Herb wrote: my thoughts too. the announcement of the 645D just about sealed it for me. they don't have the resources to do major digital development of more than one camera line at a time. they lost money on the imaging products in the past year and are expected to do it again this coming year, despite cuts and reorganizations planned. their other divisions are no longer as financially secure as once thought either. it was a time for a hard choice of what to do and they decided to make no hard choice. the money spent on the 645D is money that isn't being spent on a *istD replacement. by early spring next year, the *istDs has to sell for a lot less than it does now to continue to move. i don't see them making any money. with 66K DSLRs sold in the past year, that's about 0.25% of the DSLR market. Canon and Nikon make up 92% of the DSLR market.
REPLY: 1. I don't think you know what resources they have available as it is sensitive inside information. 2. A company of Pentax size have for all practical purposes all the resources necessary for making anything they want. What decides whats going to be made when is the prospect of making money on it. Pentax can easily make a copy of the Canon EOS-1d but it would be a silly loss leader as Pentax doesn't have the market penetration to pull it off. 3. The 645D is Pentax ticket into the pro segment. This segment is important for the image of the company. In addition, the competition is non-existent as most potential competitors are soon bankrupt. And yes, I happen to think that there's no difference between film and digital when it comes to the issue of real estate. If anything, more real estate means less hassle for digital than it does for film. Rumors says the 645D will cost $7500 (yes, it might be bullshit but that is what the rumors says). 4. 66 000 DSLR is great for a company with approximately zero market penetration and who virtually closed down serious SLR manufacturing and marketing in the mid-90's. P�l
