Originally posted by kadajawi Oh, and how did that strategy of not trying to offer pro cameras in the 35mm area work? Oh right, Canon and Nikon absolutely dominate the market, and Pentax was in the meantime sold a few times and is on life support.
Assuming Pentax' declining fortunes were attributable to not attacking the professional market, is there anything in Pentax' posture now that makes you think they are changing their strategy? And do you have any idea how difficult that would be to do now that the steaks are claimed and the claims are staked?
Remember how long Canon tried to get where they are today?. They started with professional 35mm slrs in the early seventies and were finally considered Nikons equal when? In the 1990's or maybe even only ten years later in the digital age. Anyway you look at it, and even if you only start to count after the introduction of the eos mount, it took them years and years and years of dogged, tenacious trying. Not sure that is in the cards for Pentax.
It's just too easy to throw words like "professional" into a discussion - but it takes real determination and cash to actually place as many Pentax cameras into the Stadium in São Paulo as there were CaNikons during tonight's game Argentina vs. Switzerland. I did not see a single one.
Quote: Ok. I'm saying Pentax should go after pros, yes, which means doing stills and video (IMHO a K-3 is perfectly capable for professional work, except for a few areas, and as long as video isn't a requirement (I know Lauren is a pro videographer using Pentax, and I can understand her reasons, but Pentax is not common in the video field, for good reasons)).
If they have done that on the video side, they can do the same camera with a FF sensor (more or less) and have a differentiator that can drive sales towards the FF Pentax to make it profitable.
A FF Pentax A7 would have minimal development costs (even production would be outsourced), so that it does not distract Pentax from doing APS-C and perhaps other exciting things. I simply don't think a FF Pentax, alongside new lenses, developed from scratch (or at least from the K-3) would at this point be profitable. If they get down those costs and the impact on Pentax' R&D department then why not? I do see advantages to them offering FF. It's just not worth it in the end.
I'd put my money on mirrorless. It's a growth market.
I'm just as dubious about video as I am about Pentax catering to the 35mm professional market. The marriage of Video and Stills will play itself out in the area of mirrorless cameras, not in the area of the dslr. These were brought into the picture only because Canon doesn't do mirrorless at the ff level yet and they did such an excellent job on the 5d for video. The future belongs rather to Sony and Panasonic and anyone else following down the mirrorless track. Of course, that could include Pentax too, and personally I am convinced that an aps-c and/or ff mirrorless camera with a new mount is only a question of time. But professional video too?
As regards rebadging Sony's A7, I was convinced everyone was joking, but now I get the sense you are serious! Wouldn't it be easier for Pentax to just offer an adapter with pdaf integration like Sony did for it's legacy a mount lenses?
In the meantime I'm quite happy with the OM-D to quench my mirrorless thirst. And if I should ever want professional equipment (whatever that actually means) I might save up for a Leica