[Ubuntu_user]

Are we able to use back the current kit lens 18-55mm, DA35 f2.4 and the FA43 f1.9 into this high end PnS Q system??

An adapter from Q mount to K mount has not been announced yet. We're not sure wether they will release such a mount or not.

[epqwerty]

Even if an adapter did exist which it undoubtly will via 3rd party companies. I can't see the K mount be adapted to work with AF capabilities. It would be manual focus and aperture would probably have some troubles to adapt.

[eddie1960]

Even if an adapter did exist which it undoubtly will via 3rd party companies. I can't see the K mount be adapted to work with AF capabilities. It would be manual focus and aperture would probably have some troubles to adapt.

Aperture would be fixed wide open unless it's an m42 lens is my guess
also focal length equivalents get silly (a 200 f 4 becomes equivalent to an 1120 with a DOF equivalent to f22
Even a 50 1.2 becomes a large telephoto (280) but the DOF is equivalent to f 6.7 so there may actually be some bokeh off it (actually i can think of situations where it would be nice with my Tak 55 1.8 mounted - like when i have to hold a camera and big lens over my head at something to get the shot - way easier with this little thing and a 55 )

[jogiba]

If they get the price down to $375 with standard zoom lens like my GH1 w/14-42 zoom I will buy it.

[macTak]

Aperture would be fixed wide open unless it's an m42 lens is my guess

I'm sure they could make the adaptor such that the aperture lever was always actuated, and hense the lens would function like an M42 lens in manual.

[liukaitc]

well, think it over and over, I just feel a lx5 would be more appealing overall.

[Pentaxians]

Thanks for the reply. Likely will still play around with my Kx for the time being.

[mattdm]

I suspect that to entice the mass market retail consumer it will need to drop by a lot more than that. The average consumer takes pictures with their cell phone and posts them in all their glory on FB or another web site. The don't know quality from a hole in the ground.

This is exactly why the camera is priced as it is. It is not meant to be fore the "mass market retail consumer" who doesn't "know quality from a hole in the ground". It is intended to be a luxury/niche/cult item, and clearly signaling with the price that it's not for "the average consumer" is on purpose.

[Blue]

I think a lot of people felt that way when Pentax started releasing colorful DSLRS... look where it's gone—it's probably kept Pentax going.

Well, those "colorful" dSLR were as capable as the usual black ones. I don't see this camera outperforming the LX5 or whatever its successor ends up being. I think it could be a success but I think the price is a big problem. However catching a niche or fad requires a pitch and swing.

[Blue]

This is exactly why the camera is priced as it is. It is not meant to be fore the "mass market retail consumer" who doesn't "know quality from a hole in the ground". It is intended to be a luxury/niche/cult item, and clearly signaling with the price that it's not for "the average consumer" is on purpose.

That crowd may be looking at the X100 and similar with a bigger sensor if that is the case, maybe even one of the Sigma aps-c models if they do no quality from a hole in the ground. I had kind of expected some sort of interchangeable mini-cam a la auto 110 concept but expected a bigger sensor.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

At the current $799 it's a bit expensive, but if the price would come closer to that of the competition, do you think Pentax would be in business with this whole idea?

But what is its competition? Sounds like it's defined by price or the interchangeable lenses capability rather than size, which is the feature that I think is the most appealing in this system.

This is a point & shoot built to extremely high standards. And in America, sadly, we seem to only want cheap. If this gets to retailer shelves it will be in the case with a dozen P&S cameras at half the cost. Few will care about changeable lens or build quality. They will see $699 or whatever, and take the $299 P&S which is "just as good" or the much "bigger" DSLR which gives "more" camera for the same price.

Right: it is not designed for the US market. I am glad it is at least meant to become available in the US.

That crowd may be looking at the X100 and similar with a bigger sensor if that is the case, maybe even one of the Sigma aps-c models if they do no quality from a hole in the ground.

Yes, some of the crowd will do that. But then they are not the ones interested in a small size camera. The X100 is not a compact camera. It is a totally different camera than the Q. And there is nothing else similar to the X100 on the market either. Both the Q and the X100 are unique - they are not alternatives to one another.

[Fontan]

With the exchange rate being what it is today, Japanese products will seem relatively speaking more expensive.

[Blue]

. . .


Yes, some of the crowd will do that. But then they are not the ones interested in a small size camera. The X100 is not a compact camera. It is a totally different camera than the Q. And there is nothing else similar to the X100 on the market either. Both the Q and the X100 are unique - they are not alternatives to one another.

And you ignored the post where I mentioned the LX5 and it is not only compact but has a bigger sensor.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

And you ignored the post where I mentioned the LX5 and it is not only compact but has a bigger sensor.

As compact as the LX5 is, it is also larger and heavier than the Q. Yes, it is smaller than the X100. But it is not smaller than the S95. The LX5 sensor is also rated below that of the S95. I take the S95 as the high standard of the moment and the Q looked good to me in the ISO 3200 comparison against the S95. So the only thing that the other compact cameras have going for them is their lower price. But then again, they're different cameras, built of different materials and with different features, so I don't think their price is relevant, because none of them provides the same formula of features that the Q does.

[Blue]

As compact as the LX5 is, it is also larger and heavier than the Q. Yes, it is smaller than the X100. But it is not smaller than the S95. The LX5 sensor is also rated below that of the S95. I take the S95 as the high standard of the moment and the Q looked good to me in the ISO 3200 comparison against the S95. So the only thing that the other compact cameras have going for them is their lower price. But then again, they're different cameras, built of different materials and with different features, so I don't think their price is relevant, because none of them provides the same formula of features that the Q does.

You left out bigger sensor and the LX 5 is 1.5 years old and the Q isn't even on the shelf yet. The LX5 is plenty small. I think Pentax could have hit the ball out of the park had the used a bigger sensor. Maybe they can get a triple out of it. This is too much for a base hit.