.

I understood "Not a Number" as saying that the best way of getting Ricoh to make more "FF" lenses was for the 'crowd' to purchase more of the "FF" they already sell.

[Kevin B123]

Crowd funding would put external pressure on timelines and require up front delivery of specifications, which would then be discussed to death. Ricoh are too smart for that.
They will quietly go about their own business, in their own time.

Imagine if they accepted funding and rushed a dud (i.e. with faults) to market. They would kill the business.

[biz-engineer]

I don't understand your response. Someone who didn't find a K-1 to be usable wouldn't purchase one in the first place.

It's easy to understand. When a customer purchase a product from Ricoh (e.g Pentax product), Ricoh have no obligation beyond the scope of the product being purchased. Therefore, customer can spend all their money on current Pentax product , Ricoh do what they want, if they want to record 30% of EBIT to compensate for losses in other product lines of the Ricoh group they can do it. As an example, I used to work for a division inside a large group, that division regularly recorded the highest cash flow of the group and highest profits, but since the activity of the division wasn't considered as strategic for the furture, despite its excellent results the division never got its request for new projects signed by the group administration above the division. The group HQ used the cash flows from that profitable division to fund strategic development of other divisions of the group, sometimes divisions reporting losses.

[StiffLegged]

Will Ricoh ever use crowd funding to develop a new K-1 or other camera?

An unusual suggestion. Would a large Japanese corporation consider crowdfunding a new model? Would Japanese corporate culture make itself open to such a startup method? Hmmm...

[joergens.mi]

I don't think so. A crowdfunding project is excellent for small startups with low overhead. In a big Company (and Ricoh is one), so many money gots lost in the overhead of controlling, that you can't explain it to crowdfounders. When more than 50 percent of a budget gets lost in reporting, meetings, meeting project points, paying an project manager crew, doing a lot of financal reporting thats nothing fitted for crowd funding.

[Madaboutpix]

As others have noted - accurately, I think - Ricoh is a pretty conservative company. Adopting crowdfunding methods would send the signal that they can't provide funding for their projects in a traditional way, as any "decent" established company would, and they cannot want that.

[Mikesul]

If Ricoh looks for funds it can easily find them in traditional investment and banking organizations. They do not need crowd funding unless that would be seen as a kind of marketing scheme to stir up interest in the product. Not a likely scenario.

[biz-engineer]

When more than 50 percent of a budget gets lost in reporting, meetings, meeting project points, paying an project manager crew, doing a lot of financal reporting thats nothing fitted for crowd funding.

Problems can't be solved unless doing a lot of meetings, everyone has to agree, and so it takes a long time... Also it's good to write power point slides so it can be shown to the upper management that we are doing something LoL.