[dnas]

I find it odd that you said "It also means I can shoot with just about any lens (Pentax, Minolta, Nikon, Canon FD, Konica, Zeiss, and so on),"
and then you trashed the Q, which can use all those lenses and C mount and D mount lenses. As far as robustness goes, I've had better luck with my Q lenses than with my DAs.. The Q lenses are, admittedly, mostly made of plastic, a design choice made to keep the weight down. I can wear a Q on a wrist strap like a bracelet all day and hardly know its there.


The small sensor size on the Q gives it certain advantages (depth of field, size, weight) over larger formats, all of which require much larger lenses and smaller f-stops to take similar images, even if the bodies are slim. A 75mm f1.4 C-mount lens on a Q7, for example, gives the field of view of a 340mm FF lens with the depth of field of a 75mm at f1.4 and it fits in a jacket pocket. The Q system didn't catch on with consumers because it was too sophisticated, not because it was toy-like.


Small sensors dominate the consumer market, but most of them are in phones and surveillance cameras which have other advantages (and disadvantages.) They won't be going away.


The K-01 was an interesting experiment (I have one) that was released too soon, its sensor was (and remains) great, but many of the refinements you mention weren't available to Pentax at the time. It was done on the cheap–basically a K-30 (I have one) without a mirror, different, but just as usable. Outside of the mode dial popping off, it is a workhorse and the much maligned rubber flap over the SD card slot was a great idea.

I'm talking about the Q sensor being too small for interchangeable lens camera, IMO. (same for the Nikon 1.) Yes, smaller sensors give larger depth of field, but that may be a blessing for some but a curse for others. i.e. One of the benefits of DSLRs and other large sensor cameras is small DOF which gives you that separation and a much more 3D look. Smaller sensors don't give you (as much of) that, and IMO, give a much more toy result.


Even smaller sensors dominate phones, ultrazooms, etc, but with smaller sensors come smaller lenses which have issues with diffractive limit.

In the end, the consumer speaks. In my view, the commercial decisions made by Pentax with both mirrorless lines was wrong. Personally, I'd like to see Pentax release a full frame mirrorless to compete directly with the Sony A7 series. There are a mountain lenses that would work very nicely via a suitable AF adapter.

In the end, the consumer speaks.

Heaven help us all if that is true.

[serothis]

This is a bonkers idea that I posted in the nikon mirrorless thread. But what if Pentax created a MILC body with a new large mount and used that body/mount for both a 35mm FF and a 645 sensor.

[reh321]

I'm talking about the Q sensor being too small for interchangeable lens camera, IMO. (same for the Nikon 1.) Yes, smaller sensors give larger depth of field, but that may be a blessing for some but a curse for others. i.e. One of the benefits of DSLRs and other large sensor cameras is small DOF which gives you that separation and a much more 3D look. Smaller sensors don't give you (as much of) that, and IMO, give a much more toy result.

This is entirely a matter of style - the idea that putting some of the image out-of-focus makes it have a "3D appearance". For fifty years, I have always used smaller apertures - f/8, f/11, etc, because I want the context, as well as the subject, to be in focus. Often I have taken photos of 80' railroad cars or buildings, where one part is much closer to me than another is, and even the subject is in focus only at a smaller aperture. My Q-7 fits this shooting style perfectly.

Even smaller sensors dominate phones, ultrazooms, etc, but with smaller sensors come smaller lenses which have issues with diffractive limit.

People worry too much about diffraction - this goes with our modern addiction to sharpness - I use the term "needle sharp" instead of "razor sharp" to convey this thought. There are other issues to worry about besides sharpness.

[surfar]

This is a bonkers idea that I posted in the nikon mirrorless thread. But what if Pentax created a MILC body with a new large mount and used that body/mount for both a 35mm FF and a 645 sensor.

The glimpses of that Nikon FF m/l certainly looks like it will be big enough for a 645 sensor.That idea has been bandied around a bit and it may happen eventually....With the Pentax track record of 645, one mount for M/L FF and 645 certainly makes $$$ents!

[BearCreek]

Obviously this is an interesting topic; when I first started reading this post, it was at 3 pages, now it's up to 7. By the time I'm done typing, it will be up to 9 or 10.

I commented on this a couple months ago, and I was immediately savaged by Q fans. But I will take a chance and reiterate what I love about my Lumix GX85 and my brand-new G9: being able to see my actual exposure and color balance in the viewfinder (the EVF sucks in the GX85, but is excellent in the G9), and being able to adjust them without removing my eye from the viewfinder. I also have focus peaking in the EVF and can adjust focus without having to take my eye off the subject and look at the rear monitor. Since I have cataracts but love to use my old K mount lenses, this is important and useful to me. Size and weight of mirrorless systems are not factors for me (the G9 is actually larger than my K30 and MEs).

[reh321]

Obviously this is an interesting topic; when I first started reading this post, it was at 3 pages, now it's up to 7. By the time I'm done typing, it will be up to 9 or 10.

I commented on this a couple months ago, and I was immediately savaged by Q fans. But I will take a chance and reiterate what I love about my Lumix GX85 and my brand-new G9: being able to see my actual exposure and color balance in the viewfinder (the EVF sucks in the GX85, but is excellent in the G9), and being able to adjust them without removing my eye from the viewfinder. I also have focus peaking in the EVF and can adjust focus without having to take my eye off the subject and look at the rear monitor. Since I have cataracts but love to use my old K mount lenses, this is important and useful to me. Size and weight of mirrorless systems are not factors for me (the G9 is actually larger than my K30 and MEs).

"Savaged by 'Q' fans"????? I don't see anything by you on the subject in the last couple of months, and this has nothing to do with a 'Q', since unfortunately no 'Q' has an EVF. In fact, I'm not clear on what this has to do with anything Pentax {use of "Quote Reply" would help us to see where you think this fits in}

[photoptimist]

"Savaged by 'Q' fans"????? I don't see anything by you on the subject in the last couple of months, and this has nothing to do with a 'Q', since unfortunately no 'Q' has an EVF. In fact, I'm not clear on what this has to do with anything Pentax {use of "Quote Reply" would help us to see where you think this fits in}

These savage Q fans are known as Q-ligans. And a more dangerous lot you will not find anywhere in all cameradom.

These savage Q fans are known as Q-ligans. And a more dangerous lot you will not find anywhere in all cameradom.

We're the "Davids" to the bigger camera "Goliaths."

[lytrytyr]

The Q system didn't catch on with consumers because it was too sophisticated, not because it was toy-like.

That is one of the most perceptive commentaries on the Q system that I've seen in a long time.

The initial pricing on the original Q, its top-quality construction,
and Pentax' attempt to publicize it with a fashion shoot,
made it clear that they didn't have the consumer market in mind.

[BobSpot]

In the end, the consumer speaks. In my view, the commercial decisions made by Pentax with both mirrorless lines was wrong. Personally, I'd like to see Pentax release a full frame mirrorless to compete directly with the Sony A7 series. There are a mountain lenses that would work very nicely via a suitable AF adapter.

With the Pentax track record of 645, one mount for M/L FF and 645 certainly makes $$$ents!

These are the two important points a top of the line mirrorless and use FF will sell because there are already top quality Zeiss lenses available. On the other hand there are a lot of criticism of A7 & A9 overheating and not being ergonomically easy to use which Pentax can surely fix.

[GeneV]

I also think Pentax is missing the boat by letting the K01 die. The Sony concept is the future, and being able to use my 40 or so K mount lenses without adapters would be fantastic. I have 4 Sony bodies, and have never had overheating issues. The ergonomics are something you get used to. Pentax has the best, but you get to the point where putting down a Pentax and picking up a Sony is no big deal. I personally prefer the Sony bodies over my Nikon.

[reh321]

I also think Pentax is missing the boat by letting the K01 die. The Sony concept is the future, and being able to use my 40 or so K mount lenses without adapters would be fantastic. I have 4 Sony bodies, and have never had overheating issues. The ergonomics are something you get used to. Pentax has the best, but you get to the point where putting down a Pentax and picking up a Sony is no big deal. I personally prefer the Sony bodies over my Nikon.

I basically agree with you. I believe Pentax learned the wrong lesson from the K-01 - Canon learned from the EOS-M that a viewfinder is essential, but Pentax seems to have learned that a mirror is essential. The major difference between DSRL and MILC is the difference between OVF and EVF. From various threads, especially the most recent posts in this thread
Nikon mirrorless teaser? - Page 15 - PentaxForums.com
show that the most involved / vocal PF members have no interest in EVF. My understanding is that EVF is more popular in Japan, but the identity of Pentax seems to be wrapped up in the pentaprism, so I don't expect to see a K-02.

[GeneV]

I basically agree with you. I believe Pentax learned the wrong lesson from the K-01 - Canon learned from the EOS-M that a viewfinder is essential, but Pentax seems to have learned that a mirror is essential. The major difference between DSRL and MILC is the difference between OVF and EVF. From various threads, especially the most recent posts in this thread
Nikon mirrorless teaser? - Page 15 - PentaxForums.com
show that the most involved / vocal PF members have no interest in EVF. My understanding is that EVF is more popular in Japan, but the identity of Pentax seems to be wrapped up in the pentaprism, so I don't expect to see a K-02.

It is all a trade off. There are things I like better about a pentaprism, and I still enjoy my Pentaxes. However, on balance, I’ll take the simplicity of seeing the actual output of the sensor, and I can’t use the back screen well without reading glasses. I also like the focus peaking and magnification better than manually focusing on ground glass without a focus aid. (So sorry Katzeye didn’t make it)

A DSLR basically has three focus systems in three locations and multiple mirrors, some translucent. This is a lot of unnecessary moving parts and chances for misalignment. I think ML is where the technology is going.

[UncleVanya]

It is all a trade off. There are things I like better about a pentaprism, and I still enjoy my Pentaxes. However, on balance, I’ll take the simplicity of seeing the actual output of the sensor, and I can’t use the back screen well without reading glasses. I also like the focus peaking and magnification better than manually focusing on ground glass without a focus aid. (So sorry Katzeye didn’t make it)

A DSLR basically has three focus systems in three locations and multiple mirrors, some translucent. This is a lot of unnecessary moving parts and chances for misalignment. I think ML is where the technology is going.

I've used a number of EVF equipped mirrorless cameras. I have yet to find one that does seem to compress the dynamic range compared to what I will see on a monitor later. Also an optical view seems faster to react - albeit not able to mimic exposure choices. The two are tradeoffs. Back LCD is not as easy as EVF for me - positionally I am disadvantaged to hold a camera steady using rear LCD, sunlight gets in the way etc. Most EVF's and OVF's are harder for me than most people due to glasses and a very high diopter prescription but both can work. The 3 different focus system on a DSLR? Shouldn't it be 4 on some? PDAF optical; CDAF sensor; PDAF Sensor (In theory possible but not implemented yet?) and Optical via eye. Of these two would be directly comparable to the ones on mirrorless. The others are additional options that augment possible capabilities. In an ideal world I'd have a DSLR with a pentaprism that when the mirror flipped up had an EVF that engaged. This would be the best of all worlds in this way. The same camera would have a short registration distance for mirrorless lenses that automatically forced mirror up when used. The adapter for non-mirrorless lenses would allow for mirror up or down and pass full function. The mount would be wide and would permit up to a 645 crop sized chip. Time will tell if this beast comes from anyone.