I think there's a common misunderstanding about the logic of the Q. People have been asking for years for a digital equivalent of the Auto 110, which used tiny 110 film format. The Q is exactly that and offers what many users on this forum asked for.

We could equally say that Minox have got it wrong because sub-miniature wilol never produce medium format quality.

A product may not be what some people want, but it may be exactly what other people want.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538819/olympics-photography-rest...

I'm glad I'm not going to the Olympics as I probably wouldn't get in with my Billingham bag. And I certainly wouldn't be giving it up with no hope of its return.

It doesn't sound as if it's going to be much fun to me, with no doubt lots of arguments and videos of clashes with security on YouTube in due course.

Just picking up the point on crippled K mounts, this isn't a digital SLR thing, it started to happen long ago with the MZ series of film SLRs.

It really only becomes an issue with lenses that are more than 45 years old, so considering that they can still be used, with some inconvenience, it's a miracle they can still be used at all.

I don't know how much it would cost to sell a version of an existing DSLR with a full mount, but perhaps the increased cost would be more than the market would stand for. I wonder how much value we would put on the feature if it added, say, £100 to the cost?

You get automatically e-mailed when a reply is posted, so no need to keep logging on to find out. Tick stay logged in as well, which can be more convenient.

Try SRS, they ship to Europe.

Please don't post Nikon pictures, there's a Pentax only policy here. It's possible a few images escape, but not when you draw attention to them.

I don't know why you've posted that here, but it could cause dissent. If it does, it might have to go.

However, I'll just say that I don't agree with you and I'll leave it at that.

Not impossible. There are cetain things that are generally agreed upon and although we may not actually require the particular characteristics of a given lens, we could recognise that for its purpose it is a superior lens.

For example, an 85mm designed to be soft wide open we could recognise as being good for portraits. Portrait photographers generally might swear by it. However, if we needed an 85mm that was crisp wide open, then it would be little use to us. We could still objectively recognise its qualities.

In overall terms, I would say that the best lenses were and are made by the major marques, but many manufacturers have some classics.

The Zeiss 80mm f2.8 for Hasselblad has to be a major contender, the f4.5 Apo-Lanthar from Voigtlander another, for 6x9cm.

Several lenses from Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Contax.

Not so many from Konica and Fujifilm.

Classic macro lenses abound.

Lenses have a character and MTF tests are not be be and end all.

Go back to a Pentax lens. Any early SDM issues should be OK by now. The 18-135mm is a superb alternative general purpose lens, using an almost silent DC motor.