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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

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?

 

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.

 

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?

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.

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.

Publicity, yes. Economics, not so certain.