Originally posted by Clavius This is a very good point, good enough for me to "like" it. I agree with it completely. I myself can't tell the difference between an APSC image and an FF image in 9 out of 10 cases. But...
My clients (advertising agency, realestate agencies) want me to shoot FF. Ohterwise they'll just find a different photographer. Even though I'm completely convinced that my beloved K5 can produce almost the same quality as my 12MP Canon 5D that I had to buy to get these assignments.
And because of such "bureaucracy" Pentax will only be seen as FULL by the pro's (or rather the clients of the pro's) if they actually deliver an FF camera. Despite the small advantage.
Not much has really changed in the last 30 years or more. I used to show up at meetings with a Leica hanging around my neck in order to obtain the required nods of approval. Then went away, shot with Pentaxes, and got lots of kudos for the quality of my work...
Unfortunately perception rather than fact is a big part of marketing.
I agree that APS-C meets the needs of most photographers, including pros. However, if Pentax wishes to compete with other brands in the perceptions of a certain class of clients, and of photographers who want to invest in systems with an upgrade route to full frame, they pretty much have to come out with a full frame body.
So, here is my pie-in-the-sky speculation for today.
I am sure that Pentax under new management has considered the FF thing in development of their business plan. Part of the strategic planning process includes something called an environmental scan, which I am sure would pick up a factor as obvious as the FF question. The resultant plan may or may not identify the target audiences mentioned above as worthwhile targets for growth. That sort of decision is based on confidential research, and no sane corporation is going to advertise its intentions to its competitors.
I have no idea where Pentax will go. My guess is that, having invested a substantial amount of money, Ricoh has assigned some very smart people to the job. I expect some pretty interesting products when the new development cycle has run its full course, which I think will happen sometime in 2013.
I would say that the takeover of Pentax by Ricoh is quite a different proposition from the Hoya episode. The latter left Pentax hanging as a separate, poorly resourced entity. For reasons I do not have time to go into here, I do not think Ricoh blew many millions of dollars on Pentax just to let it rot. Therefore, I think the resources allocated to Pentax by Ricoh will be substantially better than the support from Hoya.
It appears that Ricoh is integrating its photographic operations with Pentax at least to some extent.
I suspect that the process would have included some strategic planning by Ricoh prior to the purchase. After the purchase there would be a period of integration when staff from the two companies would get acquainted and exchange information about intellectual property- both patents and proprietary (eg confidential) technology. There would have to be stock-taking of staff in terms of skills, and a preliminary evaluation of the potential of the combined technologies. After that there would be another round of strategic planning. This round would include identification of potential growth areas, an outline of products targeted for those areas, and identification of new skills, technology and resources needed to produce viable products.
Then there would be a period of solidifying support from the parent organization, working staff into new roles, and hiring and integrating new staff. There would also be development and implementation of a new workflow model.
Only then would actual design of truly new products begin in earnest.
All of this takes time.
The bottom line is:
Do Not Panic!