Originally posted by wpvv Telephoto lenses are easily 'made' by the use of a K-adapter. The lack of lenses is on the wide side.
I do no dispute this -- wides would probably make the Q more desirable for a segment of shooters, especially those that seem to like photo fora. Wides and ultra wides will require low single digit FLs, will more difficult to design and build, and will undoubtedly show significant barrel distortion, emphasizing how larger formats are superior for the styles of shooting requiring these lenses. For these, you're fighting the crop factor built into the Q.
AF would allow me to use a spotting scope bracketed on the side as an optical viewfinder to shoot in real time, and a Red Dot with an AF lens would allow me to track in real time using AF to shoot long tele for moving subjects with a very light and nimble camera that's easy to hold up to the eye for long periods of time. With an AF lens, I can work around LCD lag and take advantage of the extreme reach allowed by the Q. The growth of the super zoom/travel zoom classes of compact cameras, especially since the first Panasonic FZs and TZs illustrates how the mass market responds to ultra tele and super tele shooting.
For these, you're taking advantage of the crop factor of the Q.
I've already stated that Pentax should, as a priority, take care of the wide side first, but to dismiss the usefulness of the long side in AF system lenses is to deny the inherent advantage of the format the system is built around.
Scott