Originally posted by RGlasel I was referring to the K-S2 as the recently released mid-level camera. It seems to me that the K-S1 was an experiment that didn't work as planned. Hence the sped up release of the "conventional" K-S2. Both cameras are targeted at customers who don't already own a Pentax camera, and both were initially priced significantly higher than entry-level Canon DSLRs that will be the "attractor" models in big box stores. Entry level customers won't have a specific model in mind when they go camera shopping, big box stores can't sell on anything other than price comparisons. The target for the K-S2 is (or should be) someone who has decided to buy a DSLR and is looking for a good value proposition. Most likely someone who has previously owned an entry-level DSLR, or at least owned something more sophisticated than a simple P&S (which is what a smartphone camera is), and wants to make photography a hobby. The K-S1 was targeted at people who wanted a fashionable camera to wear, not make a hobby of taking pictures. Even if it had been appealing in a fashion sense (it isn't), that target market isn't looking for a camera that is more serious than a P&S. By using common components, Ricoh can probably justify leaving the K-S1 in their lineup for a while, but it's an evolutionary dead end.
We could ask Canon how having dozens of different models, from different design generations, on the market at the same time worked out; I don't think it's a good strategy for a camera manufacturer with one tenth of Canon's market share to emulate. The Pentax buyer is never going to be the casual buyer, it will be someone who takes some time to research their purchase. To attract those kind of buyers, you need to have products that compare favourably to equivalent models from other manufacturers, but you don't need to have a product for every possible customer. Right now, the careful camera buyer is the most attractive target market out there. Their numbers are relatively stable, they continue to purchase accessories and upgrades for years after the initial purchase, and they will seek out points of distribution to purchase the camera they decide on, so it doesn't matter as much if every point of sale doesn't carry your products.
I hope Pentax has a strategy, but it's not clear at all to me right now. Each of the K-50, K-S1, and K-S2 has certain advantages, so I'm not certain which they'll continue, but it seems to me that they need to drop at least one of them fairly soon. At the stores I've visited, the Rebel T3i seems to be Canon's "attractor", but I'm not sure how they'll juggle their lineup once the T6i is readily available; the K-50 is best positioned, both in price and in quality, to compete with the T3i, but I'm not certain what Ricoh-Pentax is thinking past this coming summer. The next few months may be very interesting.
---------- Post added 04-17-15 at 12:44 AM ----------
Originally posted by derekkite Very interesting. I thought that the full frame would occupy the engineering team, but obviously Ricoh is pulling out the stops. I can't see a minor updates making sense, so it will be interesting.
What would make me buy? Especially when I would have to choose?
Better IQ. The k3 is nice but not luscious. A stop or two better noise performance, more depth in the shadows.
Substantial AF performance improvement.
Anything else would be a bonus, but those two together get me spending my money.
A vigorous aps-c offering won't steal any thunder from the full frame to come if it is to be offered to a completely different market. Although I suspect Ricoh is nowhere near that kind of games. Put out the very best you can, get the sales from whatever sells.
Beyond us, as I indicated earlier, Pentax needs something to compete with Nikon's D7200 for the attention of enthusiasts in general, especially since comparisons at the top of the APS-C line seem to have a lot of influence of how people view a brand in general (and thus affects sales up and down the line). A slightly better sensor, both more color depth and more dynamic range, would help a lot. AF speed doesn't seem to influence rankings of cameras very much, but if it bothers people here, then sooner or later it will become an issue. I would also expect a few "whiz bang" features, such as tilting screens and wi-fi would help in the rankings, although I'm not sure if actual users at this level are as enamored with these features as are users of cameras lower in the line.