How would this affect possibility of K-02?

LensBeginner · 11-28-2015, 10:22 AM

Apart from size, there's weight...
I can feel my neck & shoulders thanking me every time I bring my K-01 instead of my K100Ds, which is not that large, but considerably heavier.

Alizarine · 12-02-2015, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by dansamy

I think the Q series is an excellent foray into mirror less, but I really wish they'd used a larger sensor size.

the Q bodies may not be as small for its sensor compared to the m4/3s and 1"s, but the lens system is significantly smaller. Too bad there won't be more for the Q in the near future as almost all resources seem poured into the FF

**Tony Belding** · 12-03-2015, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Alizarine

the Q bodies may not be as small for its sensor compared to the m4/3s and 1"s, but the lens system is significantly smaller. Too bad there won't be more for the Q in the near future as almost all resources seem poured into the FF

How much resources does it take to re-badge a Tamron lens?

reh321 · 12-03-2015, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Alizarine

the Q bodies may not be as small for its sensor compared to the m4/3s and 1"s, but the lens system is significantly smaller. Too bad there won't be more for the Q in the near future as almost all resources seem poured into the FF

Originally posted by Tony Belding

How much resources does it take to re-badge a Tamron lens?

I don't know what other formats Tamron makes a lens for. Because of the small sensor, a Q-mount lens needs to resolve really well - most of the lenses I've adapted just don't hit each pixel with unique light. It also should be as small as it could be, and the control / electronics for Q is probably unique.

Last edited by reh321; 12-03-2015 at 02:30 PM. Reason: put into context

**Tony Belding** · 12-03-2015, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by reh321

I don't know what other formats Tamron makes a lens for. Because of the small sensor, a Q-mount lens needs to resolve really well - most of the lenses I've adapted just don't hit each pixel with unique light. It also should be as small as it could be, and the control / electronics for Q is probably unique.

I think you missed my point...

I was trying to say that supporting the new full-frame K-1 is not going to require vast "resources" because they can re-badge third party lenses that are already on the market, just like the new Pentax-D FA 24-70mm that is currently featured on the front page here at Pentax Forums. Thus they can conserve those precious "resources" for things that are unique to Pentax: 645 lenses, Limiteds, and Q lenses.

Alizarine · 12-04-2015, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by Tony Belding

I think you missed my point...

I was trying to say that supporting the new full-frame K-1 is not going to require vast "resources" because they can re-badge third party lenses that are already on the market, just like the new Pentax-D FA 24-70mm that is currently featured on the front page here at Pentax Forums. Thus they can conserve those precious "resources" for things that are unique to Pentax: 645 lenses, Limiteds, and Q lenses.

They had to come into a deal with Tamron because they couldn't get more unique lenses ready for the imminent release of the new body. This means Pentax don't have enough time and financing to hold off until an in-house design is released. How else can there be no other developments awaiting announcement? Unless of course Pentax is keeping those under a thick veil of secrecy until a formal reveal has been arranged.

reh321 · 12-31-2015, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Tony Belding

I think you missed my point...

I was trying to say that supporting the new full-frame K-1 is not going to require vast "resources" because they can re-badge third party lenses that are already on the market, just like the new Pentax-D FA 24-70mm that is currently featured on the front page here at Pentax Forums. Thus they can conserve those precious "resources" for things that are unique to Pentax: 645 lenses, Limiteds, and Q lenses.

OK - I thought you were saying that Tamron might re-engineer their 18-270 lens and turn it into a native Q lens.
As a physics minor, I know something about the theory of optics, but I know nothing about practical optics, so I have absolutely no idea whether going from an APS-C lens to a Q lens (which would require a smaller lens, but one that resolves better) would be easier than starting from scratch.

I would love for Pentax to announce something, anything, at CES 2016.
I would love for Pentax to announce a 18-270 native Q lens, or anything for the Q
Maybe all of Pentaxia is so focused on the upcoming FF that no other news can escape from the company.

However, from what I am seeing, the FF effort has sucked up all Pentax energy for now.
I hope that I am wrong.

I am not saying that the FF effort is bad.
I am saying there may be a substantial "opportunity cost" to that effort.

Last edited by reh321; 12-31-2015 at 01:53 PM. Reason: added thoughts

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How would you process this image to bring out the Milky way?	bdery	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	21	02-12-2018 06:13 AM
Sports How would you improve this?	bdery	Photo Critique	11	04-14-2015 07:03 AM
How would you rotate this image?	eccs19	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	17	08-29-2014 02:15 PM
What kind of lights would mess up K-3 WB this much?	panoguy	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	21	11-17-2013 11:29 PM
How would you set up the lighting for this type of portrait?	Brenda Lee	Photographic Technique	9	02-23-2011 03:32 PM

11-28-2015, 10:22 AM	#31
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Apart from size, there's weight... I can feel my neck & shoulders thanking me every time I bring my K-01 instead of my K100Ds, which is not that large, but considerably heavier.

12-02-2015, 07:11 PM	#32
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by dansamy I think the Q series is an excellent foray into mirror less, but I really wish they'd used a larger sensor size. the Q bodies may not be as small for its sensor compared to the m4/3s and 1"s, but the lens system is significantly smaller. Too bad there won't be more for the Q in the near future as almost all resources seem poured into the FF

12-03-2015, 01:13 PM	#33
Tony Belding Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Hamilton, Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 779	Originally posted by Alizarine the Q bodies may not be as small for its sensor compared to the m4/3s and 1"s, but the lens system is significantly smaller. Too bad there won't be more for the Q in the near future as almost all resources seem poured into the FF How much resources does it take to re-badge a Tamron lens?

12-03-2015, 01:47 PM	#34
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,179 Original Poster	Originally posted by Alizarine the Q bodies may not be as small for its sensor compared to the m4/3s and 1"s, but the lens system is significantly smaller. Too bad there won't be more for the Q in the near future as almost all resources seem poured into the FF Originally posted by Tony Belding How much resources does it take to re-badge a Tamron lens? I don't know what other formats Tamron makes a lens for. Because of the small sensor, a Q-mount lens needs to resolve really well - most of the lenses I've adapted just don't hit each pixel with unique light. It also should be as small as it could be, and the control / electronics for Q is probably unique. Last edited by reh321; 12-03-2015 at 02:30 PM. Reason: put into context

12-03-2015, 03:29 PM	#35
Tony Belding Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Hamilton, Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 779	Originally posted by reh321 I don't know what other formats Tamron makes a lens for. Because of the small sensor, a Q-mount lens needs to resolve really well - most of the lenses I've adapted just don't hit each pixel with unique light. It also should be as small as it could be, and the control / electronics for Q is probably unique. I think you missed my point... I was trying to say that supporting the new full-frame K-1 is not going to require vast "resources" because they can re-badge third party lenses that are already on the market, just like the new Pentax-D FA 24-70mm that is currently featured on the front page here at Pentax Forums. Thus they can conserve those precious "resources" for things that are unique to Pentax: 645 lenses, Limiteds, and Q lenses.

12-04-2015, 01:12 AM	#36
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by Tony Belding I think you missed my point... I was trying to say that supporting the new full-frame K-1 is not going to require vast "resources" because they can re-badge third party lenses that are already on the market, just like the new Pentax-D FA 24-70mm that is currently featured on the front page here at Pentax Forums. Thus they can conserve those precious "resources" for things that are unique to Pentax: 645 lenses, Limiteds, and Q lenses. They had to come into a deal with Tamron because they couldn't get more unique lenses ready for the imminent release of the new body. This means Pentax don't have enough time and financing to hold off until an in-house design is released. How else can there be no other developments awaiting announcement? Unless of course Pentax is keeping those under a thick veil of secrecy until a formal reveal has been arranged.

12-31-2015, 01:27 PM	#37
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,179 Original Poster	Originally posted by Tony Belding I think you missed my point... I was trying to say that supporting the new full-frame K-1 is not going to require vast "resources" because they can re-badge third party lenses that are already on the market, just like the new Pentax-D FA 24-70mm that is currently featured on the front page here at Pentax Forums. Thus they can conserve those precious "resources" for things that are unique to Pentax: 645 lenses, Limiteds, and Q lenses. OK - I thought you were saying that Tamron might re-engineer their 18-270 lens and turn it into a native Q lens. As a physics minor, I know something about the theory of optics, but I know nothing about practical optics, so I have absolutely no idea whether going from an APS-C lens to a Q lens (which would require a smaller lens, but one that resolves better) would be easier than starting from scratch. I would love for Pentax to announce something, anything, at CES 2016. I would love for Pentax to announce a 18-270 native Q lens, or anything for the Q Maybe all of Pentaxia is so focused on the upcoming FF that no other news can escape from the company. However, from what I am seeing, the FF effort has sucked up all Pentax energy for now. I hope that I am wrong. I am not saying that the FF effort is bad. I am saying there may be a substantial "opportunity cost" to that effort. Last edited by reh321; 12-31-2015 at 01:53 PM. Reason: added thoughts