Originally posted by stanleyk I remain skeptical about the market for $2500 Pentax body. I have the K5 and all the DA Limiteds, the FA 31, 43, 77, the D FA 100 macro, and the 50-135mm and I categorically wouldn't buy a FF camera unless the body was $1500 or less. I just don't see them making that kind of camera body because 100 or so people on a Pentax forum want one. Maybe Ricoh comes in with a different release strategy, but I think the 645D was their answer to the Canon/Nikon/Sony full frames.
The "so I can use my old lenses" argument is probably not a very persuasive argument for a camera company exec. At least you can use them even if everyone isn't happy with the lack of complete functionality.
As for the rumored new Panasonic, that one looks like a real winner if it's accurate. That said, as a Panasonic user they are woeful when it comes to getting their products to the retailers. I'm still waiting on the 25mm F1.4. Great cameras (the G3 is very good), but terrible distribution.
I think Panasonic and Olympus have the right strategy of not trying to compete directly with Canon and Nikon. They also appear to have made a good judgement call on what a large segment of the market wants. The Q is a interesting idea but too probably expensive.
I've got to wonder about this, too - sensors improve, and if Pentax themselves want us to believe the Q sensor isn't utter crap, the K5 seeing some IQ, DR, etc. comparisons to FFs...what's the market, and how big is it? I'm mostly in agreement with jsherman as well..
There's also the whole ricoh/pentax lineup to consider - Ricoh has the compact market covered, including waterproof like the Optio W*, then the gr and grx. If pentax can sort their quality, marketing, and improve distribution, do they *need* a FF offering, or just the K3? Assuming the 645d is in fact making $, build on it as the FF answer in a v2. Move the Q downstream (in price, as well), and wind up with;
1. A very small number of compacts, ideally 1, possibly 2 at most (allowing for a zoom and a waterproof). Make em cheap. Probably have to keep them as long as competition does, to retain/gain brand recognition as users 'move upwards' later, but keep the options limited. A single superzoom can replace the 'standard compact' easily enough.
2. Q 'jr' (or current Q, a year from now) - entry level mirrorless ILS. < $500 with a usable out of the box lens, ideally ~$400 or less. native lens plus a
real functioning (AF) K adapter. (You'll note Nikon did as much for the J1/V1) - mechanical only adapters are ok for legacy glass, not for new DA etc.
3. entry SLR/mirrorless - this is tougher, as it potentially can overlap. $500-$750 depending on options. Mirrorless needs to realistically compete in the mft/nex market, just suck it up, admit it, and build it. You're not going to pull off a 'prestige pricing for more crap' line (example - Q2 for $1500 :-/ ) Perhaps one generation k-r replacement and mirrorless co-existing for one cycle to try to get it right, possibly moving one or the other up or down market/price if needed.
4. K3/K1 - fill in the lens lineup gaps, sort the SDM and QC issues, and keep it as the flagship for most people.
5. FF/645/other? Tough to say here, again. I don't see the 'need' for FF, no matter how many
tens of people want one. Make a 645 'light' if need be to cover the FF/price point, and fill in the gaps limiting the 645D today for mostly stills. Fill in the lens gaps and distribution issues on them. Market/advertise worldwide.
1. isn't likely a huge money maker, but it's required, consider it part of advertising. I've used Olympus water/shockproof compact cameras for a while, several generations of them. You can be sure I looked at Olympus before i bought the K5. 2. gets some glamor at reasonable cost, think about the marketing around the v1/j1 - it's not for SLR enthusiasts, but the video and fps capabilities are nice, and even if 80% of users never buy more than one accessory lens, they think they will, and that will factor into their buying. Call it a stepping stone, as they move up towards 3, which is likely where the long term consumer cash in quantity may wind up coming from. 4. = don't lose ground, make the lens lineup competitive, continue in the tradition of the k5 vs 'pro' offerings. Potentially offer a K3 and K3 'plus' if need be, mindful of pricing and competition, K3 'standard' at 1k, k3 '+' at $1500 tops.
I'm not sure where the grx sits in there - it's either a 3rd offering covering 4. or simply the only second one + K3/K-next. Obviously, add a K-mount, one capable of AF. Add an AF capable K mount for the Q/Q2/mirrorless, with a cheaper manual only. You've then got 3 lens lineups - Q/mini. KAF-3 for 'everything else' but for the 645D, with any ILC and the GRX capable of mounting K lenses, preferably with full AF. Potentially more lenses sold, obvious upgrade paths from 2-4 in lens investment, and most markets covered.
Bang for the buck and a clean/reasonable upgrade path needs to stay in the mix. Pricing more things like the Q, or k5 pricing vs D7000 - if they want to grow, better watch the msrp and drop it slightly/keep it at better or equal quality and save a few $ until the market share improves.