Originally posted by nosnoop No, the analogy was not about a bad sensor. The analogy was about a key investment or a key model turning out to be a flop, and how the company could survive it. Even if Pentax has a FF camera with a kick a** sensor, it can still turn out to be a flop just like A900. The total FF market segment is just plain too small. Whatever Pentax does, it is unlikely it would be able to convert significant number of Nikon/Canon FF users. And projecting Pentax FF sales based on Nikon/Canon : Pentax sales volume from recent history would give you a very depressing figure - it would be a flop even if the sales meet the "expectation".
A 900 was destined to fail. Sony is a newcomer on DSLR market despite Minolta's legacy and CZ branded lenses. They build a very good FF camera , but they were selling it for $3K. At the same time Canon and Nikon were selling 5DII and D700 for $2600 and $2300 respectively. And on top of that both Canon and Nikon cameras were marginally better in hi ISO performance. How can it be NOT a failure?
If I am shooting Canon cropped system and want to move to FF sensor, I will look around and see what other companies will have to offer, and if there's nothing matching the price and quality of 5DII, I will stick with 5DII. Why would I want to switch to to some Sony or Pentax nonsense, if they offering more expensive cameras that are not on par with Canon.
Actually, I am not surprised, Sony is known for stunts like this.
The analogy was about a key investment or a key model turning out to be a flop, and how the company could survive it.
Sure this is possible with Pentax as well. Very possible. A lot of Pentax users who wanted FF already abandoned Pentax system. By the next Christmas more will leave.
The total FF market segment is just plain too small.
It is growing and it will continue to grow faster and faster, all the talks that it is niche market is plain BS, more and more advanced armatures are buying these cameras.