[johnmflores]

Not much smaller at all I think. At least it is my understanding that for focal lengths significantly longer than the image circle diameter you get coverage (or at least illumination) nearly automatically.

Are you sure? Because the 06 zoom is much smaller than my DA*50-135 even though they are both F2.8 and both cover similar focal ranges.

[drougge]

Are you sure? Because the 06 zoom is much smaller than my DA*50-135 even though they are both F2.8 and both cover similar focal ranges.

I misunderstood you. I thought you meant same specs. Not equivalent, same.

Obviously an optically shorter lens with a smaller (absolute) aperture will be smaller physically (until we start talking about wide angle lenses).

[johnmflores]

I misunderstood you. I thought you meant same specs. Not equivalent, same.

Obviously an optically shorter lens with a smaller (absolute) aperture will be smaller physically (until we start talking about wide angle lenses).

I guess you're right, just looking at this comparison: Compact Camera Meter

But still, if Pentax makes a 70-300 for the Q it will reach out to 1410mm EQ, which is a lot of reach in a small package. I do that now with the DA 55-300 WR but I wish I had AF.

[monochrome]

FWIW I have several thick, black, 12" microfiber cloths. I wear a wide-brimmed hat (Gilley) anyway, so I drape the cloth over the hatbrim and the top of the camera and hold it near my face. Works great.

[Antonio Marques]

The Q is no match for an SLR, but we take our Q10 everywhere and it's a heck more fun to shoot than a cell phone. With an EVF it would be about perfect.

[pinholecam]

I am reminded of the Pentax 110.
That was a complete system with the lenses and not a never ending stream of new lenses.
Kind of makes sense too.

I guess at one point, we have to call it a day wrt how many lenses they will make for the Q.
To be fair, general uses would need
1. UWA - 08 zoom
2. General zoom - 02 zoom
3. Fast normal prime - 01 prime
4. Short-moderate tele - 06 zoom
Perhaps a fun Fisheye too.

[pacerr]

My own comparison goes back to the late '60's when I carried the compact Olympus Pen-F kit. The Q-series reviews repeat every pro and con argument of that 1/2-frame 35mm system -- and it WAS a system. If the 02 was upgraded a bit and a true macro was added it would be hard to dismiss the Q's as a viable, briefcase sized system on any basis other than the sensor size.

If it does eventually satisfy a compact systems niche I'd happily accommodate a 15% increase in size to encompass a hi-res, tilting LCD screen and a little more finger-room for the controls.

[saladin]

A top notch 01-style wide prime rather than the toy wide. Especially since i still use the original Q. The zooms havent really appealed to me in the q system, it seems to me to be ideal for prime lenses.

Something around 24mm equiv ( 5mm 2.8 doable?) and maybe one around 85-90mm (15mm 1.8?) out the other side. Actually, a fast 85mm on the bigger Q7 sensor could make an outstanding small scale portrait outfit?

I dont expect them to happen though. I should probably just buy a GR for the WA bee in my bonnet, lol.

[sapporodan]

A top notch 01-style wide prime rather than the toy wide. Especially since i still use the original Q. The zooms havent really appealed to me in the q system, it seems to me to be ideal for prime lenses.

Something around 24mm equiv ( 5mm 2.8 doable?) and maybe one around 85-90mm (15mm 1.8?) out the other side. Actually, a fast 85mm on the bigger Q7 sensor could make an outstanding small scale portrait outfit?

I dont expect them to happen though. I should probably just buy a GR for the WA bee in my bonnet, lol.

If only they remade the 03 04 & 05 lenses to the quality of the 01. Although I am not really a prime shooter, I agree the Q system needs more small primes. Even the Samsung NX mini has 2 primes compared to the Q's 1! ( I am not counting the toy lenses).

[reh321]

I guess you're right, just looking at this comparison: Compact Camera Meter

But still, if Pentax makes a 70-300 for the Q it will reach out to 1410mm EQ, which is a lot of reach in a small package. I do that now with the DA 55-300 WR but I wish I had AF.

I wonder how much would be added to the price of the Pentax K-to-Q adapter if they added contacts to it so that the Q could use the auto-focus and aperture-control functions already built into KAF3-mount lenses. I guess I should also wonder how many of us would buy one at that price, but having that capability would really add to to the utility of the adapter and greatly increase the advantage it already has over other adapters..

This wondering is a result of my discovering that the Canon 75mm-300mm lens I use with my Canon Rebel is about the best long lens (despite its not having manual aperture control) I have for my Q7, so when we visit our daughter in San Diego, I will probably take that lens with us (room under the airplane seat limiting how much stuff I can take with me), planning to switch it between cameras depending on exactly how much "reach" I need. Some day, I plan to replace that Rebel with a K-something, and being able to switch a lens like that back and forth between the two cameras, not losing auto-anything, would be really neat!!

[luftfluss]

The Nikon 1 cameras have the Nikon FT-1 adapter, which allows users to use F-mount lenses... and the FT-1 supports autofocus on AF-S lenses. The FT-1 costs about the same as the Pentax K-Q adapter.

I think trying to have the little Q autofocus the screw-drive Pentax lenses wouldn't work, that's a lot of torque and would kill the battery pretty quickly, I think, plus possibly necessitate Pentax beefing up some of the electronics of the Q.

Ricoh does have some patents for Q lenses, though: inch1/1.7??????????So-net???

7.5-120mm f/1.6-1.9 (hard to believe about the apertures)
4.4mm f/1.4
45mm f/1.8

And the upcoming 18mm f/2.8 macro.

[reh321]

I wonder how much would be added to the price of the Pentax K-to-Q adapter if they added contacts to it so that the Q could use the auto-focus and aperture-control functions already built into KAF3-mount lenses. I guess I should also wonder how many of us would buy one at that price, but having that capability would really add to to the utility of the adapter and greatly increase the advantage it already has over other adapters.

The Nikon 1 cameras have the Nikon FT-1 adapter, which allows users to use F-mount lenses... and the FT-1 supports autofocus on AF-S lenses. The FT-1 costs about the same as the Pentax K-Q adapter.

The adapters provided by both Nikon and Canon to allow their mirror-less cameras to use some existing APS-C lenses in native mode are exactly where i got my inspiration.

I think trying to have the little Q autofocus the screw-drive Pentax lenses wouldn't work, that's a lot of torque and would kill the battery pretty quickly, I think, plus possibly necessitate Pentax beefing up some of the electronics of the Q.

That is precisely why I specified KAF3 lenses, since that wouldn't require supporting screw-drive AF.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/138-pentax-k-01/173828-kaf3-mount.html

[luftfluss]

The adapters provided by both Nikon and Canon to allow their mirror-less cameras to use some existing APS-C lenses in native mode are exactly where i got my inspiration.

That is precisely why I specified KAF3 lenses, since that wouldn't require supporting screw-drive AF.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/138-pentax-k-01/173828-kaf3-mount.html

Oops, I missed the KAF3 mention in your post.

Most of the SDM lenses look to have large enough apertures that the Q's AF system should be able to acquire focus easily. Is the Pentax K-Q merely a bone tossed out to us K-mount enthusiasts? If so, then I doubt we'd see further development. But if Ricoh considers that adapter to be a core part of the Q's mission, perhaps we will see a KAF3-compatible version, especially since Pentax's latest lenses have in-body motors.

I do wonder, though, if the 1" sensor revolution has caught Ricoh flat-footed. It seems like most of the latest (and rumored future) premium compact P&S cameras have 1" sensors, and Panasonic stuffed a m/43 sensor in the LX100. Will Sony (or somebody) further develop the 1/1.7" sensor?

[sapporodan]

I wonder how much would be added to the price of the Pentax K-to-Q adapter if they added contacts to it so that the Q could use the auto-focus and aperture-control functions already built into KAF3-mount lenses. I guess I should also wonder how many of us would buy one at that price, but having that capability would really add to to the utility of the adapter and greatly increase the advantage it already has over other adapters..

This wondering is a result of my discovering that the Canon 75mm-300mm lens I use with my Canon Rebel is about the best long lens (despite its not having manual aperture control) I have for my Q7, so when we visit our daughter in San Diego, I will probably take that lens with us (room under the airplane seat limiting how much stuff I can take with me), planning to switch it between cameras depending on exactly how much "reach" I need. Some day, I plan to replace that Rebel with a K-something, and being able to switch a lens like that back and forth between the two cameras, not losing auto-anything, would be really neat!!

I doubt it would cost much at all, most likely the lenses from the K and Q mounts work the same way, all they would be doing is connecting the contacts from one side to the other. Olympus, Panasonic, Nikon, Samsung and Sony all have adaptor mounts that can do this, and give full control, so there is no reason not to.

[johnmflores]

I doubt it would cost much at all, most likely the lenses from the K and Q mounts work the same way, all they would be doing is connecting the contacts from one side to the other. Olympus, Panasonic, Nikon, Samsung and Sony all have adaptor mounts that can do this, and give full control, so there is no reason not to.

Battery life. The Q's battery is feeble enough as it is that I always carry a bag of spare "potato chips" with me.