Originally posted by Paul the Sunman It is not clear to me what a reasonable profit margin on an ILC should be. Presumably, development costs must first be recouped, and this is harder for Pentax than for Canon or Nikon. But then, does it make economic sense to keep the margin slim to attract more lens sales?
I think looking at all the releases over the last year or so from different manufacturers, they've rejected that, Paul. In a shrinking market, with shrinking lens market accompanying it, you make money where you can.
The new Olympus will be three thousand dollars and reportedly is bigger than the K-1, only 20Mp, only m43 sensor size. So much for mirrorless simpler, cheaper, smaller propaganda.
Pentax lenses and bodies have recently been similar in price to others of their class (I know you own some of the new glass).
A notable exception was the K-1, which came in at a price similar to the 24Mp offerings of some rivals.
I'm only guessing that execs might have thought: if someone buys a new APS-C camera, they've already got the glass, if we offer FF they'll need to upgrade some, we'll make the real money that way.
If so, that pricing trick won't apply to the K-3 III or whatever it will be.