For me it seems to be clear, that the curent situation, with only two very different camera bodies in the portfolio, cannot sustain Pentax' success. The last camera maker, that only had two DSLRs was Konica-Minolta...
The K200 would be needed as a minimum to fill the big gap between the K-m and the K20 and I can only hope, it will be available for longer - even after a top-end modell might have been introduced, as this would also not bridge the gap.
The problem with such a small "choice" of camera bodies is easily described: you limit the number of potential buyers, because many won't find the right camera for their needs or simply to fit the size of their hands. But if a company limits the number of buyers (Leica might also be a good example, and currently even Hasselblad), you can only survive by making them extraordinarily expensive and aim at the well-off customers. In the current economic climate this is not going to work (as Leica and Hasselblad testify) - and sure not for Pentax, as their cameras are simply not high-end, but workhorses.
The strategy of the successful (D)SLR camera makers was always:
- one or two high-end modells for the pro's demands, which also transpoted the WOW-factor to the amateur market
- some capable but much cheaper semi-pro modells for the better-off amateurs and as second/third bodies for the pros
- some midrange modells for the typicall amateur market
- one or two entry level modells for beginners
Obviously Pentax is lacking here. it is a similar situation we are facing with many lenses, which one expect as commodity products, but which were not available from Pentax for a long time. Even today there is still not even a hint on new fast long glass.
Pentax' strategy might have worked out in film days, when the investment in camera equipment was very long-lived. Many cameras had been in production for many years even decades. But since the advent of AF the innovation cycles got shorter and shorter. Pentax never got AF right in theri film cameras and is still behind today, though this is not as bad anymore as it used to be. But DSLRs are still very short-lived investments and the long development cycles Pentax seems to have are not adequate for this environment.
Working myself in the imaging market (and especially in marketing), I have some difficulties recognizing any valid strategy by Pentax. They are a nice bunch of people, that seem to have completely lost their directions - for a long time now. I hope, that Hoya can infuse some more stringent strategy into the Pentax brand.
I am not "trolling" as some people apply to simple fact finding. I have been a loyal Pentax photog for the last 28 years now and I don't intend to switch. I am just a bit sadened, that Pentax stirrs obviously not into any distinct direction, but seems to float motionsless on the wakes... That's not going to work indefinitely.
Ben