This sounds like someone who's never tried a mirrorless camera. I've not found a single Pentax lens I can't use on my mirrorless bodies, and get focusing aids with all of them. Adapters are more of a hassle if the lens doesn't have an aperture ring but otherwise the only hassle is that manual focus must be used with adapted lenses. Adapting most lenses has proved easy unlike the KS-1 which will not work with rangefinder lenses etc.

The native CSC lenses I've brought have not been dissimilar in price to current Pentax lenses. Your statement MAY be true for some mirrorless systems but isn't for mine.

The OP specifically requested data on mirrorless cameras, without explaining why that was there preference. Glibly giving details of a DSLR instead without investigating their reasons does not sound helpful to me. Their interest in the Q7 might be for the high crop factor which would be shared by the others in the same series, the Nikon V1 & to a lesser extent MFT models. But it might also be that other aspects of an EVF are useful to them, or just they've been persuaded that mirrorless cameras are 'the future' (they still have some way to go to beat DSLRs in some realms IMO, which is why I use both)

Apart from the Q series, the only other mirrorless camera from Pentax is the K-01. Now rather out of date (which helps with the price) much bulkier than the Q series taking normal K lenses. Its APSC but doesn't have the short registration that is one of the big advantages in going mirrorless.

Non Pentax options generally have larger sensors than the Q series with crop factors between 1 & 2 being most common (Full Frame, APSC & MFT)

I use a collection of different adapters with my K mount lenses on MFT.
Cheap simple adapters work fine if you have an aperture ring. As John mentioned there a DA version as well to give some aperture control when the lens has no ring. I've not found these that easy to use so very rarely adapt the newer lenses.

Other options that might be of interest are more sophisticated:

I use a focal reducing adapter which widens the FOV roughly to APSC 1.5x crop (instead of MFT 2x) and gains a extra stop of light. Very handy!! (Mine is actually a MFT-EF reducer with an EF-K adapter fitted as a PK version wasn't available when I got it).

Another convenient adapter (also done via EF) has a helicoid built in. It starts at the right length for infinity focus, but can be extended to give an extra cm or so of extension. Giving a macro setup when desired.

The third specialist type I have has a tilting mechanism allowing the plane of focus to be altered (similar to a tilt shift lens but without the shift) Both the versions I have suffer for being cheap so they're not very controllable. I think a Shift adapter may be available now too but when I last checked these where >£200 and v limited in the mounts available...

Well the internet is full of Parrot experts, those 'experts' who parrot the advice of others without understanding it...

(Sorry couldn't resist - I recon Steve has nailed it anyway)

Film is certainly comparatively more sensitive to UV, but silicon sensors are sensitve to some UV & IR. Because of this camera makers fir a hot mirror in front of the sensor (sometimes removed by photographers who want to photograph IR). With standard digital cameras the sensor/hot mirror combination is pretty insensitive to UV. Even with the hot mirror removed it's difficult to capture images in UV it needs special lenses (modern lenses typically stop transmitting slightly above 400nm) as well as complicated filters to pass UV & block visible & NIR. If you use a filter designed for photographing UV with a film camera (such as 'woods glass' or Schott U330) the camera image will be comprised mainly of IR.
In extremely dusty environments etc a UV filter has a benefit, but most of the time it's a waste of space.

Wow that's a serious lathe!
I'm not sure it would be any use for me though - can't see it working for making lens adapters.

Silca gel will absorb quite a few chemicals but they are all compounds with much higher polarity than the greases used inside lenses. In addition these lubricants are designed to be involatile or they would transfer to the glass surfaces ruining your photos. So there's no chance of silica gel 'drying up' your lens grease!

Absorbents like silica gel will only absorb compounds they come into contact with (usually those in the local air). Reducing the concentration of chemicals in the air can speed up the evaporation of similar liquids, so liquid water in with silica gel will get absorbed over time...

If you have high concentrations of alcohol fumes, silica will absorb those readily enough (along with H2S, SO2 etc). Unfortunately this doesn't make it practical for passing a breath test after a night out on the tiles, or even just freshening bad breath.

At work I've used finely ground silica gel to extract traces of alcohols, ketones, ethers, phenols... from hydrocarbon samples (the sample actually passed through a column packed with the silica), ending up with far more than I'd expected!

Well in really tight spaces I often end up needing my 100mm macro.

You might get a response if you continuously hassle him. My order was quite a small one, so I didn't invest much time/effort in chasing him, but I can't think of any other supplier who would ignore repeated e-mails from a returning customer.

The colour cast on these is much more than a tungsten filter. which would only give a cool look just like selecting the wrong WB on your camera.
It might be worth having a look at your scanner - the red light source might just have failed. (Some scanners scan progressively with 3 coloured light sources, others use a white light & filtered detectors).