Originally posted by Winder The ability to share lenses and to upgrade from APS-C the FF as a photographer needs are actually important. I would buy a FF and keep my K-5 (or K-3) as a second body because it gives me more flexibility with my lenses. In your first statement you point out that standardization across platforms an important advantage for Canon and Nikon, and then in the next statement you say Pentax should do away with the biggest standardization of them all, the lens mount.
I said no such thing.
I specifically said Pentax has to make FF. APS-C only will deprive it of the higher-end revenues.
Technically, all camera makers saw APS-C as a bridge sensor. They did not anticipate that sensors yields and FF costs would take so long to come down. The backlog towards FF has been affordable photolithography.
Ideally, if APS-C was going to be around this long, yes, a new mount should have been made. That is eventually what Fuji has done.
But for now it looks like K-mount will serve a sub-$1,000 market for APS-C (where the K-5ii is at $896 a B&H this week) and FF above that price point, probably closer to the $1,500.
Problem is Pentax dies on revenues without $1,500 bodies, and especially on margins. They become the Wal-Mart DSLR brand if they have no FF to recapture their higher-end. Retailers won't even stock them because they will have too few after-market sales.
Originally posted by Winder Those people have been the biggest problem for Pentax. They have a user base that don't want to spend any money. They need to expand and develop a better user base.
Trying to force your way up a shrinking price ladder is death without volume below. Toyota made Lexus after establishing their own brand. Pentax has no cachet to suddenly make $2,800 bodies when their current flagship is at $896. Their customers are at $896. The DSLR user base looks to start shrinking for a variety of reasons. You know how you capture from your competitors?
Price. The DSLR market is mature so tech advances cannot do it. Pentax starts from a huge FF lens deficit. And they have poor distribution. Unlike Canon they don't make their own sensors. Historically Pentax has competed on price.
Maybe re-read this:
http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/FullFrame.pdf
Falk is right IMO except his timeframe is too advanced because he overestimates the market for pricey cameras. Even prosumer enthusiasts question a $3,000 outlay for 8% more linear resolution at 1.9" of shallower DOF at f/1.4. But that is what is buttering Canon and Nikon's bread these days. They have taken a huge slice from Pentax wit their lower-end FF's. And the slaughter will continue.