Studio scene comparison pages added to Pentax MX-1 preview

I agree since I'm quite used to opening high quality files and I expect that not to get worse but better in the future.
One more thing is pricing. The makers have priced these serious compacts out of many non serious users and pretty close to the cheapest m4/3s and NEX. A Panny LX7 at $300 is just about right and so should the XZ-2. At current prices, they should have at least have a one inch sensor, don't care, if it's 10MP and slower lens. I hope one these get upgraded this year since the RX100 is already out for a while.

One thing I agree with marike6 though is how images at low ISOs look online, such as in DPR's sample gallery where image quality is close to larger formats. On a scene that is low contrast, it's almost guess work.

it changes the argument when you are talking about a larger sensor in a compact camera. As it stands, my opinion doesn't change but I should have elaborated, as in, G-15, P7700 and the other advanced compacts with the same sensor size. Their highest quality output at their lowest ISO range barely pass as acceptable for much aside from web posts.

I have owned plenty of them, trust me. Most recently the Ricoh GR D IV. After shooting with much higher end cameras it is too difficult for me to accept the mediocrity that these little gems offer up in terms of image quality. There are times when I have been seduced too easily by all of the attractive tech they build in while offering extreme portability. But at the end of the day, photography is more than about having a conveniently sized camera, it's about getting usable images for whatever you are attempting to do with the files. In some instances; like Instagram and web posting they will do.

Ybor wrote: "Their highest quality output at their lowest ISO range barely pass as acceptable for much aside from web posts."

So you can't get quality 8x10 prints from a 12 mp 1/1.7" compact? You can't shoot great video clips of your kids? You can't produce high quality images for a photo blog? You can't film a YouTube video?

The fact is other than DOF, and subtle differences in colors there is very little difference between a 12 mp print from a G15 and a GF3. Sensor size "experts" like to exaggerate differences but switch one of the cameras in the above studio scene to the Panasonic GF3 and tell me what major differences are at lower ISOs. There are none.

It's not weird. It's normal. It's called life, and some cameras are made to take wonderful real life photographs, not studio charts.
Same as your own life is proven in nature, not decomposed to prove is it possible to happen in the Periodic Table of Elements.

Nonsense Zvonimir. The cameras are not made to do better in "real life" but do poorly in not "real life" (whatever that means). What engineering feast goes to achive that?

What I said above makes more sense. The "real world shots" were taken in different conditions, different lighting, different scenes by different photographers. They cannot be compared to some other randomly chosen "real life" shots to judge two cameras image quality.

ET2, I agree with Hubert, above, that there is no significant IQ difference between the MX-1 and X20 studio shots.
As far your reply to Zvonimir though, are you saying that the MX-1 "real life" shots we have seen look better only because were ALL taken in better conditions, better lighting and...different ( better?!) photographers?
I (only an hobbyist) am really enjoying my MX-1 and to be honest I was thinking of getting the X20 before. I think they are both very good compact cameras! I like the look and feel of the MX-1 better.