Quote:Honestly I do not think that K-mount lenses are good enough for the Qs.
Just to put a perspective on things here:
Full format sensor = 36*24mm = 864 sqmm
Q: 7.44 x 5.58
mm = 41.5 sqmm
864/41.5 * 12 megapixel = 250 megapixel.
That's just to visualize the pixel density of the Q sensor. SLR lenses are just not designed for this kind of requirement.
Lenses are designed to deliver quality across the whole image frame. As a simplified rule - the bigger the area, the lower the peak performance. e.g. medium format lenses are technically slightly worse than 35mm lenses (usually).
Of course, a SLR lens will produce a relatively decent quality but pixel-level sharpness will be difficult.
I understand what you are saying and do recall that many MF lenses were manufactured to a lesser quality than 35mm lenses. I would suppose that's why many of the uFT lenses are relatively pricey.
But do you think that Pentax (sorry Ricoh...) are making the Q lenses to an even higher level than their APS-C lenses? I'm not so sure about that...
Quote:This doesn't mean that there are no option - there's a world of them (C-mount) actually:
Fisheye, high speed primes ... you got it all ... except long tele lenses. The Q tele zoom has 45mm max. That's also about the limit that I can spot over at B&H (among the "megapixel"-grade C-mount lenses).
Of course, cheap C-mount lenses will produce correspondingly cheap results (unsurprisingly).
At some stage I looked into a fisheye option but then I thought it would be mental to invest that much money into an experiment.
Heh heh, between the "controversy" of the performance of K mount lenses and the "diamonds-to-be-mined" in the C mount lenses available and your natural experimental curiosity I see a whole new set of Lens Tests to keep you busy for a long time!
Buy the Q7 Klaus...buy it !!! :lol: