[goubejp]

Unfortunately for Pentax, there are several better (some more pocketable) alternatives.

Better in what sense ? The Q gives greats images, allows to shoot raw AND :
1 The ergonomics are really close from my K5; I have not even opened the user's guide end the time saved to read the 200 pages have been better employed in doing nice pictures.
2 With the adaptator I'll mount my K lenses and have a system with a very long reach with the DA*300 when needed... to compliment my 600.

[goubejp]

The design of the Q and concept is excellent.

The ...price being too high are death to the model.

Agreed; the design is excellent and I have waited at lot of time after it launch (until June...) to get a combo with the prime and the zoom at a decent price. They should have introduced the system at a more decent price.

[goubejp]

None of the alternatives turns my 50mm lens into a 280mm lens.

Correct, but the main interest of the Q is to turn a DA*200 into a 1100 FF f2.8 equivalent, and a DA*300 into a 1650 mm f4... with stabilisation and a shutter that does not induce vibrations

[illdefined]

Better in what sense ? The Q gives greats images, allows to shoot raw AND :
1 The ergonomics are really close from my K5; I have not even opened the user's guide end the time saved to read the 200 pages have been better employed in doing nice pictures.
2 With the adaptator I'll mount my K lenses and have a system with a very long reach with the DA*300 when needed... to compliment my 600.

The Sony RX100 offers significantly better IQ, RAW, and, unlike the Q, fits in a pant pocket. It is also very well built and offers a flexible integral zoom-range, that's quite fast at the wide-end.

If you require K-mount compatibility for your (no longer) compact then you're right, there's no other choice but I'd say that's an extremely specific, not-so-marketable need.

[goubejp]

The Sony RX100 offers significantly better IQ, RAW, and, unlike the Q, fits in a pant pocket. It is also very well built and offers a flexible integral zoom-range, that's quite fast at the wide-end.

If you require K-mount compatibility for your (no longer) compact then you're right, there's no other choice but I'd say that's an extremely specific, not-so-marketable need.

The RX100 is a P&S camera with a larger sensor and the price here in europe is the double of the price of the Q.
The idea to have an interchangeable lens on the Q is great. As I said to compliment a K system it is an obvious choice
Regards

[leopold]

Some were talking about that Pentax 70-200m/2.8 being pricey, i found some prices in Canadian dollars:
- Canon 70-200mm/2.8 IS II at 2300$
- Nikon 70-200mm/2.8 VR II at 2069$
- Sony 70-200mm/2.8 G Series at 1989$

[starbase218]

Correct, but the main interest of the Q is to turn a DA*200 into a 1100 FF f2.8 equivalent, and a DA*300 into a 1650 mm f4... with stabilisation and a shutter that does not induce vibrations

Are you serious? The main interest of a tiny new camera system with tiny new mount and tiny new lenses is to put a converter on it and use it with big existing lenses? If that's the case, here's a question for you: why didn't they just put the K-mount on? And please don't say "to keep the camera small". When you put a 200/2.8 on, it doesn't matter anymore that the Q is the smallest MILC out there.

Anyway, If you really want to use the Q this way, good for you. I don't understand it, but if you are happy with it, fine. But I wouldn't consider the Q for this in 1000 years. So please don't say this is the main interest of the Q.

[Sandy Hancock]

Are you serious? The main interest of a tiny new camera system with tiny new mount and tiny new lenses is to put a converter on it and use it with big existing lenses? If that's the case, here's a question for you: why didn't they just put the K-mount on? And please don't say "to keep the camera small". When you put a 200/2.8 on, it doesn't matter anymore that the Q is the smallest MILC out there.

Anyway, If you really want to use the Q this way, good for you. I don't understand it, but if you are happy with it, fine. But I wouldn't consider the Q for this in 1000 years. So please don't say this is the main interest of the Q.

Well he's not alone. You can add me to those who bought the Q for its potential reach with K-mount lenses.
I can't justify splashing $5000+ on a huge, heavy lens I would not want to lug around, but spending 1/10th that on a system which achieves something similar, weighs 500g and also doubles as a compact take-everywhere fun box is a no brainer.

Anyway, enough discussion of the real world in the present. This thread is about imaginary things in the future

[illdefined]

Are you serious? The main interest of a tiny new camera system with tiny new mount and tiny new lenses is to put a converter on it and use it with big existing lenses? If that's the case, here's a question for you: why didn't they just put the K-mount on? And please don't say "to keep the camera small". When you put a 200/2.8 on, it doesn't matter anymore that the Q is the smallest MILC out there.

I'd think attaching the adapter alone would disqualify it from being "small"... if this was a common use case the Nikon 1 system would probably be a big success, so far it hasn't been.

many Pentax users here clearly appreciate reach very much, I now understand why the 560mm "telescope" lens came to fruition.

[ihasa]

Let's get back on topic please guys!

[Aristophanes]

The RX100 is a P&S camera with a larger sensor and the price here in europe is the double of the price of the Q.

Not originally.

That was part of the problem.

Until the sensor size is remedied to be closer to the competition, it is a sub-par offering on the market.

[illdefined]

Until the sensor size is remedied to be closer to the competition, it is a sub-par offering on the market.

to get back on topic, this unfortunately applies to Pentax DSLRs as well

[JimmyDranox]

I'm on my second post on this forum, so, please excuse me if I'm wrong.

The Pentax managers are businessman, and they must have vision of future developments. And what we see now. And 3000$ camera, Nikon 800D, with 36Mp, almost pair to Pentax 645. And in the near future, a Canon with 46Mp.

So, they need to do something. One option is to develop a 50Mps or even more Mps, to keep the 645 in line with Hasselblad and others. This options had some big problems, starting with the sensor, the sensitivity comparing to FF, and the small range of lenses.

The other option is an FF camera. Sensor almost ready on the market, at much lower price, a number of lenses from internal production which can be converted to FF, and another from Sigma and Tamron.

So, in my opinion, a FF camera is a must for Pentax. And I think that we'll see it in an year, not more.

[wed7]

FF or not, as long as there will be a new lens in the market at these FL, it's already a plus

[Kunzite]

I'm on my second post on this forum, so, please excuse me if I'm wrong.

The Pentax managers are businessman, and they must have vision of future developments. And what we see now. And 3000$ camera, Nikon 800D, with 36Mp, almost pair to Pentax 645. And in the near future, a Canon with 46Mp.

So, they need to do something. One option is to develop a 50Mps or even more Mps, to keep the 645 in line with Hasselblad and others. This options had some big problems, starting with the sensor, the sensitivity comparing to FF, and the small range of lenses.

The other option is an FF camera. Sensor almost ready on the market, at much lower price, a number of lenses from internal production which can be converted to FF, and another from Sigma and Tamron.

So, in my opinion, a FF camera is a must for Pentax. And I think that we'll see it in an year, not more.

Welcome! (Bine-ai venit!)
I don't see the two "options" as being mutually exclusive, and they don't really serve the same market.

We know they will continue with the 645 Digital (said so in interviews, launched the only MF stabilized lens...). They can use the larger TrueSense (ex-Kodak) sensor, but somehow I doubt that With higher volumes, it would be easier for Pentax to secure a suitable sensor.

About a "full frame", well... it's more likely now than under Hoya; we'll see.