[kooks]

That is why I would like to see them work on DFA {no star, so less 'effort'} lenses - not quite 'perfect', but usable on both APS-C and FF cameras.

That would be nice pretty nice.. some f4.0 and f1.8 series will help a lot to complete the gaps with out breaking the bank.. When I purchased my new system I actually didn't move to the f1.4 lenses basically because 2 reasons, #1 size, i wanted to keep it compact and light and modern f1.4 lenses are mmm well are the contraty, plus are much more expensive, #2 Image quality, having some f1.8 with top class IQ and small size can help a lot to fill gaps at a reasonable cost, might not have the same bokeh as a f1.4 but who cares about that if you can have sharp images, good colors, portability AND save money??

---

Last edited by kooks; 01-06-2019 at 03:23 PM.

[ogl]

Well, currently in the line up, Pentax has FA 31, 43, 50, 77. DFA 50 macro and 100 macro WR. DFA *50. DA *200 and *300. DA 560. All are considered full frame compatible. In addition, of course, several lenses, like the DA *55, DA 50 f1.8 and DA 40 are usable on full frame although they may have dark-ish corners wide open.
.

To say honest, this lenses are not really good at K-1. DA *55, DA 50 f1.8 and DA 40 are APS-C lenses. Not bad at f5.6-8 - yes.

There are some APS-C zoom lenses usable at K-1, but IQ is from mediocre till not bad.

DA560....It seems to me Pentax users better choose DFA*400/5.6 with 1 kg weight, only 200 mm length and 77 mm filter for much lower price instead of 3 kg and 520 mm length and 112 mm filter for USD5000...

[ogl]

Pentax really needs several FF DFA f4 zooms and several f1.8 (2.0) DFA primes to offer till 2021-2022.

[Rondec]

This is especially true if you also factor in the modern zooms, like the DFA* 70-200 f/2.8, that are optically at least as good as most primes across their FL range. The DFA 15-30 f/2.8 is no slouch either if you want wide. The days of zooms being a distant second-best are past.

I agree. I own the 15-30/24-70/70-200 combo and they are excellent.

To say honest, this lenses are not really good at K-1. DA *55, DA 50 f1.8 and DA 40 are APS-C lenses. Not bad at f5.6-8 - yes.

There are some APS-C zoom lenses usable at K-1, but IQ is from mediocre till not bad.

DA560....It seems to me Pentax users better choose DFA*400/5.6 with 1 kg weight, only 200 mm length and 77 mm filter for much lower price instead of 3 kg and 520 mm length and 112 mm filter for USD5000...

Have you used a K-1 with these lenses or is this second hand knowledge? The DA *55 is excellent from f2 and the DA 40 from f3.5 -- better than a lot of the film era lenses that you mention in your list. As far as telephotos, you are better off getting the DFA 150-450 at this point. Pentax may do another super-telephoto down the road, but it doesn't seem like the most important at this point.

[Martin KP]

Thanks for the translation, it's great to hear up coming bits on camera stuff. I really like the F mount lens on aps-c and that it can use a ff lens too. What do people think of the Q mount lens, are they good and do they have a future? I work mostly with primes on the aps-c so a Q mount aps-c compact upgraded system camera would be something I would be interested in.

[reh321]

Thanks for the translation, it's great to hear up coming bits on camera stuff. I really like the F mount lens on aps-c and that it can use a ff lens too. What do people think of the Q mount lens, are they good and do they have a future? I work mostly with primes on the aps-c so a Q mount aps-c compact upgraded system camera would be something I would be interested in.

You do understand that 'Q' cameras have a sensor that is one-third the size of APS-C in each dimension?

To answer your question, last word from Pentax was that they were "still supporting 'Q'", but last 'Q' was released over three years ago.

[clackers]

To say honest, this lenses are not really good at K-1.

I've already mentioned the trouble you get into speaking of things you don't know about, Ogl.

Do you own a K-1?

[Rondec]

Thanks for the translation, it's great to hear up coming bits on camera stuff. I really like the F mount lens on aps-c and that it can use a ff lens too. What do people think of the Q mount lens, are they good and do they have a future? I work mostly with primes on the aps-c so a Q mount aps-c compact upgraded system camera would be something I would be interested in.

There won't ever be a Q mount APS-C camera. Probably the sensor size in the most recent Q is about as big as can fit. As far as the Q system goes, my guess is that it is dead. Probably the biggest problem is lack of new sensors in that particular segment. There are still lots of folks using it and I think they would be glad to see Pentax continue to support it. It's just with no new camera bodies for a few years and no indication that there is going to be anything further in that mount, it feels unlikely to continue.

[biz-engineer]

Pentax really needs several FF DFA f4 zooms and several f1.8 (2.0) DFA primes to offer till 2021-2022.

Thanks for caring about us users of Pentax K1.

[Class A]

Probably the biggest problem is lack of new sensors in that particular segment.

I'd say the biggest problem of the Q system are smartphones.

The Google Pixel 2's sensor has a crop factor of only 1.36 compared to the Q and the Huawei P20's sensor is even slightly bigger than the Q's!
With 40MP, the Huawei P20's sensor also trumps the Q's 12MP.
On top of that, a number of smartphones have two or even three lenses/sensors and provide computational bokeh creation, and many more features on top of that.

[MMVIII]

Right, Q-system probably is not to be developed further. But I don't think the lack of Sensor is a problem. At this size there should be plenty of options, even though not all in consumer lines but sometimes industrial lines of manufacturers. If I could express one wish, I would like Ricoh to keep the Q with the brilliant usability and interface and implement exotic sensors. How about a UV- NIR? Or a foveon? A superhigh speed sensor? A thermal one? Maybe a super Dynamic Range sensor or a special astrosensor? Here the size of the sensor would not be a limit but keep it affordable and they might have a department in industrial imaging that already developing systems in house. To be clear, pure wishful thinking, just trying to see what I would find awesome and innovative within the possibilities of the heritage of this line and portfolio of this company.

Edit: and by this offer something smartphones will never achieve: user interface and ergonomics superiority and exchangable lenses.
go for it! I now wish there were any chances for that...

There won't ever be a Q mount APS-C camera. Probably the sensor size in the most recent Q is about as big as can fit. As far as the Q system goes, my guess is that it is dead. Probably the biggest problem is lack of new sensors in that particular segment. There are still lots of folks using it and I think they would be glad to see Pentax continue to support it. It's just with no new camera bodies for a few years and no indication that there is going to be anything further in that mount, it feels unlikely to continue.

---------- Post added 01-07-2019 at 03:22 PM ----------

I see your point. But - if you want to hawe a wide AOW in APS-C you have to have short focal lengths and here it makes a lot of sense to adapt them exactly to this sensor size, to not make it too big, too haeavy, too slow and/or too expensive. This will be the new WA-zoom, I'm looking forward to it, and I would appreciate a more technical (vignetting, border sharpness, distortion, coma) perfection than the existing zooms or existing primes. I would also appreciate a new generation of the 14mm prime for APS-C, but also a new dedicated fast 16-50 with technical perfection. Above that there might be less gain in dedicated designs and the development for FF might be a welcome addition to the APS-C lineup too.

That would be nice pretty nice.. some f4.0 and f1.8 series will help a lot to complete the gaps with out breaking the bank.. When I purchased my new system I actually didn't move to the f1.4 lenses basically because 2 reasons, #1 size, i wanted to keep it compact and light and modern f1.4 lenses are mmm well are the contraty, plus are much more expensive, #2 Image quality, having some f1.8 with top class IQ and small size can help a lot to fill gaps at a reasonable cost, might not have the same bokeh as a f1.4 but who cares about that if you can have sharp images, good colors, portability AND save money??

[Rico]

The Q system would still be thriving if they had used 4/3 sensor and M4/3 mount. As presented by Pentax the Q system was a dead end.

Ricoh/Pentax needed to modernize the FA LTD's for when they launched the K-1. For every 1 Pro user out there using Pentax that wanted a DFA* 50 ƒ1.4 there are 100,000 Pentax users still waiting for modern FA LTD's. All Ricoh/Pentax has to do to the FA LTD's is just ditch the aperture ring and add Quickshift focusing. The pricing would be in line with the DA LTD's.

[reh321]

The Q system would still be thriving if they had used 4/3 sensor and M4/3 mount. As presented by Pentax the Q system was a dead end.

Depends on what you expect to get from that camera. I purchased my Q-7 to serve as the heart of a birding system, and its 3-crop {compared to APS-C} was perfect for that. I would never have purchased it if it had a MFT sensor, because the improvement in pixels-on-subject wouldn't have been worth it. I'm not sure they would have reached third and fourth versions if they had been competing against the Panasonic and Olympus MFT cameras.

I believe the main reason it did not continue is the same reason there was no K-02 ..... no EVF {Canon's EOS-M and Sony's NEX lines went virtually nowhere until they added EVF to them}.

[RGlasel]

I don't think the lack of Sensor is a problem. At this size there should be plenty of options, even though not all in consumer lines but sometimes industrial lines of manufacturers. If I could express one wish, I would like Ricoh to keep the Q with the brilliant usability and interface and implement exotic sensors. How about a UV- NIR? Or a foveon? A superhigh speed sensor? A thermal one? Maybe a super Dynamic Range sensor or a special astrosensor? Here the size of the sensor would not be a limit but keep it affordable and they might have a department in industrial imaging that already developing systems in house.

You are right, lack of sensors for any sub-m43 photography-oriented cameras is not a problem at all, in fact Sony has new 1" and smaller sensors coming out in the near future, even though all camera manufacturers have abandoned ILCs that could use them (not just Ricoh Pentax).


Buyers have spoken with their wallets, moving to larger formats and ignoring the Q and Nikon 1. The capital required to keep producing these cameras is not large, relative to developing a completely new system, yet over the last few years all the manufacturers (starting with Sony) have decided to introduce new systems in FF or larger formats (or get out, like Samsung). They can't all be stupid. Offering exotic sensors sounds appealing, the technology exists and doesn't require exotic optics to go with it, but there is a shrinking pool of ILC customers and no heavy rain in the forecast, so little incentive to plant those exotic seeds.

[Rico]

Depends on what you expect to get from that camera. I purchased my Q-7 to serve as the heart of a birding system, and its 3-crop {compared to APS-C} was perfect for that. I would never have purchased it if it had a MFT sensor, because the improvement in pixels-on-subject wouldn't have been worth it. I'm not sure they would have reached third and fourth versions if they had been competing against the Panasonic and Olympus MFT cameras.

I believe the main reason it did not continue is the same reason there was no K-02 ..... no EVF {Canon's EOS-M and Sony's NEX lines went virtually nowhere until they added EVF to them}.

4/3 system don't compete against each other they compete with each other. The Pentax M43 system would have thrived in such an environment. M4/3 compete with each other as the lens mount is universal. There would have been a lot of Olympus and Panasonic shooters using Pentax M4/3 lenses as this is were Pentax excels. Which would have been more than enough to sustain a Pentax Q M4/3 system.

Panasonic is a great subject for this thread as they are demoing/releasing their Lumix S Series full frame cameras this week. The S1R and S1 look to be nearly exactly what all the people at PF have been clamoring for in a Ricoh/ Pentax mirrorless camera. For me image quality is paramount. We will have to see what Panasonic can deliver. The S1R and S1 will have what Panasonic calls dual IBIS. So they can have some form of Pixel-Shift. Nobody has done it better than Pentax so far. Sony doesn't even come close. The price is another factor. I don't see these cameras being any where near sub $2,000US more like over $3,000US. But maybe Panasonic will surprise. Doubtful as they are going squarely for the Pro market which will pay a premium for Pro features. Using the Leica L-mount also is an indication of price.