Originally posted by monochrome Your statement is grossly incorrect. The Return on Invested Capital required to justify releasing a FF System cannot be met at such low volumes as a Pentax would generate, though the mark-up would be significantly higher than a high volume camera. ...
At this time it is not clear to me that Pentax has the volume or will ever have the volume to earn a profit directly from a Full Frame camera system. That doesn't mean they will not choose to intentionally lose money on such a system for 2nd derivative business reasons, but losing money on a product category is a strategic choice - a business risk - not a tactical product decision.
"Grossly incorrect." Now that's amusing. I think that you misunderstand both my post and the nature of the business.
First, the purpose of a FF system is not primarily to earn profits from the sale of a full frame camera. The purpose is to retain profitable high-spending customers who want the option of full frame and are unwilling to invest in a system that does not provide that option. For some time I was purchasing a lot of Pentax equipment. While I haven't yet switched, I have stopped buying Pentax gear altogether. I know others who have done the same. I have spent far more on photo equipment than most consumers, and expect to spend many thousand of dollars in the future, but I will be switching unless Pentax offers a full frame option. I believe that Pentax will continue to lose high-spending customers if they stay on their current track, especially given the declining cost of full frame cameras from competitors. Your initial statement seems particularly bizarre given that you later acknowledge (in the second part of your post) that the introduction of a full frame camera system might be profitable for the company due to what you call "2nd derivative business reasons" (which is one of those phrases that financial analysts love, but that has no real significance). All that matters is whether it is profitable for the company. I am claiming that the retention of high-spending customers is important for Pentax, and that their current path will cause them to to lose such customers. This may or may not be correct, but you have not provided any evidence that contradicts either of those claims.
Second, your assertions regarding the volumes necessary to profit from the development of a full frame camera system are just that: assertions. There are many parts of a full-frame system that can share development costs with APS-C, including longer focal length lenses and most accessories. Many parts of a full frame camera can also be borrowed from their other cameras. As usual, you have stated your case a bit too strongly, without qualification, and without any facts to back it up.
Your bold pronouncements remind me of an experience I had as a graduate student. I was asked to review the notes for a talk that my mentor was giving at a meeting of the American Finance Association. At one point he had jotted in the margins "Data weak on this point--speak loudly!" That seems to be your
modus operandi, both with this post and many others pertaining to the business of photography.
Dan