[Docrwm]

They just need to make the 55-300 WR first to offer full WR kits like that.

I'd line up to buy one. WR 18-55 WR 55-300 on a K-50 or K-5II would be a great selling combo and take serious advantage of their all-weather marketing theme.

[VisualDarkness]

I'd line up to buy one. WR 18-55 WR 55-300 on a K-50 or K-5II would be a great selling combo and take serious advantage of their all-weather marketing theme.

They would get a lot of the telephoto sales that currently goes to Tamron and Sigma 70-300 instead.

[falconeye]

I do not believe the case will support a 1" sensor with SR and all the framing that requires to operate effectively.

The lens contacts would probably prohibit a 1" sensor, especially with SR.

This is what I meant: I have the impression that the case and lens contacts are wide enough to support a 1" sensor with SR.

Maybe, I do a photoshop image if I can get all measures.

SR does NOT need much margin (less than is commonly believed, I computed it). BTW, there is a test (I believe by French FNAC magazine, don't remember though) showing that the original Q's SR is mostly without effect anyway.

[VisualDarkness]

This is what I meant: I have the impression that the case and lens contacts are wide enough to support a 1" sensor with SR.

Maybe, I do a photoshop image if I can get all measures.

SR does NOT need much margin (less than is commonly believed, I computed it). BTW, there is a test (I believe by French FNAC magazine, don't remember though) showing that the original Q's SR is mostly without effect anyway.

Oh, that would be interesting!

[baro-nite]

BTW, there is a test (I believe by French FNAC magazine, don't remember though) showing that the original Q's SR is mostly without effect anyway.

Anecdotal reports from some of our forum's Q users state that with adapted lenses you can get better results by entering a shorter focal length than the actual value, suggesting that the SR is, at best, poorly calibrated.

[Docrwm]

This is what I meant: I have the impression that the case and lens contacts are wide enough to support a 1" sensor with SR.

Maybe, I do a photoshop image if I can get all measures.

SR does NOT need much margin (less than is commonly believed, I computed it). BTW, there is a test (I believe by French FNAC magazine, don't remember though) showing that the original Q's SR is mostly without effect anyway.

Thanks, I'd love to see a photoshopped image. Also, the Q7 is claimed to have 3 stops effective SR where the Q/Q10 had 2 stops.

[monochrome]

Anecdotal reports from some of our forum's Q users state that with adapted lenses you can get better results by entering a shorter focal length than the actual value, suggesting that the SR is, at best, poorly calibrated.

Yes, that has been the experience of the "reach" shooters for handholding the 85 - 135 FL lenses (mine personally for the K105 and K135, others for the M135) in which we enter the next common FL down from the actual lens FL. Beyond 135 only a rare few shooters can successfully handhold (handholding an equivalent 800?).

IMHO, given the spotty nature of which lenses work best on the original Q, the issue might be more lens-specific than FL-specific. IOW, my M135/3.5 is sharper handheld than my K135/2.5, which I would not have expected.

But then again I am forced to limit myself to tripod when using 105 and longer now - so SR is turned off anyway.

[bluefoam]

Noobie Question: I have the original Q & am waiting in great anticipation for the prime wide angle lens... The main use will be for architectural interiors. But with the new angle of view/focal length of the Q7; will the (upcoming) wide lens be wide enough when mounted to my Q?

[VisualDarkness]

Noobie Question: I have the original Q & am waiting in great anticipation for the prime wide angle lens... The main use will be for architectural interiors. But with the new angle of view/focal length of the Q7; will the (upcoming) wide lens be wide enough when mounted to my Q?

Who knows as we haven't seen it yet.

[asp1880]

You don't think that this was planned, do you?

The Q7 is the long awaited full frame Q!

Regards,
--Anders.

[NeilGratton]

Noobie Question: I have the original Q & am waiting in great anticipation for the prime wide angle lens... The main use will be for architectural interiors. But with the new angle of view/focal length of the Q7; will the (upcoming) wide lens be wide enough when mounted to my Q?

How about the 03 Fisheye on the Q or Q10?

[Docrwm]

Noobie Question: I have the original Q & am waiting in great anticipation for the prime wide angle lens... The main use will be for architectural interiors. But with the new angle of view/focal length of the Q7; will the (upcoming) wide lens be wide enough when mounted to my Q?

No way to know. The functional difference is smaller the lower the base mm rating for the lens, so a Wide Angle is likely to be less dramatically different between the two sensors.

[bluefoam]

How about the 03 Fisheye on the Q or Q10?

I plan to get that anyway, just for fun. Only issue would be that so many photos taken with that lens may be seen as a novelty.

[NeilGratton]

I plan to get that anyway, just for fun. Only issue would be that so many photos taken with that lens may be seen as a novelty.

The fact it's not a 180-degree fisheye on the Q/Q10 may count in your favour, and the fisheye distortion is easily fixed in software. Take a look at the current 03 fisheye shots thread; a lot of the images in their look rather sane and definitely not novelty.

[Docrwm]

The angle of view of the 03 Fish-Eye lens is 173° on the new Q7 according to Pentax.