[Barry Pearson]

Yes, without any AF-support of course. I doubt that many people would buy current Nikon or Canon lenses to use with manual focus on a Pentax body if Pentax was selling a similar AF-lens.

If Pentax' backwards compatibility, such as it is, is a selling point now, surely this would be too...

Thanks. On reflection, I think I asked the wrong question, perhaps from envy at some of the Canon and Nikon lenses I often stand next to at events.

I think a better question concerns Sigma lenses. Looking at their catalogue, they don't provide some useful lenses in Pentax mount, and I fear that this is the trend. But they provide all their lenses (where relevant) in Sigma mount. It would be useful to be able to use that entire range - but with full automation. It would presumably need a special adapter, and I don't know if such an adapter would even be theoretically possible.

[Barry Pearson]

When discussing the possability of a new small sensor mount I was in favor for joining the m4/3 group. That turned out into Q at that time. But that was almost in a different era, since we know see the photograpic world changing fast.

Yes, I was once in favour of Pentax support of m4/3. But that would just be competing with themselves! (I even bought a Panasonic GF1 as a "compact" camera, and it now sits in its box waiting for me to decide what to do with it).

Now I have a Q and I'm building up that as a separate system from my K system, to be used on different occasions. I want all my lens investment in both systems to be valuable as part of the Ricoh/Pentax future.

But that doesn't mean that future Pentax cameras that support all my K-mount lenses should be restricted to just the lenses that can be supported by current Pentax cameras. There are opportunities like those being discussed here to break out of that limitation.

[Barry Pearson]

Would be a disaster. For Pentax glass is money. Other glass on their bodies steals the bulk of Pentax as an optical company.

Yes. This is a dilemma faced by companies in various fields that are not market leaders and can't provide the same range of products as the market leaders. (My experience of this was in the computer industry, working for a company that was trying to compete with IBM etc, at first with proprietary interfaces, then later with open interfaces).

Do you restrict what can be added to your system to your own products where possible, to maintain your revenues from your products? But that will tend to make your system less attractive, because it limits the total range of what it can do.

Or do you allow it to be a more open system, able to sell more basic systems but accepting that you are going to lose some (but not all) sales of the extra components. I think Ricoh/Pentax is mostly in this category.

[Barry Pearson]

You go mirrorless for size. I remember when Olympus 43 was all about the benefits of telecentricity. Very popular for birders. Don't hear that much with the m43 marketing.

That isn't the only reason that people go for mirrrorless. More importantly, it isn't the only reason that camera makers go for mirrorless, in spite of doubts among their users.

Here is a recent article with a provocative title "The demise of the DSLR" but making some useful points about both users and makers. The comments are worth reading too.

[Neo_]

FWIW to me the Rocoh way at the current time looks like a good sleep...

[Uluru]

FWIW to me the Rocoh way at the current time looks like a good sleep...

Shhh, you may sound like an infidel non-believer.

[RonHendriks1966]

How would that work - is it for those already having Leica lenses but missing a camera, or do you think people would run to pay 1639 euro for a 50mm f/2.5?
Hijacking another company's mount in order to get access to expensive lenses (25, but only 10 different FLs closely grouped together) is hardly an advantage, and Pentax would gain nothing over e.g. Sony NEX (which can use Leica M lenses, but not natively) this way.

Anyway, you said "lot of benefits" - others, please? More substantial than "Pentax needs to sell Leica lenses", preferably.

There are 15 more lenses from Voightlander: Voigtlaender - Die offizielle Homepage - 12mm F5,6 Ultra Wide Heliar priced very differently. So that makes 40 lenses from 12mm up to 135mm available priced from 469 euro to 9199 euro.

With the offering of the FA Limiteds in M-mount, a macro (100mm) and two new Limited lenses (also for K-mount) there is a wide range off lenses for this system. So it won't be cheap, but the luxury brand off Ricoh/Pentax.

It goes the other way around also, selling the Ricoh M-mount camera to users who are not into the current brand.

Sharing development costs is making this project relatively cheap. Inside this camera is a lot off the knowledge that Pentax has for their next line off dslr or even for the next generation 645D. This makes such a project more likely to be profatable.

The biggest gain maybe is to be a camera brand offering a wide range of camera's and lenses for almost every user in the world.

• Pentax snorkelcamera's for holiday's
• Ricoh GR for serious P&S camera's
• Pentax Q-mount for small and convenience
• Pentax K-mount aps-c for amature photographer
• Pentax K-mount FF for the more advanced and professional photographer
• Ricoh M-mount for the luxury brand
• Pentax 645D for professionals and studio work.

[Pande]

Ricoh launched "my Pentax" site and some upgraded lenses, looks like they give Pentax some boost! Good news, hope this will carry on. (and i have been thinking wrong about the politics of Ricoh)

[Mr Spocko]

For me it's just a big price increase from Ricoh.
I'd actually prefer they charged a bit more for the bodies, and less on the lenses to get new users on board.

[lytrytyr]

Now I have a Q and I'm building up that as a separate system from my K system, to be used on different occasions.

With the K-to-Q adapter, I don't regard the two systems as separate.

My Apo-Lanthar 90/3.5 can be a 135mm equivalent on K,
or a 500mm equivalent on the crop-sensor (original) Q.

[Barry Pearson]

With the K-to-Q adapter, I don't regard the two systems as separate.

I agree that they don't have to be regarded as separate systems.

But I have been building my K and Q as separate (self contained) systems. It makes it easier to treat my Q system as a carry-everywhere system.

[monochrome]

I agree that they don't have to be regarded as separate systems.

But I have been building my K and Q as separate (self contained) systems. It makes it easier to treat my Q system as a carry-everywhere system.

Yep! Mentally (and physically) I keep my K>Q adapter stored with my K-mount TC and extension tubes. It is a K-mount accessory in my mind, not a Q accessory.

I carry my Q with the 01 mounted and the 06 in its pocket in a tiny Optio-embossed camera bag in my briefcase.

Trim down to K lenses, a KX, an MZ-S, K-01, a small complement of F and FA lenses and one dSLR body is in process now.

Eventually the F and FA will be just the three FA Limiteds. Nirvana.

[lytrytyr]

Mentally (and physically) I keep my K>Q adapter stored with my K-mount TC and extension tubes. It is a K-mount accessory in my mind, not a Q accessory.

As a chronic late adopter,
I'm still agnostic about the 06 zoom,
so if I want longer than 15mm on my Q,
I have to use the adapter.

[Barry Pearson]

Yep! Mentally (and physically) I keep my K>Q adapter stored with my K-mount TC and extension tubes. It is a K-mount accessory in my mind, not a Q accessory.

I carry my Q with the 01 mounted and the 06 in its pocket in a tiny Optio-embossed camera bag in my briefcase.

Trim down to K lenses, a KX, an MZ-S, K-01, a small complement of F and FA lenses and one dSLR body is in process now.

Eventually the F and FA will be just the three FA Limiteds. Nirvana.

Hm! I can see something interesting there. Thanks!

I could think of my Q system (at least the camera) as part of my K system, (which would include the K to Q converter), because (after all) my Q system is "carry everywhere".

But the K system wouldn't be part of the Q system, because the K system isn't "carry everywhere".

[lytrytyr]

But the K system wouldn't be part of the Q system, because the K system isn't "carry everywhere".

DA 40 XS on the adapter is shorter than the 06 zoom.