Originally posted by ozlizard It really gets down to print size, as far as I am concerned that is the only limitation of my K20 for landsape work.
Originally posted by uchinakuri Meanwhile, a friend had his D700 and had zero problems with AF and was able to shoot at a much lower ISO.
To my mind this is a far more compelling reason for moving to "full-frame" than the abstract economics of the camera's production etc. The viewfinder on the D700 was a joy to use the one time I had one in my hands, shooting a bar at 02:30 (for their website). But:
a) it's very complex
b) it weighs enough that my 6'3" brother complains about it
c) it's a lot of cash for something that fragile and theft-ready
That sort of camera is against the grain for Pentax, going way back. And quite frankly, why on Earth would tiny Pentax go toe-to-toe with Canon and Nikon in that space.
Moreover, if you look at this:
ペンタックス、「K-r」の新製品*表会 - デジカメWatch
Pentax is following the third-party market research they're speaking to in this presentation. The small blue bit at the top of the bars is the advanced part of the market. Notice how it's clearly shrinking year over year, while the lower part grows by leaps and bounds. Pentax clearly sees itself playing in that "beginner" part (into which they've included mirrorless). I don't know anything about Pentax's plans, but they appear to be finding themselves market niches that don't seem to have anything to do with "serious amateurs" and "full frame" SLR's. Sorry to say.