Originally posted by Kunzite If a FF MILC is such a bright idea, wouldn't Sony make one? Ask them, who knows...
In any case, they're a much better candidate: they have the technology (on the market, not only in their labs), they have the mount (NEX E supports FF, as proved by their video camera). They both have larger resources at their disposal, and it would cost them less to make what you wish.
Pentax, OTOH, would not only have to introduce new technologies (full R&D costs waiting to be recovered), but also an entirely new MILC system; a one camera system is no good so lower level cameras would also be needed; with the accompanying lenses. This would be in a moment when their utmost concern is rebuilding and growing the K-mount and pushing forward with their professional solution - 645D. Right now they IMO are the worst candidate for a FF (dedicated mount) MILC.
In short: please, stop asking for the unreasonable.
By the way, I'm not sure m4/3 being small is the primarily reason it sells so well; I'd rather say it's the dirt cheap price. The market is flooded with myriads of MILCs, I can still buy NIB ones which are sold for a penny and are some 5 generations old. While consumers are happy with the low prices, is the producing company actually making a profit on that? How well are Olympus and Sony doing?
I don't think such a business model is desirable for Pentax, or any other company.
loveisageless: indeed, it appears Nikon had cut some corners in order to get the D600 as "cheap"; and they heavily reused from the D7000, while expecting much higher sales than what Pentax could manage.
I agree, expecting Pentax to do better, cheaper is not realistic.
On the most recent BCN Japan rankings, 8 out of the top 10 and 13 out of the top 20 bestsellers are mainstream APS-C DSLRs. There are only four FF cams in the top 80, and the most popular at the moment is the Canon 6D in at #23. However, while 27 of the top 80 sellers are APS-C DSLRs, 49 of the top 80 sellers are MILCS. Pentax are in there with the Q doing well in the MILCS, but their only other entry is the K30 at #63. The K5 series is off the list altogether. There aren't that many different APS-C DSLR models anyway, but the whole MILC sector has come from nowhere to a plethora of models really pretty fast.
What this suggests is that there is plenty of mileage left in the APS-C DSLR engine; that FF DSLRs are still a pretty darn minority interest; and that a player without a good MILC strategy may have a problem unless it is dominant in another area, given the sheer numbers of MILCs available. I wonder whether Ricoh can afford not to develop a MILC line with a bigger sensor than the Q. It's no good saying that Pentax are only small and lack the resources, etc. Maybe it's a question of, if you cannot afford the gambling chips you cannot afford to be in the game, so pony up or exit.
Some manufacturers may be busy pushing bigger is better but hefty numbers of the buying public are saying otherwise, perhaps: they'd like smaller but more sophisticated and with the biggest sensor smaller can take.
Anyway, I would guess that FF is the least of Pentax's problems right now. They have their work cut out just keeping themselves in the public eye. And a question arising from the BCN rankings is whether K-mount - which predicates fairly large APS-C and FF DSLRs - is any longer enough to support the company
if we are seeing a gradual but permanent shift in buying habits towards smaller but cleverer cameras which don't require an OVF.