[rawr]

There is still scope for sensor tech improvements within the existing size of the Q sensor.

APS-C sensor size hasn't changed for years, but look at the IQ difference between a K-10 and a K-5IIs. Ditto for micro 4/3 or FF.

There must be a performance ceiling with any digital sensor size, but technology keeps pushing the envelope. Just look at what is happening with mobile phone cameras.

[alliumnsk]

There is still scope for sensor tech improvements within the existing size of the Q sensor.

APS-C sensor size hasn't changed for years, but look at the IQ difference between a K-10 and a K-5IIs. Ditto for micro 4/3 or FF.

There must be a performance ceiling with any digital sensor size, but technology keeps pushing the envelope. Just look at what is happening with mobile phone cameras.

cellphone sensor sizes used to be small but INCREASED, now many of cellphones use 1/2.3" and some 1/1.6" or 1/1.2"

---------- Post added 06-12-14 at 11:59 PM ----------

Don't think there is a a Sony conspiracy selling Pentax Q sensors.

how do you know? Sony doesn't sell sensors freely. Or else electronics hobbyists would have made a camera module long time ago.
There was speculation that Nikon bought exclusive rights for sensors in D600 and D800 for two years.
Nikon doesn't sell spare parts freely etc. etc.

[audiobomber]

Question: Does anyone know the theoretical maximum sensor size that would be covered with the current Q system lenses/mount?

When the Q first appeared, there was a rumour that the system was designed to accommodate a 1/1.6" sensor. Vignetting on the fractionally smaller Q7's 1/1.7" sensor seems to bear that out. Pentax doesn't design sensors, so have to use what is available at the time. The 1/1.6" size is pretty rare, I don't think anyone is currently using that size.

[ElJamoquio]

I did the analysis once (max distance before interference with contacts). I forgot the answer I came up with. I think the answer was somewhere less than 1". You could likely shoehorn a 1" in there if you off-centered the lens, which of course would just look stupid.

1" would've been nice but Pentax would've likely made the lenses larger rather than try to market a slower, smaller lens. That of course wouldn't jive with the Pentax persona, which is 'a fun little camera'.

As others have mentioned there are plenty of other slightly-larger-cameras that have larger sensors, if that's what you need.

[alliumnsk]

1" sensor does fit without offcentering. Here is the help for %censored%: ruler, 14x10 mm sheet of paper put into Pentax Q body.
of course, none existsing Q-lenses cover 1", but Sony did have many more E-mount lenses (than there are Q lenses now) when they introduced FF E-mount.
oops, sorry, the scales are 1 mm on the ruler, but numbers are twice as much. but still the paper sheet is 14x10, it was cut from paper with 5x5 mm cells

[ElJamoquio]

Well there you go. Thanks.

[Biro]

I remember reading a while ago that the original Q was designed for either a 1/1.6" or 1/1.7" sensor - but didn't get one because none of the available sensors in that size would do high-definition video. So the original Q was given a 1/2.3" sensor until technology caught up. As for some conspiracy on the part of Sony, that's almost laughable. Sony's sensor division is separate from its camera division and will do business with anyone willing to pay the price they want to get. Meanwhile, I don't think there'll be another sensor-size bump for the Q. But it's pretty clear a 2/3 sensor would work - and only Fuji is using that size these days.