Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-06-2013, 08:49 PM   #1
Site Supporter
jimr-pdx's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: 1hr north of PDX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,550
Any sentiment here for a WR Q?

I hadn't seen this specific Q mutation in various chats, but perhaps it has come up.
I'd love a Q-WR + 01WR combo, or perhaps an intermediate fast 6-24mm WR zoom. Not all the zooms need be redone, but a lens or two would serve my interests.

07-06-2013, 08:55 PM   #2
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,132
Sounds like that might require the camera to physically become a bit bigger.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

07-06-2013, 11:37 PM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southern California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,082
I think they need to get the price of the Q + lenses down. I think it's all a bit too expensive, and I wouldn't want to pay the premium for a WR body, personally.
07-07-2013, 03:48 AM   #4
Junior Member
theeggplanthunter's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 29
not to mention that the lenses will need some serious redesign... But we can shove the Q and lens in a sandwich bag if we really need to.

07-07-2013, 04:05 AM   #5
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,332
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Sounds like that might require the camera to physically become a bit bigger.
O-rings and gaskets? I would have thought the increase in size from the original Q to the Q10 might have freed up any necessary additional body space. The lenses are another matter, though – the additional friction that seals would add to AF movements might require higher capacity drives.

If they could do this in the next iteration, maybe as a variant on the standard (existing) body and selected lenses, they might be into something.
07-07-2013, 04:47 AM   #6
Site Supporter
ramseybuckeye's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Elida, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,622
That would have been nice if they had done that from the beginning of the Q, but as pointed out in earlier posts, size and price matter.
07-07-2013, 06:19 AM   #7
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,683
I need WR on my DSLR. From the Q, I need low price and smallest size, so Q with WR is a no for me.
07-07-2013, 06:25 AM   #8
Site Supporter
Biro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,182
WR for the Q is a nice idea... but one that I am unwilling to pay for.

07-07-2013, 08:03 AM   #9
Veteran Member
kshapero's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: South Florida, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 389
I keep a waterproof pouch folded in my back pocket. Costs $3. works for me.
07-07-2013, 08:48 AM   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
drougge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Malmö
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 787
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
O-rings and gaskets? I would have thought the increase in size from the original Q to the Q10 might have freed up any necessary additional body space. The lenses are another matter, though – the additional friction that seals would add to AF movements might require higher capacity drives.
I don't know about the 02, but the 01 and 06 lenses have no external parts moved by the AF, and as such should need no additional motor strength. Possibly they'd need a little space for sealing of focus and zoom rings, but I doubt that'd be much. Still more expensive of course, but I might be interested anyway (depends on how much more expensive).
07-07-2013, 10:04 AM   #11
Veteran Member
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,441
Quality control and manufacturing tolerance costs would probably rise significantly with WR. It not impossible though but if that was the plan for the Q they should have done it from the start.
07-11-2013, 12:40 AM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,190
QuoteOriginally posted by kivis Quote
I keep a waterproof pouch folded in my back pocket. Costs $3. works for me.
Actually this sounds a better idea than WR-ing the Q altogether. DSLRs don't quite fit into those so it's understandable making sealed versions for them.

I do love the OQ's mag-alloy body though. Sadly it had to go with the Q10 and Q7 to keep costs down
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Own a Q, any point getting discounted K-01? hakea Pentax Q 16 06-12-2013 09:08 PM
Are there any tiny, good, cheap 50-ish lens for the Q GibbyTheMole Pentax Q 3 01-23-2013 05:01 PM
Any word on a replacement to the Q? m8o Photographic Industry and Professionals 11 06-07-2012 11:34 PM
Wide converter for the Q? Any thoughts? stern Pentax Q 19 03-28-2012 01:31 PM
Any G11 users here? Q for you. kyteflyer Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 4 09-16-2010 06:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:57 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top