Originally posted by falconeye I don't think you spent nearly as much effort as me to compute an FF camera's building cost. My figure is an even conservative estimate of what Pentax can do.
You are correct, Falk.
First, let me acknowledge how much I appreciate the amazing work you have done on camera analysis.
That said, I don't think anyone here really knows how much it costs Pentax to build a camera. We can just speculate on what information is available.
The information I'm thinking about is that the K5 was thought to be too expensive when it was first released, and the same thing is now true of the Q.
When a new CaNikon is released, they know it will sell hundreds of thousands of units*, so they can source a very large order of sensors, AF units, etc.
Pentax does not have that luxury, and cannot afford to sit on a pile of unused tech because they ordered 400,000 sensors and only sold 200,000 cameras.
I think it is perfectly feasible for a theoretical FF Pentax to hit the $2250 price tag, but only after it has been on the market for a while and proven popular enough. Just like we are seeing with the K5 prices now.
If a FF camera is released, the starting price will likely be closer to $3,000 unless they are able to massively shave costs in some way. (No weather-sealing, plastic build) However, it seems to me that Pentax focuses on maintaining superb build-quality as part of their brand image, so they would not dilute that with a sub-standard FF camera.
That's why I think your cost figures are not likely to be a reality (as much as I would like them to be)
*Interestingly, the new Nikon 1 which competes directly with the Q is similarly priced (though it has a slightly bigger sensor if I'm not mistaken). I attribute this to the fact that Nikon isn't as confident in the market for the ultracompact IL category, and therefore couldn't get the same bulk discounts it would receive for an SLR.