Originally posted by Winder So why did Sony elect to lose money on FF development for 5+ years? Because they know that the long term benefits exceed the short term lose.
Why do you think FF is getting more expensive. There has been only 2 FF bodies released in the last 2 years. The Sony A850 which is the cheapest FF, and the 1DX which is less than the 1DsIII or the D3x. Both of those offer a lot for the money. My Canon 5D originally sold for over $3,000, but the 5DII sold for $2,700.00. Most of the price increases we have seen are due to inflation and currency exchange rates.
Pentax has already "stopped the bleeding". They have been increasing their market share in small steps. The K-5 has been a huge success for the company. Pentax has momentum and they need to build on that.
Using your logic Pentax would have never brought the 645D to market. MF is even a smaller market than FF with more expensive sensors and less growth potential....... BUT the 645D has been a big success. There are still people on waiting lists to get the camera. All of your arguments against Pentax bringing a FF to market apply to the MF market to an even greater extent. Pentax will be successful if they bring a good product to the market.
In defense of Aristophanes, the 645D was released on the market only after Pentax knew they could get the right amount of performance and sell for the right price to earn money. Pentax could have release the 645D in 2006 and decided not to because they knew it would be at loss.
Same story for the Q, apparently Pentax had it under development for a few year before getting the right sensor and the right moment to release it.
Most likely Pentax is still developping a FF, and is waiting for the right moment to release it. They are not first comers on a market, which is wise IMO given their size.
I agree that the FF market will get bigger and bigger accross time compared to APSC, but the question that Pentax need to ask themselves is "when?" In a couple of year we'll get even better APSC, for the "diffraction limit" argument is kind of b*llsh*t, picture resolution will still increase, albeit slower. At some point, having a 30Mpx APSC camera doing an acceptable 24 000 iso, what do you need more?
For massive prints, for fashion, the MF lineup is actually more relevant than FF. Pentax already has it.
For movies, APSC is actually a better format, closer to the classic 35mm movie format (90° compared to still picture) and it will be easier to fight against moire and jello on APSC sensors.
For sports and photojournalism, Pentax don't address this highly competitive market, where there is much more than sensor format. (the 1Dx has a freakin' Gigabit Ethernet port...)
At the end, FF is lot about "me too", and "I have a bigger camera than you". But this is not the philosophy Pentax is defending. Pentax is about more features in a smaller package. The K5 is much smaller than the D300s or the 7D, and on the same price level as the D7000 and the 60D.
Most likely, the reason Sony failed with the Alpha 900/850 is that they couldn't differenciate themselves from the competition. It was just a "me too" camera. Now that they have successfully differenciated themselves with the pellicule mirror, they may try again.
Provided there is a sensor available, Pentax must be asking themselves a lot of questions at the moment...