Originally posted by Kunzite No, I don't think it was wrong - the 645D was pretty much a guaranteed success on a much less competitive market. A FF was IMO more risky, and requiring a bigger effort.
What was wrong was to fund-starve and downsize the R&D, which also meant no FF possible under Hoya.
FF is not about being competitive alone — it is an excuse that I'm personally being bored to death hearing over and over again.
FF development is all about keeping your own user base more homogenous and more inspired. It's something like a Trojan war, with Greeks having Achilles among them. Smart man Odysseus pursued and insisted to have him fighting, because he knew that Achilles alone will wage the war for them — not because all Greeks (APS-C cameras) are lame fighters, but because they needed a morale boost from someone they considered half-god and a role-model, someone of their own blood. Someone they believed more than their own king (K-mount).
645D is strong, but big, clumsy, slow, like giant Ajax, too expensive to feed, can wield only one weapon, his mace (or 55mm lens on 645D was the only one available for years) and it didn't achieve that level of inspiration in such an extent an FF camera (far more versatile Achilles) would do.
This comparison between Trojan war and Pentax situation is almost scarily analogous.