Originally posted by mecrox As has been pointed out elsewhere, this still leaves Pentax with a problem: long lenses for sports and wildlife.
Sports is not the typical Pentax domain, but they're working on the long lenses issue (the 560, the tele zoom on the roadmap and who knows what follows).
Sigma can fits some gaps.
Originally posted by mecrox This is more important than it sounds because on questions like this turns the market for any Pentax FF: appealing mainly to existing Pentax-owners means modest sales and a certain financial fail, whereas appealing to a much broader, non-Pentax market means much better sales but how on earth do you do it given what's at present in the Pentax catalogue and roadmap if you simply produce another me-too FF DSLR?
I can easily spot two errors in this logic:
1. the DSLR market Pentax is currently competing in
is the broadest.
2. Pentax can make products appealing both to the existing, and new customers; it's not like those are exclusive.
And a 3rd: competing in another market won't be easier, as you're implying.
Originally posted by jackassp To stay in the DSLR business, Pentax/Ricoh have to remain profitable, and you know something, if every member of this forum bought the new FF camera and 2-3 or even more lenses, but hardly anyone else, then Pentax / Ricoh would be out of business faster than you could say "DA* limited".
All this in a climate where Nikon and Canon aren't making much profit from their DSLR sales either.
One more bad decision by the Pentax branch could spell the end for them very quickly.
Fortunately, Pentax' business plan don't exclusively rely on Pentaxforums
AFAIK, Canon and Nikon are making solid profits. Do you have data proving the contrary?
Originally posted by jackassp I'm a Pentax fanboy like the rest of you
Are you trying to insult us?