Originally posted by Adam The problem is that the interchangeable lens aspect itself isn't that appealing.
Yes. I think the logic of the Q was flawed from the beginning.
All the quality limitations of a PS with all the cost, complication, and hassle of a system camera in a body with no proper way to control composition nor exposure especially during daylight (no VF).
Sure I can get some good results out of the Q but how many prospective Q customers are willing to master shooting RAW ETTR exposures and Photoshop?
See:
The "reach" of the Q - images - Page 81 - PentaxForums.com
I personally think the Q approach might work (ILC) but, at the present state of tech, no smaller than a 1" sensor with a drop dead great Evf such as you might find on a Fuji.
The truth is the Q approach may have some merit but it was implemented by the wrong company - Pentax a dedicated old school SLR company instead of a specialist small format mirroless company like Fuji, Oly, Panasonic or even Sony. Even so, given all that, a small format ILC would probably remain a specialist niche market until sensor tech gets much better than it is now.
At the present state of tech, and I'm no gearhead, I would guess that without a 1" sensor controlled by a proper Evf the Q concept is dead in the water at least here in the States.