Is it not perhaps harder to get 1% of a very competitive and cheaper market than 5% of a premium market (think Apple doing better by only aiming at the top percentages of the market)?
If you're able to compete as a premium brand, then yes it can be, but Pentax/Hoya can't get there- Hassy wins that, with Phase One right behind. They can't take the populist space either, unless Mamiya gives up.
This is great news for photographers. There is no way I'd buy a D3X when for a few dollars more (!) I could buy the Pentax. I don't want to spend that kind of money on a camera right now anyway.
If you think the only difference is "few dollars more" then you haven't thought it out. The lens choices for the Pentax AF lenses are pretty limited (I see a whopping 4 lens choices on B&H right now, one of which is a zoom.)
While I'm biased enough to have actually bought a D3x, I can't imagine ever picking the new Pentax over the H3D at the same price. In fact, I can't imagine going with the Pentax if it were even $3000 cheaper than the H3D- the Hassy is simply a much, much safer choice. As I said, unless Pentax is telegraphing that they've found a partner, this isn't good news for them- their CEO has said that Hoya can't float the Pentax camera division by itself- why would you invest in a high-end system from a company that says it can't afford to go it alone? That makes absolutely no sense at all unless they show that they don't *have* to go it alone.
SD cards are easier to manage than CF and nowadays have large capacities. Better two SD slots than one CF (on a pro camera, that is).
For what it's worth, the D3x has dual CF slots, not single.
By rights, if there is any common sense among photographers, one of the following scenarios should occur:
1. Nikon and Canon can't sell their highest end DSLRs (e.g. D3X) anymore
2. Nikon and Canon reduce the price of their highest end DSLRs
You have *got* to be joking. A limited-range camera by a company who after being acquired still can't float itself long-term on its camera business is going to stop the players with 90% of the market from selling their more-flexible high-end bodies? I don't think you understand the photography business. The Pentax is not competition for a D3x in 99% of the situations where a photographer is looking at the D3x.
Pricing for the high-end bodies is set as it is for many reasons, but while the margins are significnatly better than the lower-end high-volume cameras, if you think a single competitor will change that, then you should look at Sony's FF offerings and re-evaluate your position.
As far as common sense goes, I can tell you for sure that your evaluation of it lacks it. I looked at the H3D when I was evaluating my D3x purchase. I couldn't do 70% of my photography with a MF body- and I suspect I'm more typical of a D3x target buyer than most. So, that would mean having to maintain two separate camera systems, with backup bodies and lenses- even without looking at my standing capital investment in glass and a body that made a reasonable backup, the economics weren't good, when you add that in, you'd pretty-much have to be an idiot to switch systems without a distinct commercial advantage.
Sure, I could have changed my target markets, and gotten it to 70% achievable with a MF camera- but even then, there's no guarantee that Hassy, with their fourth digital body in the works will be economically viable in 5 years, let alone Pentax with their first!
If you were a 645N user, and were shooting Canon or Nikon for your main work and using the 645N for niche product/fashion work, then this camera is almost a no-brainer. Outside of that, it makes significantly less sense than the H3D sale.
For real competition in the market, you need 3 or 4 strong players. A market dominated by Nikon and Canon is not giving us the products that we want quickly or cheaply enough. Contax and Kodak messed up their FF cameras badly, delaying mass acceptance for such products for years. IMHO.
There are three strong players, Nikon, Canon and Sony. The rest of the market isn't as strong- if you look at the financials for the last 6 or so years, you can see that quite easily. Contax was never in the game, and I know a few photographers who still shoot with Kodaks- which were as good as they could get with the technology of the day, and still make great studio cameras.
Companies with CEOs who say they can't long-term support their camera division alone aren't going to be strong players. Hoya never wanted Pentax for its camera business, and despite the back-pedaling on the initial acquisition (when whatever deal they had to sell of the camera division apparently fell through,) those sort of statements wouldn't give me a lot of confidence that Pentax is going to be around long-term, let alone selling enough new lenses to do anything interesting with a medium format line.
The only thing that will affect the major costs associated with larger sensors in a significant way is a zero-defect process, which would make the sensor price differences completely into a sensors-per-wafer physical material cost difference, rather than an exponential one. That's not likely to happen in the next five years unless I've missed some significant developments in the semiconductor industry.
