Originally posted by Ivan Glisin Precisely! I remembered K100/110D while writing my post on K-50 and K-500, and was about to comment on one more thing, but here it is now: these two cameras should have been called K-50 and K-55, leaving K-500 for obviously different and differentiated entry level body (say, pentamirror, single control wheel, smaller), and then for the purpose of creating a "hook" for consumers, make two of them: K-500 and slightly stripped down K-550. In the end, K-55 would help sell K-50, while K-550 would help sell K-500. Success of K-55 and K-550 from the financial point would be completely irrelevant.
The only confusing thing with current naming is that "huge difference" between 50 and 500, making us believe there should be something much more or less in each, creating unrealistic expectations for us who follow Pentax lineup for years (or decades for some, including myself). Choosing K-50 and K-55 names would have been much better, and closer to K100D and K110D.
So what we are really struggling with here is how to understand how Pentax has managed "waste" K-500 slot for a camera with almost insignificant difference from the production and design perspective when compared to K-50.
Hm, I do not know that I agree with that analysis. First off, I couldn't care one hoot about if the names are 50/500 or 50/55...it's all about what they do with them
On its own, the K-500 is a very attractive camera. It's actually cheap(ish) for what it offers....aligned with entry-level offers from other brands, it seems to offer a good deal more, such as dual control wheels and the "whizz-bang" of a pentaprism vs. a pentamirror.
The step up to K-50 may seem modest in terms of functionality, but it seems to be a rather valuable step up: some ergonomics and functionalities, and then WR. WR is huge. It's also easy to explain that "weather sealing a body costs $$$".
Somebody considered that Pentax didn't plan on selling a lot of K-500, but rather use it as a way to drag people in to then sell K-50. That's likely very true. On the other hand, for those wanting a K-50 but looking to save money, the K-500 gets you "almost as much of a camera, but for less".
It all comes down to pricing them right, I'd wager: the K-500 so as to be competitive with the entry-level offerings from competition. The K-50 so as to be a step up from the K-500 that "a good salesman can make you want to take" (i.e., not too much more expensive), but also that the K-500 should be cheap enough that buying it feels like "getting a deal".
I actually think that Pentax does have a fairly good line-up right now: K500/K50/K5ii.
What they really need, IMO, now is to develop a stable and readable naming strategy that they stick to. That's always been Pentax's weak point: is an LX more or less advanced than a MX or a ME or a K1000 - no logical way for a random consumer to compare, and play "mine is bigger than yours". Digital is worse, still, and I still haven't figured out if K-x is an entry level or high-end camera, compared to K-m (which I would have expected to be entirely manual like the MZ-M - but it wasn't).
A strategy such as "two zeros == entry, one zero == prosumer, no zeros == pro" could work. So could another strategy - just pick one, dammit, communicate coherently, and stick with it.