[barondla]

The Q has one of the shortest register mount distances of any interchangeable lens camera. I've always thought of it, and other mirrorless cameras, as being like a rangefinder camera. In actuality, the Q has a fairly long register distance of 9.2mm for its 6.16 x 4.62 sensor size. This is caused by the guard in front of the sensor.

What if Pentax makes the next Q a DSLR? That would supply the viewfinder so many want. It would also reinforce Pentax's commitment to make slr camera's. The mirrorless crowd would go crazy!

Thanks,
barondla

[stevebrot]

What if Pentax makes the next Q a DSLR?

They will need to increase the flange focal distance to accommodate the mirror. I.e. abandon the Q mount.


Steve

[tvdtvdtvd]

But, why? The only thing the Q really needs is a viewfinder and that can be added while keeping it mirrorless. The future of the Q is already uncertain, at best. The prospect of a completely reengineered Q, incompatible with previous models is highly unlikely.

[Michail_P]

It’s good to have a mirrorless mount , it has its fans. Not all slrs are suitable for everyday shooting. The last 3-4 bodies are a little towards the heavy side. Pentax has shown some serious improvement capabilities with the SLR section. Maybe there’s room for the Q to grow.

[photoptimist]

Cool idea.

The 9.2 mm flange focal distance probably does have enough space for a 4.6mm mirror although the space is pretty tight. One concept that might help is a left-right (or up/down) sliding mirror rather than a flipping mirror (there would be plenty of room inside the camera for such a tiny mirror assembly).

One issue, though might be the dimness of the OVF -- small lenses don't gather a lot of light although a well-designed focus screen and pentaprism could help.

[jumbleview]

Slightly bigger size (to accommodate bigger battery) and adjustable LCD screen is all what I need from Q. But let us be realistic Q suffers the same fate as Nikon 1: discontinued product.

[lytrytyr]

That would supply the viewfinder so many want.

These days, whenever I need to shoot while wearing a mask, an eye-level viewfinder is the last thing I want.
It just steams up as the warm exhaled air condenses on the cold glass of the eyepiece.

I think the major problem with reviving the Q is that it was a Hoya product with outsourced lenses, not a Ricoh developed line.


I think the Q mount has some real potential, there is nothing else quite like it, but the market for all cameras has collapsed and

it is just too much a niche product.

The Q has one of the shortest register mount distances of any interchangeable lens camera. I've always thought of it, and other mirrorless cameras, as being like a rangefinder camera. In actuality, the Q has a fairly long register distance of 9.2mm for its 6.16 x 4.62 sensor size. This is caused by the guard in front of the sensor.

What if Pentax makes the next Q a DSLR? That would supply the viewfinder so many want. It would also reinforce Pentax's commitment to make slr camera's. The mirrorless crowd would go crazy!

Thanks,
barondla

Well, it won't be a Q then! That they withdraw from the photo scene is much more likely than making a Q-DSLR. If I look back I notice that they stopped making compacts and bridge camera's, they stopped making Q models, so chances are that they will make APS-C and FF and maybe, maybe another mid format, but I doubt they even will do that.

[D1N0]

What if they make it full frame?

[kwb]

Technically interesting, but I'll add to photoptimist's point about dimness, the view will be tiny AND dim. 1/1.7" sensor is twice as small as 110 film in linear dimension. Of course you can optically magnify by a factor of 2 but then your view will be dimmer by a factor of 4. Joy of photography and tinier dimmer VF don't seem to go together.

The 9.2 mm flange focal distance probably does have enough space for a 4.6mm mirror although the space is pretty tight. One concept that might help is a left-right (or up/down) sliding mirror rather than a flipping mirror (there would be plenty of room inside the camera for such a tiny mirror assembly).

Sounds cool but that won't work for 1/1.7" sensor.
Lens' end of the bayonet mechanism sticks into the camera by about 4mm. Rear elements are recessed from the bottom of the lens but not that much (let's say 2mm maximum). So we're NOT talking about 9.2mm space, we're talking about 5.2mm from the sensor to the lens' bottom, and 7.2mm or smaller from the sensor to the rear element.

OTOH 1/1.7" sensor is 5.7mm high which also defines the absolute minima for the depth of the mirror box. 5.7mm>5.2mm, so the bottom edge of the mirror will hit the lens' bayonet flange when the mirror moves to the side.

Conventional flip mechanism won't work either. The mirror height should be at least a factor of sqrt(2) larger than that of the sensor, i.e. 8mm. The resting place for the mirror during exposure needs to be at least 8mm deep. But 8mm>7.2mm, there's no space deep enough above or below the sensor.

So OVF=new mount and larger body.

[barondla]

Well, it won't be a Q then! That they withdraw from the photo scene is much more likely than making a Q-DSLR. If I look back I notice that they stopped making compacts and bridge camera's, they stopped making Q models, so chances are that they will make APS-C and FF and maybe, maybe another mid format, but I doubt they even will do that.

Did they stop making compacts? Ricoh still sells the underwater camera's. They just replaced Pentax with Ricoh. The Theta is also darn compact. How

---------- Post added 11-26-20 at 03:32 PM ----------

Cool idea.

The 9.2 mm flange focal distance probably does have enough space for a 4.6mm mirror although the space is pretty tight. One concept that might help is a left-right (or up/down) sliding mirror rather than a flipping mirror (there would be plenty of room inside the camera for such a tiny mirror assembly).

One issue, though might be the dimness of the OVF -- small lenses don't gather a lot of light although a well-designed focus screen and pentaprism could help.

Agree with you that viewfinder dimness could be a hurdle. It would take some engineering to overcome for sure.

---------- Post added 11-26-20 at 03:36 PM ----------

Technically interesting, but I'll add to photoptimist's point about dimness, the view will be tiny AND dim. 1/1.7" sensor is twice as small as 110 film in linear dimension. Of course you can optically magnify by a factor of 2 but then your view will be dimmer by a factor of 4. Joy of photography and tinier dimmer VF don't seem to go together.


Sounds cool but that won't work for 1/1.7" sensor.
Lens' end of the bayonet mechanism sticks into the camera by about 4mm. Rear elements are recessed from the bottom of the lens but not that much (let's say 2mm maximum). So we're NOT talking about 9.2mm space, we're talking about 5.2mm from the sensor to the lens' bottom, and 7.2mm or smaller from the sensor to the rear element.

OTOH 1/1.7" sensor is 5.7mm high which also defines the absolute minima for the depth of the mirror box. 5.7mm>5.2mm, so the bottom edge of the mirror will hit the lens' bayonet flange when the mirror moves to the side.

Conventional flip mechanism won't work either. The mirror height should be at least a factor of sqrt(2) larger than that of the sensor, i.e. 8mm. The resting place for the mirror during exposure needs to be at least 8mm deep. But 8mm>7.2mm, there's no space deep enough above or below the sensor.

So OVF=new mount and larger body.

Excellent explanation of the design hurdles that would have to be addressed. What if the mirror didn't move and it was a SLT? What if it a 2 part mirror like Bronica used?

Thanks,
barondla

[Lowell Goudge]

Before the Q, I used a Kodak 7590( I think) bridge camera as my compact.

Like the q it was a good technical camera, but it at least had an electronic eye level view finder. A Q with today’s sensor technology and an EVF would be perfect, but if and only if there was a lens good for birding. Just think, give a 300F4 on the Q with in body stabilization and the 5x format multiplier and you would have a 1500/4. , hmmm maybe I should mount my DA 560 on the K-q adaptor?

It has me thinking........

"Did they stop making compacts? Ricoh still sells the underwater camera's. They just replaced Pentax with Ricoh. The Theta is also darn compact. How" To be honest: They are all Ricoh camera's. Pentax is just a name on a camera, nothing more, nothing less. Pentax does not exist as a manufacturer anymore. It says Ricoh either on the back or the bottom, and before that it said Hoya. What I said was that Pentax does not make camera's, it is Ricoh that makes them. And they make good camera's, but they are not Pentax. You put it right: Ricoh sells (and manufactures) compacts and underwater camera's and some of them used to be a model with the name Pentax on. They said/wrote it somewhere in the introductions for the K-3 III, Pentax is Ricoh's brandname for DSLR's. And the Theta is compact, but was never associated with Pentax, because it is developed for the business side of Ricoh and aimed at the property business, so they claim on their website.

[clackers]

Compact cameras have been smashed in the market, and Ricoh shut down its factory that made them.

Some companies hang on by making them premium items - the Sony RX100 is $1100 - will Pentaxians really pay that for a Q with a viewfinder? A $100 loupe would seem a better idea.