Not really. The ability to provide good value - ie price features attractively - versus competitors' products is contingent on a sustainable, superior relative cost position, in order that the business can generate the returns needed to survive.

This kind of advantage is only potentially available from limited sources eg scale, exclusive access to key materials or technology on attractive terms, novel proprietary, distribution systems or value-added chain.

Not only does there not intuitively appear to be any significant opportunity for sustainable cost advantages to exist in the case of Pentax, but the fact that they have been chronically loss-making is pretty much proof of the pudding. In other words whatever you want to call it sustainable is not an appropriate appellation.

One other point related to this line of discussion; I have seen many reports from different sources mentioning that a price war has been in effect in the dslr market. Now I don't know the history nearly as well as most others here, but since Pentax has in my experience offered the most attractive value for money, it is plausible that they started it, no matter that it is foolhardy to start price wars from a position of weakness.

If that is right they perhaps now think they can end it by significantly scaling back their main value proposition; the Mountain-Sea Change manoeuvre. However as the name suggests price wars invariably involve competitive casualties and I would be astounded if Nikon/Canon aren't scenting blood. And with the production capacity in place and market volumes under pressure they have little incentive not to go for the kill, which equates to holding prices down.

Close but no cigar.

The proposition Pentax have so far made is one of value, but this has not been accepted by the market since their market share has apparently been sliding from already low levels in recent years. It has therefore provided no competitive advantage.

More generally it is important to realise that under-pricing can never provide a sustainable source of competitive advantage, since this tactic is available to all players in the market.

The K7 appears to have some video related features that are not yet available from competitors; that is a potential competitive advantage for the time being, but one that is highly unlikely to be sustainable

However, Pentax have now jacked up prices for both lenses and the body thereby destroying their preexisting value proposition.

Time will tell whether they have correctly gauged market appetite, but I think they have hopelessly misread it in the current economic climate.

Furthermore, the key issue for Pentax is that their market share is simply not viable in the medium term. As such they are missing a golden opportunity to capture market share by over-pricing, while the competition has not yet responded as they surely will (Pentax's video capabilities appear to contain nothing proprietary).

In addition it strikes me they will alienate their most loyal existing customers who rush out to buy the body now when subsequently slashing prices as I have little doubt they will.

To me their marketing seems shambolic and amateurish; frankly the whole business sadly smacks of desperation.

I believe the moon is made of Lymeswold cheese and that space aliens disguised in human form faked the moon landings to maintain secrecy and keep it all for themselves.

However, as regards pricing it is interesting that B&H have it arriving in July. . .just in time for the sales.

Still time for marketing sanity to materialise it would seem.

Something much higher than it should be to drive sales.

With the D90 on Amazon.com for $965 - including the very decent Nikkor 18-105mm (ultrasonic motor) - that pricing is just nuts.

Well then it must be me who doesn't get it, because I am utterly unable to fathom why an external mic mounted immediately above the lens should fail to pick up the focusing motor noise.

I'm sorry, but you just don't get it.

There is no way that a setup like that is remotely close to useable holding the camera in one hand while waving around a handheld mic with the other.

I suppose you might obtain better results if you could rig up some kind of microphone- based headdress, but then you'd walk around looking like a complete tit all day long.

Hefty, making assumptions about consumer behaviour is obviously fraught with difficulties but I nevertheless have little doubt you are taking an extremely Panglossian view here.

Further, if the K7 is to marketed as video capable, but has useless sound (absent the use of an externally connected soundman) it seems to me Pentax will fall foul of not only irate consumers but also the fitness for purpose provisions of the Sale of Goods Act.

Consider another exchange:

Punter: "I'd like to look at that new dual slr/video camera from Pentax "

Jessops salesman: "Sorry, can't help you there, we only stock leading brands"

Punter: "That's strange, I've heard really great things about it"

Jessops salesman: "Don't you want one that does the talkies?"

Confused: "W...w...w...w...waddaya mean?"

Jessops salesman: "Can't hear a thing with the racket their lens makes; if you want something decent that'll cost you an extra monkey"

Confused: **Censored**

Jessops salesman: "Let me show you what Canon and Nikon do. They've carved up the market between themselves you know, and there's a reason for that [nudge, nudge, wink-wink]"

N/C newbie: "Lead the way"

Clearly so, but it you were a marketing bod for Pentax carrying out a customer profiling exercise you wouldn't be too far off the mark if the first thing you put down was raving luddite.

I still await the final specs with interest but it appears that the K7 ticks all my original requirements, namely significantly better high ISO performance vs my K10 and a movie mode with autofocus.

In my view the latter creates a whole new category and could make this camera a big, big commercial success, defined as attracting significant new customers with or without existing dslrs.

However, I am increasingly worried that the packaging is all wrong, in particular as regards the kit lens. A screw-driven kit lens that generates an inordinate amount of noise during focusing will mess up sound recording on videos for the non-pro market, where Pentax need - and have the opportunity - to make big inroads to survive. This means a lousy customer experience, which is most certainly not my idea of clever marketing.

Bottom line is I think this looks a potential killer product, but I am highly uncertain whether Pentax can be entrusted not to cock up the marketing.

I'm taking that as a given at some level, to be revealed next week.

Which was precisely my point.

It is all very well having external input, but I would have thought it would be a severe turn off if every video you shot sounded as if it was from a vantage point immediately behind a dentist's chair.

The D90 which I am benchmarking this against has an kit lens with an ultrasonic motor and my Powershot S3 also has something fairly silent; if the K7 has video capabilities and is sold without this facility in kit form I believe it would be an immense marketing blunder.

Speaking of which even the 17-70mm F/4 sounds a little short at the long end for my liking, based on my experience with the S3. Would be interested to see if the collaboration with Tokina might extend to supplying their forthcoming 16-135mm as a kit lens; anybody know if that is ultrasonic?

As for weather resistance, the only button that presses for me is snooze.