Originally posted by Fogel70 Where I live the Pentax 02 zoom cost the same as Olympus 14-42 PZ, and the Sony 16-50 PZ is 30% cheaper than the other two.
Yes I have tested Q and it's a nice camera, but my point was about size of the lenses.
Yeah, the 02 is somewhat big for what it is. But the other lenses are fine. Users have asked for years an updated standard lens, smaller or with at least a constant aperture, but obviously this will never happens.
The 01, 03, 06 and 08 are all small and lightweight. The 06 is particurlay interesting: small size, good reach, and 2.8 constant aperture... To have the same reach and luminosity in 4/3, you need the 1300$ Pana 35-100 2.8, which is a significantly larger and weightier lens and cost more than Q system with all available lenses... And I'm not even looking at the Sony system...
For the 08, you have to look at the 700$ Olympus 9-18 (or one of the 4-14), which are all more sigificantly bulkier and heavier than the 08 (75g for an UWA is hard to beat!). For Sony, you will have to look at the 10-18, which is large and heavy in comparison.
And although the 03 isn't the greatest lens around, at 25g, about the size of a Coke bottle screw cap, and less than 100$, it just is too small and cheap not to carry around. There's nothing in 43, and even less in APS-C, that's even near that small size and weight for a fisheye lens. And all will cost you much more than 100$.
Once you start the carry a few lenses, the difference in size of the Q system become really obvious. And it's certainly not a costly system relative to a m43 or APS-C mirrorless once you go out of the kit lens. To give you an idea, in a bag design to hold a m43 body an a lens, I carry my Q and 4 lenses with an additional battery pack and a polarizer filter... To have the same capabalities with a m43 or a Sony APS-C, I would have had to carry a bag almost as big as the one I use for my DSLR...