[falconeye]

I'm not so sure. The NEX LA-EA2 AF adapter is large and clunky and costs a few hundred.
[...]
The penalty of extra bulk and $ probably means these sort of add-ons aren't a must-have feature for compact mirrorless. I wouldn't be surprised if hardly anyone buys these things.

Nothing is a must have. A Q may make sense w/o any adapters at all.

OTOH, the NEX LA-EA2 does make more sense than you may think. You loose on compactness but you gain an entire SLT feature set, incl. fast phase AF. It turns mirrorless as a secondary camera into a primary one. It's even better because you can opt-out on the translucent mirror (skip the adapter by using an E lens) which you can't with a NEX SLT (which is why some Sony enthusiasts already run a petition that Sony makes the translucent mirror up-lockeable in the forthcoming FF A99).

[rawr]

the NEX LA-EA2 does make more sense than you may think

Maybe. I guess there is a galaxy of potential uses for such a device. But it certainly breaks the concept of the NEX as a compact camera. The same may be true for the Q, of course, when we are talking about adapters.

[ManuH]

So, it will become increasingly tough for Pentax to market a mirrorless system with no AF adapters available.

Such Pentax adapter could probably support SDM without too much difficulty. The problem is that there's not that many SDM/DC lenses. It would exclude the lenses that would make the most sense on a mirrorless: small primes. I don't know how difficult it would be to include a screwdrive motor into an adapter but that of course would be the ideal solution.

[falconeye]

Such Pentax adapter could probably support SDM without too much difficulty. The problem is that there's not that many SDM/DC lenses. It would exclude the lenses that would make the most sense on a mirrorless: small primes. I don't know how difficult it would be to include a screwdrive motor into an adapter but that of course would be the ideal solution.

A screwdrive motor isn't too large and could be integrated into an adapter.

But I don't agree small primes are the lenses which would make most sense, except maybe for the DA 40 and 70 Ltd.

E.g., the DA 40 Ltd. is less than 450$ (in EU) and a screw-drive converter may cost too close to this. All primes smaller than 40mm would be much smaller if designed for the shorter reghistration distance, even without adding the bulk of an adapter. So, they wouldn't be a good fit for an adapter.

Moreover, medium quality glass like the kit or economy zooms wouldn't resolve high enough. Leaves the 40, 70 Ltds. and 55, 50-135, 60-250, 200, 300 SDM lenses. Of course, with 5.6 crop, any lens on the Q would be a tele lens, even the 15mm Ltd... So, compactness wouldn't be the only point of consideration here, reach being another.

[Zygonyx]

Yes unfortunately, there are few chances to get soon such an AF adapter.

[audiobomber]

Moreover, medium quality glass like the kit or economy zooms wouldn't resolve high enough. Leaves the 40, 70 Ltds. and 55, 50-135, 60-250, 200, 300 SDM lenses. Of course, with 5.6 crop, any lens on the Q would be a tele lens, even the 15mm Ltd... So, compactness wouldn't be the only point of consideration here, reach being another.

Is there a reason you left out the FA and FA limited glass? I would also include the 16-45 and 16-50, they aren't far behind the primes, in fact seem pretty comparable with the 15 and 21mm Ltds.

[gazonk]

Ok, if you prefer to keep it small ...
I'd have a serious look at the DA 70 Ltd. It seems to have the biggest resolution muscle of all longer DAs.

On the Q, use it at f/3.2 and enjoy a true 400mm lens FoV (35mm equivalent).

Almost the first thing I thought of when I heard about the Q - how fun it would be to mount the DA70 on it.

With my lowly K10D, the sharpness of the DA70 is sometimes only a burden - it exposes the weak AA filter of the K10D surprisingly often

[falconeye]

Is there a reason you left out the FA and FA limited glass? I would also include the 16-45 and 16-50, they aren't far behind the primes, in fact seem pretty comparable with the 15 and 21mm Ltds.

I basically left out all lenses which are big and not long. I'm not so sure about the sharpness of the 16-45. The 16-50 may be sharp enough up to 25mm but it is SDM anyway and a big lens.

[audiobomber]

I basically left out all lenses which are big and not long. I'm not so sure about the sharpness of the 16-45. The 16-50 may be sharp enough up to 25mm but it is SDM anyway and a big lens.

OK, I would say the FA 50mm, FA 43, and 77 Ltd would be interesting. All are small(ish) and razor sharp in the center at f/2.8-f/4.

The 16-45 is soft at the long end, but still considerably sharper than the 18-55. Probably not very useful on the Q.