[Uluru]

Several hours before you posted this, asahi man posted that we will be seeing new developments for the "Q".[COLOR=Silver]

I don't put trust in his prophecies. He knows little to nothing of what the company really does.

Again, see comments already made by asahi man. I Totally disagree with your comments You keep viewing "Q" as competing with MFT; I believe other small sensor cameras, such as the Nikon P-900 and the Canon SX-50 are more properly seen as being in the same niche as the "Q". The next iteration will reveal Pentax's vision.[COLOR=Silver] I

Q is overshadowed by the constant development in the m4/3 world. Panasonic and Olympus constantly invest, develop and constantly improve m4/3 offer in all directions, that makes the Q, today, superfluous on many levels. I don't know what would be situation if Pentax invested more in Q, but the fact they did not waste energy in investing in it seriously, tells a lot too.

The 08 appeals to those thinking as you do, with the "Q" competing with MFT. The "fun" lenses are much less expensive.

One can have fun with poorly made fun lenses, or with good lenses played with in a funny fashion. Whilst the good lens can be fun, fun lens can never be a good lens. The point is, for a good lens for Q one pays same or more than for a m4/3 lens.

This brings us full circle to the question of mission / vision for the "Q"; you used many words in several different areas to address this issue, but I'm not going to waste time addressing an issue we've already talked about.

No it is not a full circle — it is very much open semicircle. The fate of the Q is there somewhere, up in the air, and if the company pulls the plug, it is not entirely unexpected.

---------- Post added 10-05-2016 at 11:35 AM ----------

The body, yes, but bodies alone don't make photographs.
Compare the Panny 35-100mm f/2.8 (10cm long) with the 06 zoom on the Q!

Yes, but look at the quality: 06 virtually falls apart in people's hands. It's very cheaply made. Only lens worth mentioning that it may endure 12 months of fair use is 08 wide lens.
My point was, if the lens was made properly and not cheaply, it would have been bigger, and more expensive. And then, lo and behold, we already have proper m4/3 lenses, made in plenty since 2011.

---

Last edited by Uluru; 10-04-2016 at 05:39 PM.

[reh321]

Q is overshadowed by the constant development in the m4/3 world. Panasonic and Olympus constantly invest, develop and constantly improve m4/3 offer in all directions, that makes the Q, today, superfluous on many levels. I don't know what would be situation if Pentax invested more in Q, but the fact they did not waste energy in investing in it seriously, tells a lot too.

One can have fun with poorly made fun lenses, or with good lenses played with in a funny fashion. Whilst the good lens can be fun, fun lens can never be a good lens. The point is, for a good lens for Q one pays same or more than for a m4/3 lens.

These comments are as irrelevant as ever - the natural comparison for the "Q" family are the Nikon and Canon bridge cameras.

Yes, but look at the quality: 06 virtually falls apart in people's hands. It's very cheaply made. Only lens worth mentioning that it may endure 12 months of fair use is 08 wide lens.
My point was, if the lens was made properly and not cheaply, it would have been bigger, and more expensive. And then, lo and behold, we already have proper m4/3 lenses, made in plenty since 2011.

Huh??
Please document "cheaply made" - what does that mean? How did you establish that??
Who has had one of these lenses fail to perform??
My Q7+01+02+06 is nearly 24 months old, twice your specified time, and all are doing fine.

I have read similar comments about Canon USM lenses, some with plastic mounts, which I personally found to be vastly superior to what Pentax was producing at the same time.
When I switched from Pentax to Canon in 1995, I bought a light-weight plasticky {most of lens, including mount} 50mm lens and used it regularly until I switched to digital in 2007 - and it still worked fine when I moved back to Pentax last year. People here sometimes equate "plastic" with "cheap" and "flimsy", but I've never seen evidence to support that bias.

added comment: I'm expecting future K-mount lenses from Pentax to have less "heft" {mass} to them, as Pentax reduces inertia of focus group members to improve focusing performance.

[Nicolas06]

These comments are as irrelevant as ever - the natural comparison for the "Q" family are the Nikon and Canon bridge cameras.

Q key factors for me are the diminutive size of the interchangeable lens systems. That's what define Q for me. Bridge cameras are often big and always fixed lens. This doesn't target at all the same type of users for me.

Direct competitors that provide both small bodies and interchangeable lenses are:
- m4/3 with for example Olympus Pen serie when used with some compact lenses (like the pancake collapsible zooms and primes)
- Nikon 1 serie (for example Nikon 1J5 is a tiny bit higher, a tiny bit shorter and also narrower than the Q, The 1v3 is a slightly bigger, but not much).
- Sony E serie when used with some compact lenses (like the pancake collapsible zooms and primes)

Among the alternatives, Q has the smallest lenses, but not smaller body than Nikon 1. In term of picture quality, the sensor limit the Q performance. In term of echosytem m4/3 provide both smallish lenses to compete with the Q as well as larger high quality lenses meaning you get the best of both worlds.

Before to compare them to bridge cameras, I would factor in compact cameras serie like RX100 that do provide same typical smallish size.

To me a bridge camera often try to provide reach and telephoto capabilities and are quite big. The more direct comparison for me would be a quite low end reflex (usuably bridge aren't that advanced) with a super zoom like a 16-300 or 18-300. K30 + 18-135 or 18-270 qualify. My father has both a bridge and the K30 + 18-135 and found overall that the effective reach (by cropping) is as good on the K30 + 18-135 but that also, the quality and handling is much better while the AF and reactivity are also in favor of the DSLR. But I guess that's each to its own.

But like it or not people do compare camera that are different and they don't limit themselve to a specific comparison. For you a Q compare to bridge and that's legitimate. For me their compare to other small interchangeable mirrorless to some other they would compare to small compact camera... Why ? Because you first come from your own need and then check what match.

The 2 persons I know that were in the market for a compact camera system still providing some quality pictures gone for some APSC Sony E mount (without EVF) on one side, and an m4/3 on the other side. None ever considered Q. The reflex were considered (for the quality part) but seen very fast in both case as too big and annoying.

So to me this is really were Q compete and among objective limitations like sensor size that could limit its possibilities to be seen as able to provide quality picture by some, the biggest problem is most people are not even aware it exist.

[JPT]

If this rumor is to be believed, a future mirrorless camera would be likely to retain the K-mount, but have classic styling.

More on the rumored Pentax mirrorless camera | Pentax Rumors

This is one I want to believe (not saying I do, because it's very vague). Such a retro camera would compete well against the Fuji retro cameras, and it would already have a ton of relatively small current and legacy lenses available.

[asahi man]

K mount,yes or not.
This is not important,cause the direct use of single lens reflex lenses is not possible.
Same problem like all the other mirrorless.

[Belnan]

K mount,yes or not.
This is not important,cause the direct use of single lens reflex lenses is not possible.
Same problem like all the other mirrorless.

Sure you can as long as the registration distance is the same. if they could re-oragnise some of the electronics from behind the sensor it might not be so thick.

[Kunzite]

Maybe the rumor's source was speculation on this thread? I'm not holding my breath...

[Simen1]

K mount,yes or not.
This is not important,cause the direct use of single lens reflex lenses is not possible.
Same problem like all the other mirrorless.

Mission impossible - accomplished, K-01. I want a retro styled K-02 with EVF!

[Mistral75]

K mount,yes or not.
This is not important,cause the direct use of single lens reflex lenses is not possible.
Same problem like all the other mirrorless.

I don't grasp what you are alluding to. Of course the use of SLR lenses is possible with a mirrorless camera, provided that the appropriate mount contacts are there.

You will loose the autofocus function with screw-driven lenses if there is no motor in the camera. The focus will be hesitant and hunting if the camera only relies on contrast detection autofocus. However, if phase detection autofocus is implemented on the imager and the lens includes a focussing motor, everything will be fine, as can be seen with Sony mirrorless cameras with on-sensor PDAF used with Canon of Canon-mount Sigma lenses and the appropriate adapter (Sigma, Metabones and more).

[D1N0]

I don't grasp what you are alluding to. Of course the use of SLR lenses is possible with a mirrorless camera, provided that the appropriate mount contacts are there.

You will loose the autofocus function with screw-driven lenses if there is no motor in the camera. The focus will be hesitant and hunting if the camera only relies on contrast detection autofocus. However, if phase detection autofocus is implemented on the imager and the lens includes a focussing motor, everything will be fine, as can be seen with Sony mirrorless cameras with on-sensor PDAF used with Canon of Canon-mount Sigma lenses and the appropriate adapter (Sigma, Metabones and more).

He means if the mirrorless has a K-mount, K-mount lenses will not work because of the shorter registration distance. Nothing would be in focus.

[Mistral75]

He means if the mirrorless has a K-mount, K-mount lenses will not work because of the shorter registration distance. Nothing would be in focus.

I don't get it either. K-mount's 45.46mm registration distance is one of the (main) specifications of the Pentax K mount. A mount with the same geometry and contacts but with a different registration distance wouldn't be the K mount.

If the Pentax mirrorless camera has a K-mount, its registration distance will be 45.46mm. Think Pentax K-01 or Sigma DP Quattro.

Besides, how would you explain asahi man writing "Same problem like all the other mirrorless."?

[beholder3]

A mount with the same geometry and contacts but with a different registration distance wouldn't be the K mount.

Nonsense. A mount is a mount, regardless of registration distance.

Aside from this 100% academic discussions it is clear what asahi man meant: If they cut the registration distance, they need a new line of lenses.

If they kill the Q mount, that might even be realistic, since that would maintain their already large number of mounts and not increase it further.

[Kunzite]

I understand your point, but I think Mistral75 is correct: registration distance is a part of the mount specifications.
A "short registration K-mount" would be a different mount, perhaps "K-mount mini". But if they change the registration distance, I would expect larger changes - full electric, digital-only interface, maybe larger diameter if they don't want to be stuck with APS-C like you-know-who.

I'm curious what asahi man meant... maybe it's about AF? I think I read somewhere that the K-70's "hybrid AF" works only with few lenses (the 55-300 RE PLM, the 18-135... were there others?)

[JPT]

I'm not sure what Asahiman was saying, but I imagine he was equating mirrorless with a shorter mount-sensor distance. I don't see what the benefit would be of having a mount that could mount K-mount lenses that would then be unusable to make an image. It would just be misleading to the customer.

If Ricoh makes this camera, I imagine the objective of it being mirrorless would be get as close as possible to the size and design of much-loved cameras like the K1000, not to be as small as the mirrorless competition. It couldn't be that small.

Another objective could be to make a camera able to assist manual focus with magnified live view and other aids. It would leverage all the DA primes already available, enable use of old lenses, and even if it fails in the market, it's just one camera, not a commitment to a whole new system.

[D1N0]

I don't get it either. K-mount's 45.46mm registration distance is one of the (main) specifications of the Pentax K mount. A mount with the same geometry and contacts but with a different registration distance wouldn't be the K mount.

If the Pentax mirrorless camera has a K-mount, its registration distance will be 45.46mm. Think Pentax K-01 or Sigma DP Quattro.

Besides, how would you explain asahi man writing "Same problem like all the other mirrorless."?

Pentax could just make a KAFM specification for mirrorless.