Originally posted by Clinton ...
What I don't understand is why so many Pentax users are actively campaigning against a FF DLSR. This negatively impacts the campaign for those of us who want one. Everyone benefits in the long run, as APS-C users will still get a broader variety of glass to shoot with.
My view:
1) Some simply don't see the business case for it. Every time I've see armchair analysis to support that, here and in other forums, it seems to suffer from two faults: A) It's a smart 18-month plan, but a shortsighted long-term plan for K-mount, or, lately, B) It applies directly to Pentax-standalone, not Pentax-Hoya and even less to Pentax-Ricoh - because the capital involved to make a FF push, and the ROI associated involves a lower percentage of revenue, thus less net risk to the parent organization. And a longish ROI (3-6 years) is less of a big deal if the expenditure is 1% of gross revenue (with Ricoh) than if it's something like 50% of gross value (Pentax Imaging-standalone.)
2) Some don't care about FF, have no intention of buying a FF camera, and feel that talk surrounding the issue is tiresome, because they think it doesn't in any way apply to them (yet it does - they share the same mount and will benefit directly from investment in it.)
3) Some actively campaign against it because they feel their aps-c-only lens investment will be devalued, or their top-o-line Pentax body will no longer be top-o-line, or both. There's an active anti-FF campaigner on dpreview who recently admitted to this - it surprised me, but made me admire his honesty.
(Some Anti's fit into two or more of these categories, etc. However the folks who simply say "It would be neat, might consider buying one, but doubt we'll ever see it" and move on are not in any of those categories, they're simply healthy sceptics.
)
.
.