Originally posted by Aristophanes Don't be daft. There is no way that Pentax, invested a;ready in the more mainstream and better quality IQ of APS-C, is going to slide dow the slippery slope of joining M43. no one would waste the optical effort of making the FA Ltd's adapted to M43. That would be a shame, wasting all that optical goodness.
The Q aims at the high-end P&S and bridge camera areas which still sells now that compacts are stalled due to phone/camera integration. This is the 110 all over again.
There is almost certain to be an APS-C mirrorless from Pentax in the Fall, or maybe even earlier. Saying it like Pentax went Q instead of M43 is flat out deceptive.
I agree that not going the M43 route is a wise decision for Pentax, but not for the quality reasons that you state. My GH2 was quite unexpectedly the equal of my K20d, so much so that I sold the K20d. With an adapter, the GH2 has taken some nice photos with the DA70 Limited, the DA35 Macro Limited, and even an old M50/F1.7. And while M43 may lag behind APS-C, I have every reason to believe that there will eventually be a GH3 or GH4 that is in terms of IQ the equal of the K-5. If it will take breaking laws of physics to get there, please enlighten me. Seriously.
So if Pentax is satisfied designing lenses like the DA Limiteds for the likes of the K20d, I could also see them being satisfied designing nice glass for M43.
My reasons for thinking that Pentax should stay away from M43 has been informed by some very good discussions here, and is based not on the bodies but rather on the glass. Removing the mirror helps make the cameras much smaller, but are M43 lenses significantly smaller than their APS-C counterparts? I'm not sure they are. So the diminutive GF3 with a long or bright zoom will look just as ungainly as the Sony NEX with a long or bright zoom.
The recently announced Q suggests that Pentax might have been thinking along similar lines. Initial impressions aside, we'll just have to wait and see if they went too small, or just right.