Originally posted by Neo_ Sure but I'm talking about a service camera for replacement, fast tracks for pros and things like that, why would you want a FF camera in your line? To me it sounds like having an Audi A8 or bmw series 7 in the catalogue.
Sure Nikon CLS is expensive but how many people are willing to fork out the bucks for a FF body? not me for sure, I'm more than happy with my k5, it still outperforms me and no I don't have that kind of money to invest in something that will not make me a better photographer.
Even answering to the original post, I still don't see it realistic or a smart move, Canon and Nikon are struggling to keep it alive just because they don't want to get in the mirrorless arena with everyone else, better to be a duopoly till it lasts.
IMHO
You do make a good point about Nikon and Canon. They are big fish in a pond that is shrinking. That pond is the pool of professional photographers who have the cash flow to afford frequent "upgrades" of very expensive equipment, particularly when the output quality of that equipment already exceeds the requirements of the vast majority of clients. All DSLR builders are caught in a squeeze between that and the fact that most consumers are happy with cell phones and smaller digital cameras.
I think the long-term market for higher end digital cameras will be largely dependent on enthusiasts and on artists who require high quality but can't afford to constantly pay for new frills that they don't need. (That's me.)
In that context, I think Pentax would be wise to focus its attention on a product line that emphasizes quality, durability and excellent service to all customers, not just commercial professionals. Market cameras and lenses as serious instruments built for the long run, not shiny toys for the magpie types. Support cameras for 20 years, not 20 months. Develop a business model that profits from keeping cameras working, rather than viewing service as a nuisance. Pentax is not so far from that now. They're building some solid products, both bodies and lenses. They just need to develop a core philosophy, and provide the support to promote and implement that philosopy. I think many people, particularly those of us with some environmental awareness, would be very supportive of a company that builds for the long haul.
I've no idea whether full frame would be part of that picture. My personal view is that it should, as it offers greater potential for both long-term incremental improvements and back-compatibility than does APS-C.
I also think Pentax/Ricoh would be smart to build on the modular camera approach Ricoh has pioneered, geared toward cameras that are both compatible with a wide variety of legacy lenses as well as newer ones, and suited for systematic upgrades without wholesale replacement.
John