Originally posted by clawhamemr I disagree. There is definately much more of a market in the middle range (k20/d300/40d) and lower than there is in the 5000+ cameras. For a company with limited resources, it doesn't make sense to sink a bunch of money into a top-end body that will not make all that much money, compared with sinking that money into a mid-range body that will sell a lot more units.
That may be, but less people are going to be buying Pentax gear when it's product line goes not much further than the low to mid consumer range. If they want to increase market share (a stated goal, and one necessary for their long term survival), limiting their aspirations is unlikely to get them there. They'll appeal to fewer professional or enthusiast photograhers, and well informed new buyers will be inclined to dismiss the brand given the limitations of the system. Canon and Nikon have most of the market because they make the vast line of top-flight gear; they may make some consumer-grade stuff too, and may indeed make much of their money from it; but without the "halo effect" of their top tier products, they wouldn't be so dominant in the "larger/consumer" portions of the market.
There was a day (back in manual focus times) when every 3rd party lens you ever wanted was made in PK mount. Now, the top tier 3rd party lenses that go beyond the most popular focal lengths or common maximum apertures are no longer available in PK mount. Further, those that are available are often "backordered" or "not in stock," and others that are supposedly made in PK mount aren't stocked or listed at even the B&Hs and Adoramas of the world. Meanwhile, you can get any 3rd party lens you want in Canon EOS or Nikon mount without any such problems. The camera maker lens offerings underscore the advantages of going with Canon or Nikon and the disadvantages of going with Pentax. Most of Pentax's current offerings are APS-C only, making them useless for users of film bodies, while Canon and Nikon have extensive full frame offerings that can be used on both. At the end of the day, SLR cameras are system cameras and the most important aspect of the system is what lenses are available for it. The more Pentax limits its aspirations, the more it shrinks the array of ever-important lenses. If it acts like an also-ran, the third party lens makers (in particular Sigma, which has the most extensive line) treat it as such, and the options for Pentax shooters shrink.
Pentax once had camera bodies (see the LX) every bit as good as the top pro level bodies from Nikon and Canon. The LX was poorly marketed,
but at least it existed, and it gave enthusiasts and pros a Pentax camera to move to when they wanted or needed more than a basic camera. When autofocus swept through, the top level Pentax cameras were no longer the equal of the top Nikon or Canon cameras, and (if it were even possible) the marketing was even worse than it was for the LX. Pentax concentrated then, as Mr. Carlson proposes that they will and/or should do now, on cameras with limited aspirations, and its market share shrank while Canon and Nikon extended their dominance. I don't understand why anyone inside Pentax, or why anyone who supposedly wants to see Pentax succeed and survive, thinks that already used - and already failed - strategy is going to be beneficial. As for the "limited resources" issue, I think people are neglecting to look at affiliate Hoya and partner Samsung - Pentax is no longer a small independent company that has no resources to draw upon.
A good analogy might be GM's Saturn; they produced a terrific entry level product, turned a lot of customers on to their brand, and then basically failed to offer any upgrade path. The result? Customers outgrew the brand and went elsewhere for what they wanted. Let's hope Pentax doesn't make this mistake by putting too many limits on its aspirations.