[hnikesch]

I am also looking for small, I mostly carry my Canon S100 on my belt and my Q7 with the 06 mounted on a strap for the reach, makes a nice kit. The Q7 with a retractable 02 would be great. I find the IQ between my 02 and 01 is vary close so I would chose the 02 if it wasn't so large. Like someone posted above I would love a longer native Q zoom something like a 28-300

[Tony Belding]

I have looked at the Sony E mount range and the Fuji X mount plus Olympus / Panasonic m4/3 and I didn’t want to go down that route because there are too many tempting lenses.

Fuji lenses have great reputation, but also great cost. And the lens catalog of Fuji, or even of M4/3, is nothing like the endless bounty we enjoy in Pentax. As for Olympus. . . I bought an OM-D E-M5 and fell in love with it, and then I fell out with it. It'll be showing up on eBay real soon now.

Interestingly enough there now appears to be a Pentax to Fuji X adapter which will allow use of the DA lenses without aperture ring but I could not find enough information to evaluate it.

I've looked into that, and honestly it's tempting. I'm not ruling it out sometime in the future. I looked at the Sony A7 in that context as well. Personally, I wouldn't attempt to adapt modern lenses, like the DA series. If you lose most of the modern functions anyhow, then it seems better to adapt "vintage glass" that is manual focus by design, no electronics, and often very cheap to acquire.

However. . . I can use those same lenses on a Pentax and have full aperture control and image stabilization, and I can do it for less money. With that in mind, I've settled on a new Pentax K-S2. It'll be here in a few days, and I'm quite excited for it. They're calling it the smallest weather-sealed DSLR ever, but it'll be my big camera for those situations where the Q7's ultra-portability isn't needed.

I've also thought about getting a spare Q7 body, but I keep thinking I should wait for the next model. It can't be too far off, right?

On looking through the Q’s images on this forum I have been surprised at the number of shots taken with the 03 fisheye, which I had thought was in the “toy” group, I shall have to think about that lens again.

It's toy-ish. It's tiny and cheap and. . . not bad, really. It's possible to take some good photos with it. However, if you could compare it with the Samyang fisheye that I got for the OM-D, the difference is like night and day. That's a gem.

[PenPusher]

However. . . I can use those same lenses on a Pentax and have full aperture control and image stabilization, and I can do it for less money. With that in mind, I've settled on a new Pentax K-S2. It'll be here in a few days, and I'm quite excited for it. They're calling it the smallest weather-sealed DSLR ever, but it'll be my big camera for those situations where the Q7's ultra-portability isn't needed.

Not sure about the K-S2 being the smallest ever, it is slightly smaller than my K200D and 12g lighter and of course the CMOS sensor is way bigger but I also have a K7 with a CMOS sensor (which is not good above 800 ISO but otherwise fine). It's probably just me but I think the CCD sensor on the K200D gives a "smoother", for want of a better word, image.

The trouble is I have too many Pentax lenses including Takumars and other M42 models, and I keep looking at e-bay and wondering what this one will be like and oops there's another vintage one on the shelf behind me to choose from. Funnily enough the ones I get the most enjoyment out of are the 50 - 58mm focal lengths, a focal length I absolutely hated on film, I think it must be the 25mm or so of extra focal length on APS-C that has made the difference. Of the DA LTD's the 40mm is my favourite and I often wish there was a 100 or 135mm in the LTD series because it would probably be small and lightweight, I find all these electric motors etc, unnecessary just adding weight, but then I shot manual focus film for 50years or so and some people might think I'm biased.

What I do find though is that it is much harder, even with magnification and focus peaking, to manually focus on a screen than it is with a SLR or DSLR viewfinder, not so much when on a tripod but when hand held, but then of course the original purpose of 35mm photography was to provide a mobile lightweight alternative to plate cameras which adding a tripod to a 35mm derivative kind of negates. So for the time being I'll probably stick with the Q series native autofocus lenses until a new model with some kind of EVF arrives.

By the way I acquired an 01 on e-bay last night for €78 plus postage, should arrive sometime next week.

Just the usual foolish thoughts.

[Tony Belding]

Not sure about the K-S2 being the smallest ever, it is slightly smaller than my K200D and 12g lighter and of course the CMOS sensor is way bigger but I also have a K7 with a CMOS sensor (which is not good above 800 ISO but otherwise fine). It's probably just me but I think the CCD sensor on the K200D gives a "smoother", for want of a better word, image.

I've got a K100D to compare it with, when it arrives, so that should be interesting. I just think it's peculiar that perceptions of what is a big camera, or what is a small camera, are so fluid and vary so much by context and from person to person.

What I do find though is that it is much harder, even with magnification and focus peaking, to manually focus on a screen than it is with a SLR or DSLR viewfinder. . .

This also seems to be the subject of a lot of widely varying opinions. Some people say focus peaking is awesome sauce, while others call it useless. I know on the Q7 it works much better in conjunction with magnification, which was counter-intuitive to me. Regardless of that, I've found the Q7's autofocus among the most dependable I've used, which means I haven't had much call to practice manual focus with it.

As for the K-S2, I'm reserving the option to put a split-prism focusing screen in it. I'll see if I can get by without one first. I found that manual focus on a 35mm film SLR isn't necessarily as quick-and-easy as I remember either, but I don't know if that's a case of nostalgia or that my eyes just aren't what they used to be, or maybe a little of both.

[Mikesul]

Focus peeking can be useful but magnification is the most helpful. It is very reliable but takes a little more time than peeking. This is another reason it would be a major upgrade if a new Q model came out with a higher resolution screen or built in EVF.

[UncleVanya]

PenPusher, the DFA 100 is quite "limited like" in size. It is a nice compact package that delivers fantastic IQ.

[reh321]

Not sure about the K-S2 being the smallest ever, it is slightly smaller than my K200D and 12g lighter and of course the CMOS sensor is way bigger but I also have a K7 with a CMOS sensor (which is not good above 800 ISO but otherwise fine). It's probably just me but I think the CCD sensor on the K200D gives a "smoother", for want of a better word, image.

Is "smoother" an opposite of "sharp"? I know that the scanned Kodachrome 25 slides I took with my Super Program are less sharp than the images I took using the same lens on my K-30, but the scanned film images feel smoother. Is it possible for one camera/sensor to produce both??

[pacerr]

... I'll probably stick with the Q series native autofocus lenses Just the usual foolish thoughts.

Not so silly, 'pusher. Your backstory parallels mine - and I suspect a lot more folks today too.

My "normal" lens on Spotmatics was an SMC 85/1.8 for over three decades -- the fast 50's replaced it on APS-C.

Never even owned anything wider than 35mm til the cropped sensors arrived.
And older eyes, mirrorless LCD screens and a bit of nerve damage to my 'focusing hand' have pointed me toward the Q7 and a new-found reliance on its AF lenses for fun shooting. That's freed up some old friends (Adaptall SP's like the 01, 52, 83, 30 and 360 and SMC-M's) to brighten the future of younger photo-gophers.

[PenPusher]

My "normal" lens on Spotmatics was an SMC 85/1.8 for over three decades -- the fast 50's replaced it on APS-C.

Back again, my normal lens was a 24mm on an Olympus OM10, mainly because I was in construction and needed photos to avoid spending hours, usually in the rain, sketching building details and probably leaving the most important one out. This of course concentrated my mind on "getting everything in" and any thought of composition went out the window, family photos ?, how are ya, any suggestion and the "she who must be obeyed" and kids were long gone.

Is "smoother" an opposite of "sharp"?

I honestly don't know, it's just a feeling I have.

PenPusher, the DFA 100 is quite "limited like" in size. It is a nice compact package that delivers fantastic IQ.

A nice lens but if I remember correctly it's a good bit heavier and bigger than my M100 F2.8 and an awful lot more expensive.

[UncleVanya]

The DFA 100 is 340g which is another 100+ grams over the M100. The DA 35 macro OS about the same weight as the M100.

[p38arover]

Oddly enough, I'm thinking about dumping the Q and just staying with the K. I thought I'd like to have a pocket camera but I find I very rarely use it. It's got a shutter count of only 1230.

I just haven't managed to meld with the Q. I hate using a screen, it's hopeless in bright sunlight (the norm around here) and I need to wear glasses to view it. I like a viewfinder with the adjustable dioptre.

I'm giving it one more chance tomorrow when I go into Sydney for the K-1 launch. I'm not taking the K-5 and I'll use the Q for some general pix around Sydney's Rocks and Circular Quay. If it doesn't work for me, it's going onto eBay.

[Biro]

Just an FYI, Amazon U.S. has the Q-S1 body listed for $229. That's brand-new with warranty from Amazon herself. Two left right now, though.

http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-PENTAX-Q-S1-Black-Mirrorless/dp/B00MRX3YW4/ref=...ntax+q-s1+body

[pacerr]

I hate using a screen, it's hopeless in bright sunlight (the norm around here) and I need to wear glasses to view it. I like a viewfinder with the adjustable dioptre.

Absolutely agree - but, it's the only complete system I can stuff in a fanny-pack and still have room left over for a beer and a sandwich.

Like THEY say, "size counts"!

[UncleVanya]

Absolutely agree - but, it's the only complete system I can stuff in a fanny-pack and still have room left over for a beer and a sandwich.

Like THEY say, "size counts"!

Complete system = ?
Several m4/3 kits might be close.

[reh321]

Is "smoother" an opposite of "sharp"? I know that the scanned Kodachrome 25 slides I took with my Super Program are less sharp than the images I took using the same lens on my K-30, but the scanned film images feel smoother.

I honestly don't know, it's just a feeling I have.

My general sense is that our values have changed in recent years, that we valued a certain smoothness in the days of film, but today needle sharpness {a term I use to evoke images of addiction} is the be-all and end-all. Frankly, I tend to enjoy the smoothness more myself.

---------- Post added 05-09-16 at 12:47 PM ----------

Oddly enough, I'm thinking about dumping the Q and just staying with the K. I thought I'd like to have a pocket camera but I find I very rarely use it. It's got a shutter count of only 1230.

I guess this is why there are so many different models out there - we all have different needs and expectations. As I have commented several times here, over the past year, I myself have taken more pictures with my Q-7 than with my K-30 {but I'm also a low-volume photographer; the total count for both cameras over that time is less what you've done with the Q alone}

I just haven't managed to meld with the Q. I hate using a screen, it's hopeless in bright sunlight (the norm around here) and I need to wear glasses to view it. I like a viewfinder with the adjustable dioptre.

Yeah, I agree 100% with that, which is why I have both a compact genuine Hoodman and a Hoodman clone.

---------- Post added 05-09-16 at 12:49 PM ----------

Complete system = ?
Several m4/3 kits might be close.

My "complete" Q system could be a Q7+01+06 - that would equal the capability I had in 1995 when I retired my Super Program + 50mm + 75-205mm