Lomo got $1.4M to design its Petzval. Why don't camera companies do this?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Feb 20, 2014.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Imagine, Nikon does it, will give you a 70-200mm F/2.8 for $1900 instead of the $2500 it costs to buy normally. Meanwhile, their R&D could be paid for. That has to be worth something. For companies on the red edge of profit, Olympus, it might pay.
     
    RichA, Feb 20, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    RichA <> wrote:
    >Imagine, Nikon does it, will give you a 70-200mm F/2.8 for $1900 instead
    >of the $2500 it costs to buy normally. Meanwhile, their R&D could be
    >paid for. That has to be worth something. For companies on the red
    >edge of profit, Olympus, it might pay.


    Could you please explain what this means? All the words are english
    words, and they appear to be arranged grammatically, but I have no
    idea what you are talking about.

    --
    "Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
    crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
    TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
    bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."
     
    Paul Ciszek, Feb 21, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Peter Irwin Guest

    Paul Ciszek <> wrote:
    >
    > In article <>,
    > RichA <> wrote:
    >>Imagine, Nikon does it, will give you a 70-200mm F/2.8 for $1900 instead
    >>of the $2500 it costs to buy normally. Meanwhile, their R&D could be
    >>paid for. That has to be worth something. For companies on the red
    >>edge of profit, Olympus, it might pay.

    >
    > Could you please explain what this means?


    My interpretation:

    The fact that someone was able to raise 1.4 million dollars by
    selling a Petzval lens by subscription proves that selling a lens
    entirely on preproduction sales can be a viable business undertaking.

    If a highly competent optical company were to try this they might
    be able to make and sell low volume products for substantially less
    money.

    Peter.
    --
     
    Peter Irwin, Feb 21, 2014
    #3
  4. RichA

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    Re: Lomo got $1.4M to design its Petzval. Why don't camera companiesdo this?

    On 21/02/2014 15:52, Peter Irwin wrote:
    > Paul Ciszek <> wrote:
    >>
    >> In article <>,
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >>> Imagine, Nikon does it, will give you a 70-200mm F/2.8 for $1900 instead
    >>> of the $2500 it costs to buy normally. Meanwhile, their R&D could be
    >>> paid for. That has to be worth something. For companies on the red
    >>> edge of profit, Olympus, it might pay.

    >>
    >> Could you please explain what this means?

    >
    > My interpretation:
    >
    > The fact that someone was able to raise 1.4 million dollars by
    > selling a Petzval lens by subscription proves that selling a lens
    > entirely on preproduction sales can be a viable business undertaking.
    >
    > If a highly competent optical company were to try this they might
    > be able to make and sell low volume products for substantially less
    > money.



    Yes, but that'll only work for novelty products with no competition. If
    you consider a run of the mill 70-200mm f/2.8, people won't spend the
    money before they've seen test in the trade rags, comparing the new lens
    to, say, offerings from Sigma, Tamron, etc. The Petzval had no
    alternative, no one was going to make another Petzval, so there is no
    risk of a better or cheaper Petzval hitting the market, and supply was
    going to be limited, so there was a high incentive for prospective
    buyers to go along with the pre-sale. For a "normal" lens this is not
    the case.
     
    Joe Kotroczo, Feb 21, 2014
    #4
  5. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <le7rpt$k0i$>, says...
    >
    > In article <>,
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >Imagine, Nikon does it, will give you a 70-200mm F/2.8 for $1900 instead
    > >of the $2500 it costs to buy normally. Meanwhile, their R&D could be
    > >paid for. That has to be worth something. For companies on the red
    > >edge of profit, Olympus, it might pay.

    >
    > Could you please explain what this means? All the words are english
    > words, and they appear to be arranged grammatically, but I have no
    > idea what you are talking about.


    He's suggesting that Kickstarter or other forms of crowdfunding be used
    to support photo equipment product development with donors getting a
    hefty discount on the resulting product.

    It's not a terrible idea.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 21, 2014
    #5
  6. RichA

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    Re: Lomo got $1.4M to design its Petzval. Why don't camera companiesdo this?

    On 21/02/2014 17:18, J. Clarke wrote:
    > In article <le7rpt$k0i$>, says...
    >>
    >> In article <>,
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >>> Imagine, Nikon does it, will give you a 70-200mm F/2.8 for $1900 instead
    >>> of the $2500 it costs to buy normally. Meanwhile, their R&D could be
    >>> paid for. That has to be worth something. For companies on the red
    >>> edge of profit, Olympus, it might pay.

    >>
    >> Could you please explain what this means? All the words are english
    >> words, and they appear to be arranged grammatically, but I have no
    >> idea what you are talking about.

    >
    > He's suggesting that Kickstarter or other forms of crowdfunding be used
    > to support photo equipment product development with donors getting a
    > hefty discount on the resulting product.
    >
    > It's not a terrible idea.


    So, what would be my incentive as a punter to cashflow the development
    of a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8? Why should I spend money on it before I know
    it's going to be better than a similar Sigma or Tamron, or even an older
    model Nikon?

    Rich states "will give you a 70-200mm F/2.8 for $1900 instead of the
    $2500 it costs to buy normally". Why would that be the case? Where does
    this alleged savings come from? From putting up the cash upfront? I
    don't think so.

    Crowdfunding is a great way to find out if there is a market for a
    product _idea_, but not a terribly good way to market an established
    product with existing competitors.

    TANSTAAFL
     
    Joe Kotroczo, Feb 21, 2014
    #6
  7. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>, says...
    >
    > On 21/02/2014 17:18, J. Clarke wrote:
    > > In article <le7rpt$k0i$>, says...
    > >>
    > >> In article <>,
    > >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >>> Imagine, Nikon does it, will give you a 70-200mm F/2.8 for $1900 instead
    > >>> of the $2500 it costs to buy normally. Meanwhile, their R&D could be
    > >>> paid for. That has to be worth something. For companies on the red
    > >>> edge of profit, Olympus, it might pay.
    > >>
    > >> Could you please explain what this means? All the words are english
    > >> words, and they appear to be arranged grammatically, but I have no
    > >> idea what you are talking about.

    > >
    > > He's suggesting that Kickstarter or other forms of crowdfunding be used
    > > to support photo equipment product development with donors getting a
    > > hefty discount on the resulting product.
    > >
    > > It's not a terrible idea.

    >
    > So, what would be my incentive as a punter to cashflow the development
    > of a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8? Why should I spend money on it before I know
    > it's going to be better than a similar Sigma or Tamron, or even an older
    > model Nikon?
    >
    > Rich states "will give you a 70-200mm F/2.8 for $1900 instead of the
    > $2500 it costs to buy normally". Why would that be the case? Where does
    > this alleged savings come from? From putting up the cash upfront? I
    > don't think so.
    >
    > Crowdfunding is a great way to find out if there is a market for a
    > product _idea_, but not a terribly good way to market an established
    > product with existing competitors.
    >
    > TANSTAAFL


    So you put up a Kickstarter for a product and nobody kicks. What have
    you lost?
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 22, 2014
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Lomo got $1.4M to design its Petzval. Why don't camera companiesdo this?

    On Friday, February 21, 2014 2:00:00 PM UTC-5, Joe Kotroczo wrote:
    > On 21/02/2014 17:18, J. Clarke wrote:
    >
    > > In article <le7rpt$k0i$>, says...

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> In article <>,

    >
    > >> RichA <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> Imagine, Nikon does it, will give you a 70-200mm F/2.8 for $1900 instead

    >
    > >>> of the $2500 it costs to buy normally. Meanwhile, their R&D could be

    >
    > >>> paid for. That has to be worth something. For companies on the red

    >
    > >>> edge of profit, Olympus, it might pay.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Could you please explain what this means? All the words are english

    >
    > >> words, and they appear to be arranged grammatically, but I have no

    >
    > >> idea what you are talking about.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > He's suggesting that Kickstarter or other forms of crowdfunding be used

    >
    > > to support photo equipment product development with donors getting a

    >
    > > hefty discount on the resulting product.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > It's not a terrible idea.

    >
    >
    >
    > So, what would be my incentive as a punter to cashflow the development
    >
    > of a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8? Why should I spend money on it before I know
    >
    > it's going to be better than a similar Sigma or Tamron, or even an older
    >
    > model Nikon?
    >
    >
    >
    > Rich states "will give you a 70-200mm F/2.8 for $1900 instead of the
    >
    > $2500 it costs to buy normally". Why would that be the case? Where does
    >
    > this alleged savings come from? From putting up the cash upfront? I
    >
    > don't think so.
    >
    >
    >
    > Crowdfunding is a great way to find out if there is a market for a
    >
    > product _idea_, but not a terribly good way to market an established
    >
    > product with existing competitors.
    >
    >
    >
    > TANSTAAFL


    Every product has competition, alternatives. Should I spend $400-500 (whatever the Petzval cost for funders) or a Samyang 85mm f/1.4 for $375? Similar price, different results, which do I want? For a Nikon lens, competition is narrow, limited to Nikon products and lesser stuff from Tamron, Sigma,etc. Beyond that, you have to dump your system and buy Canon.
    What I suggested was a different, alternate route to paying for prototypingand producing the first run of lenses, compared to how existing companies have done it in the past. Offer the rank amateur to get a lens, at lower than retail cost sooner than other people and they help you pay for the prototyping. I don't know what a lens costs to design and prototype, but it has to be considerable. It might or might not be economically better than their current methods, but it's unique (as far as established companies go) and could build publicity better than the usual way.
     
    RichA, Feb 22, 2014
    #8
  9. RichA

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    Re: Lomo got $1.4M to design its Petzval. Why don't camera companiesdo this?

    On 22/02/2014 06:33, RichA wrote:
    (...)
    >> TANSTAAFL

    >
    > Every product has competition, alternatives. Should I spend $400-500 (whatever the Petzval cost for funders) or a Samyang 85mm f/1.4 for $375? Similar price, different results, which do I want? For a Nikon lens, competition is narrow, limited to Nikon products and lesser stuff from Tamron, Sigma, etc. Beyond that, you have to dump your system and buy Canon.
    > What I suggested was a different, alternate route to paying for prototyping and producing the first run of lenses, compared to how existing companies have done it in the past. Offer the rank amateur to get a lens, at lower than retail cost sooner than other people and they help you pay for the prototyping. I don't know what a lens costs to design and prototype, but it has to be considerable. It might or might not be economically better than their current methods, but it's unique (as far as established companies go) and could build publicity better than the usual way.
    >


    What I don't get is how a different method of cashflowing R&D and a
    first production run is supposed to lower the cost of the product? Since
    you say yourself you don't know how much R&D costs or how it is funded
    normally, how do you then come to the conclusion that manufacturers
    would be able to offer a first run at a lower price if they use an
    alternate method of funding?
     
    Joe Kotroczo, Feb 23, 2014
    #9
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Lomo got $1.4M to design its Petzval. Why don't camera companiesdo this?

    On Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:05:21 AM UTC-5, Joe Kotroczo wrote:
    > On 22/02/2014 06:33, RichA wrote:
    >
    > (...)
    >
    > >> TANSTAAFL

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Every product has competition, alternatives. Should I spend $400-500 (whatever the Petzval cost for funders) or a Samyang 85mm f/1.4 for $375? Similar price, different results, which do I want? For a Nikon lens, competition is narrow, limited to Nikon products and lesser stuff from Tamron, Sigma, etc. Beyond that, you have to dump your system and buy Canon.

    >
    > > What I suggested was a different, alternate route to paying for prototyping and producing the first run of lenses, compared to how existing companies have done it in the past. Offer the rank amateur to get a lens, at lower than retail cost sooner than other people and they help you pay for the prototyping. I don't know what a lens costs to design and prototype, but it has to be considerable. It might or might not be economically better than their current methods, but it's unique (as far as established companies go) and could build publicity better than the usual way.

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > What I don't get is how a different method of cashflowing R&D and a
    >
    > first production run is supposed to lower the cost of the product?


    It doesn't really, it simply helps pay for the initial development without the companies having to shell-out all the funds themselves, plus it's an exciting way for people to get a new lens earlier than they might. Like a contest in way. It's interest marketing via a new mechanism. By offering the lens initially to funders at a lower price, it could entice people who will never buy the lens on their own because the final, retail cost will be too high for them. Sell 5000 of a lens instead of 4000. This could also allow a Nikon to skim off some of the sales that the aftermarket companies might have gotten from people who couldn't afford the Nikon version of a particular lens. If the Nikon version at retail is $2500, the Tamron version at retail is $1800 and you offer the funder a Nikon at say $2000, you've eliminated part of the lower-price competition's sales.
     
    RichA, Feb 23, 2014
    #10
  11. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    Re: Lomo got $1.4M to design its Petzval. Why don't cameracompanies do this?

    In article <>, RichA <> wrote:

    > Every product has competition, alternatives. Should I spend $400-500
    > (whatever the Petzval cost for funders) or a Samyang 85mm f/1.4 for $375?


    Are you seriously suggesting that the Samyang 85/1.4 is a competitor to the
    Petzval? How did you arrive at that conclusion - they're both ~85mm and
    must thus be the same product?

    > Similar price, different results, which do I want?


    If those are your only critera, you can buy a coat for "similar price".
    Doesn't mean the coat is an alternative to the Petzval.

    > For a Nikon lens, competition is narrow, limited to Nikon products and
    > lesser stuff from Tamron, Sigma, etc. Beyond that, you have to dump your
    > system and buy Canon. What I suggested was a different, alternate route
    > to paying for prototyping and producing the first run of lenses, compared
    > to how existing companies have done it in the past.


    Prototyping and producing lenses doesn't get cheaper just because you have
    Kickstarter pledgers. Even if you pump of the price to full price after the
    campaign, dumping out $2500 lenses for $1900 to thousands of customers just
    because they pledged for it isn't going to work too good. Especially if
    most of the potential customers jump on the campaign instead of paying full
    price.

    > Offer the rank amateur to get a lens, at lower than retail cost sooner
    > than other people and they help you pay for the prototyping. I don't
    > know what a lens costs to design and prototype, but it has to be
    > considerable. It might or might not be economically better than their
    > current methods, but it's unique (as far as established companies go) and
    > could build publicity better than the usual way.


    Publicity, yes. Economics, not so certain.

    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Feb 24, 2014
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. fashion t shirts seller
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,651
    fashion t shirts seller
    Jun 13, 2011
  2. RichA

    The lies we hear about concerning Lomo

    RichA, Nov 22, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    285
    Grimly Curmudgeon
    Nov 25, 2012
  3. RichA

    Lomo gets ambitious

    RichA, Feb 17, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    268
    RichA
    Feb 18, 2013
  4. Sandman

    Petzval on its way

    Sandman, Feb 13, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    145
    Sandman
    Feb 21, 2014
  5. Sandman

    Lomo'Instant Camera

    Sandman, May 28, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    196
    android
    May 30, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page