All right, let's try something different - a challenge, actually. I will try to make a case for a FF K-mount DSLR line, and let's see if you can beat that.
1. larger potential market; DSLRs to MILC: almost 5:1 globally (5.8:1 outside Japan), DSLRs higher in value.
What does it means? If Pentax were to have 5% of the DSLR market, that would be equivalent in units sold to 25% of the MILC market (more than Sony NEX or Panasonic - according to BCN 2012 market share data). With 6%, they would also surpass Olympus. Simply put, they can survive with a much lower market share.
And here's the best part: they already have a part of the DSLR market, which leads us to:
2. installed APS-C userbase, DSLRs users which would be the main target of a more advanced K-mount camera. The camera won't have to get new customers by itself, and even in large enough quantities to make itself viable - this job would be done by the much higher volume APS-C!
2.a. installed APS-C userbase - K-mount FF lenses would be used in large numbers on APS-C cameras, by APS-C users. This means it will be much easier to launch new lenses.
As a side effect, the new FF lenses would also strengthen the APS-C camera subsystem, making it more desirable.
3. pre-existing native lenses. Limiteds, compatible DAs... they can make a good start with just 2-3 new lenses at launch, effectively about a dozen (and a consistent roadmap).
4. instead of giving the wrong message (i.e. that K-mount would be phased out), it would be clear that they're keeping and developing it long-term. The K-mount is their main source of income, and unless a proper replacement is found (proved to generate more income - can't be the case with MILCs, see #1) should not be hurt in any way.
If you can't think of a
better, more effective MILC-based strategy, don't bother answer (except to admit it). Thank you.
P.S. I would not have an apoplexy when Ricoh Imaging will launch a K-mount FF DSLR, by the way