Originally posted by falconeye We basically agree except that you cripple a bit to get the camera below $2000. You may be right or not. IMHO, it is one of the reasons why the A900/A850 failed: not good enough once you ignore the sensor size. This is why I exceed the $2000 barrier to allow for an uncrippled FF Pentax.
But there's the rub.
In order to get to market Pentax needs to compete on price because they are not going to compete on features or lenses or accessories. They cannot match Canon or Nikon.
Sony tried on price and almost no one from Canon or Nikon left those camps because of the price difference. It was too small. It made no impact on sales.
Why would Pentax be different?
Are there enough Pentax loyalists alone to satisfy the demand for an FF system required to sell well over 100k-200k bodies per year at over $2,000?
If Pentax is not competing on sensors size, and not on features, and not on lenses, or flash systems, or pro support and software, then what's the advantage?
Look at it this way: to compete in FF Pentax would have to convince about 20% of the current APS-C crowd to spend $500 more per body AND invest in new lenses. Is that possible? Are Pentax users willing in such large numbers to ante up that premium?
Either that, or Pentax MUST take FF market share from Canon and Nikon like Sony tried. Is price how they do that?
So they either have to force the currently loyal to spend much more than they do now, or have current and potential Canon or Nikon FF customers to switch due to price differences.
This mostly goes away if FF prices drop from Sony as sensor supplier and Canon and Nikon duke it out. At that point Pentax doesn't have to ask much more of its current customer base and can be a standing alternative to the other brands like they have done wit APS-C.