Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Pentax MX-1 hands-on preview

By dpreview staff on Jan 7, 2013 at 14:00 GMT

Just Posted: Our hands-on preview of the Pentax MX-1. The enthusiast sector has become so vibrant that our pre-Christmas roundup included nine cameras. Not wanting to be left out of the action, Pentax-Ricoh has launched its own 12MP camera with a 1/1.7" sensor - the MX-1. As well as a slightly familiar-looking 28-112mm equivalent, F1.8-2.5 zoom lens, the MX-1 takes the unusual step of including brass top- and base-plates - meaning its classic looks should become even more pronounced as it ages.

48
I own it
18
I want it
4
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 173
12
Jono84
By Jono84 (Feb 19, 2013)

my question would be why pay the same price for this camera, when the xz-2 seems to be very similar yet has more to offer? Customisable control ring; touch screen display; hotshoe; remote shutter control; optional evf (albeit something I probably wouldn't use)....
The MX-1 does look like a good bit of kit to own, but for the same money, the xz-2 seems to be the logical choice. If Pentax reduce the price just a little to reflect this, then I'd give it serious consideration. Unless there is something I've overlooked that the Pentax offers which the Olympus does not? (other than the retro styling)

0 upvotes
Eric Hensel
By Eric Hensel (Jan 11, 2013)

Brass top and base-plates...how quaint.

0 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Jan 8, 2013)

why not "1" sensor?

0 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Jan 9, 2013)

most probably SR.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 9, 2013)

To cover a 1" sensor, the current zoom on the MX-1, a f1.8-2.5 have to be twice the size, defeating the whole small, good performing camera concept.

2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 10, 2013)

Also, most cameras take around two years to develop, and Pentax may not have had access to a 1" sensor, two years ago.

3 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Jan 8, 2013)

I love Pentax, I have a film MX, but this camera just got upstaged in a big way by the Fuji X20, rendering this almost DOA. A camera with the noble MX name should have an interchangeable lens mount and/or a bigger sensor. But I guess they figure there is no room next to the goofy K-01 and the stupid Q. What a shame.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Jan 8, 2013)

You really need to use your inner monologue.

2 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Jan 8, 2013)

i think, für 300 Dollar buy the APS-C K-01 -
why the MX?

1 upvote
Jack Simpson
By Jack Simpson (Jan 9, 2013)

A wee bit of OCD, Jack? I notice that you like the give duplicate comments in a number of threads ;D

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 9, 2013)

Don't agree at all. The MX1 actually looks very nice, and if it has better than average IQ for a 1/1.7" sensor camera, I may just be interested in buying one. I like the design, the lens and the form factor. The backlit 1/2.3" sensor of the Pentax Q is an excellent performer for it's size, so this camera may surprise everyone. If it's as good as the XZ-2 or P7700 IQ wise, it will be a winner for sure.

3 upvotes
emtx
By emtx (Jan 9, 2013)

@Rusticus
as owner of DSLR I am not interested in buying MILC - whether Q, K1, Canon EOS or anything else. If this cam. would have EVF, I will sell my EX1 and buy this one.
Possibly its about having a set. Compact and DSLR.

0 upvotes
Luftbrenzer
By Luftbrenzer (Jan 10, 2013)

MX was one of my favorite film cameras and still have 2 bodies...... at least they should of incorporated viewfinder in MX1.......

0 upvotes
iaredatsun
By iaredatsun (Jan 8, 2013)

The articulated(?) LCD seems to make it unnecessarily thick as a brick.

1 upvote
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Jan 9, 2013)

but also makes it necessarily useful, especially because it doesn't have a viewfinder :)

4 upvotes
Donald B
By Donald B (Jan 8, 2013)

just compared the lens to my xz1, looks identical to me .

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 12, 2013)

You may be onto something here. It's the exact same focal length and apertures. Is it possible Pentax licensed the Oly lens, and added it's excellent SMC coatings to it?

Still this is actually good news as the Olympus XZ1/XZ2 lens is one of the sharpest of any compact.

0 upvotes
Wallace Ross
By Wallace Ross (Jan 8, 2013)

Weird no one goes around saying all 50mm lenses are the same because they are 50mm. Anyway I like the look and have come to realize viewfinders on compacts are of limited use and I don't need one. If the sensor on this performs better than the Nikon P7700 then this will suit my purposes.

2 upvotes
Kevin Purcell
By Kevin Purcell (Jan 8, 2013)

It's the same Sony sensor as the P7700 ...

2 upvotes
Heie2
By Heie2 (Jan 9, 2013)

Yes but Pentax engineers have mastered milking sensors for ultimate IQ better than the competition. And it's backlit - I suspect the IQ of the MX-1 will greatly surpass the P7700.

5 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (Jan 8, 2013)

At the bottom of the back wheel on the right, there is a remote controler port?. Am I wrong?

0 upvotes
xc1427
By xc1427 (Jan 8, 2013)

I do think this camera borrows thought from RICOH GRD series, which is the one-hand operationality. This may explain why there is no popular front control ring found on this camera.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 8, 2013)

The interface is essentially a copy of the one found in Pentax DSLRs going back a few years.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 9, 2013)

The Ricoh GRD doesn't have a control wheel around the lens, but it has an all important front command dial just below the shutter. The GRD also has a solid grip, making it easy to use one handed.

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Jan 8, 2013)

This smells like an opportunist move by Pentax, a cheap gimmick to cash in on nostalgia for the Pentax 70's era film cameras. Olympus did it with the OM-D, and Pentax thought they would be leaving money on the table if they did not do likewise.

If it sells, more power too them. To me it looks tacky, especially the way the lens and tilting LCD screen parts are just bolted on to the "MX" body with no thought to maintain any stylistic cues.

5 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Jan 8, 2013)

>just bolted on to the "MX" body

Good observation.

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Jan 8, 2013)

Agreed, and furthermore this camera just got upstaged in a big way by the Fuji X20, rendering this almost DOA. A camera with the noble MX name should have an interchangeable lens mount or a bigger sensor. But I guess they figure there is no room next to the goofy K-01 and the stupid Q. What a shame.

0 upvotes
Ivan Glisin
By Ivan Glisin (Jan 10, 2013)

Richard, exactly my thoughts. Looks like a Borg camera, some retro flesh covered here or there by modern electronics. Doesn't look attractive to me at all.

And speaking of the name: I think they wasted iconic MX designation for nothing! It seems there is no one left at Pentax who understands Pentax heritage anymore. If they wanted to shout "retro" but "auto", then more appropriate name for this camera would have been ME-D1, reserving the ME designation for non-interchangeable lens advanced zoom compacts, leaving MX-D1 designation for a compact interchangeable camera system, and perhaps even LX-D1 for an advanced compact with interchangeable lenses (similar logic to the current Fujifilm X20, X-E1, X-Pro1 lineup). But we have Q, so this opportunity has also been wasted.

For this to happen you need strategy. But it seems that all Pentax strategy boils down to calling a board meeting from time to time to ask "what are we going to do next" question. Hence the result(s).

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (Jan 10, 2013)

I am a big fan of Pentax and own many of their cameras, same for Fuji. To me the X20 is more appealing in design. But every Pentax DSLR I worked with worked extremely well, so I would no shout that the MX1 is upstaged yet. Plus I believe street pricing for both models still need to be determined and this could have a great influence. I agree though that the MX label is a little bit out of place here. And to Ivan: I own an LX and it is such an exquisite ultra high end SLR, that I hope it will grace an amazing Ultra High End DSLR from Pentax one day. Imagine, the x1.3 viewfinder of the LX makes the Canon 5D look viewfinder look like Tunnel Vision :-) Reading Comments to Pentax Cameras is more entertaining than those for other brands. Why is that ?
Ah, and I disagree that there is no strategy in the Pentax Product Line Up. To me it seems they design cameras that work nicely and are wonderfully different. Just like Fuji. But other than Fuji, Pentax covers a much wider gamut.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Jan 8, 2013)

Let's assume it is exactly the same lens assembly as the Olympus camera. dpreview pretty much says as much. Pentax calls it "SMC Pentax Lens", Olympus proudly labels it "i.Zuiko Digital".

Call me old-fashioned, but that seems like false advertising. I know Pentax and, say, Tokina have pooled resources in the past, and Nikon outsources some of its cheaper lenses also, but, dang it, this is too blatant to excuse!

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
1 upvote
ogl
By ogl (Jan 8, 2013)

The lens is not the same as in XZ-2.

Olympus has f2.1 till 100 mm and 6 aspherical elements. Pentax has 4 aspherical elements and
Pentax has f2.1 at 50 mm, f2.2 at 60mm, f2.3 at 85mm and f2.5 at 112mm

2 upvotes
logbi77
By logbi77 (Jan 8, 2013)

Here is the Olympus patent of the 6-24mm f/1.8-2.5 lens

http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2010-10-03

0 upvotes
raimaster
By raimaster (Jan 8, 2013)

Can't wait DXO test about this sensor. Pentax is sensor tweak master, even the 1/2.3" Q can deal with other 1/1.7" http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/740%7C0/(brand)/Fujifilm/(appareil2)/722%7C0/(brand2)/Pentax/(appareil3)/665%7C0/(brand3)/Canon

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 8, 2013)

Sadly they haven't yet tested the current 1/1.7" Sony sensor, so that comparison isn't terribly useful. The G12 uses a CCD that was pretty old when the camera was launched.

0 upvotes
raimaster
By raimaster (Jan 8, 2013)

yes, interesting to see head to head sony 1/1.7" vs fuji 2/3" anyway here is: cmos Canon S110 1/1.7" vs Q 1/2.3" vs FZ150 1/2.3" http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/838%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/738%7C0/(brand2)/Panasonic/(appareil3)/722%7C0/(brand3)/Pentax

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 8, 2013)

Canon claims to make the sensor in the S110 (it's FSI CMOS, not BSI), so it's not the Sony.

1 upvote
backayonder
By backayonder (Jan 8, 2013)

Great design with a well hidden viewfinder.

1 upvote
Gary Martin
By Gary Martin (Jan 7, 2013)

DNG RAW is a big plus for me, drops right into my existing Lightroom workflow without any fuss. I've never considered a small-sensor compact before, but this one intrigues. I'll be interested in seeing some downloadable RAW samples, and seeing if sufficient quality is there - especially dynamic range.

6 upvotes
OldDigiman
By OldDigiman (Jan 7, 2013)

Pity that no one uses a digital camera long enough for brassing to occur any more....

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jan 8, 2013)

Who says you have to wait for brassing to occur naturally? Just use a bit of manual rubbing, some steel wool, a Brillo pad, etc. to produce the brassing yourself if you want the brassing aesthetic on your camera. Brass it up yourself with a few minutes of elbow grease, stick an old-school leather strap on it, and you're in business.

1 upvote
MrPetkus
By MrPetkus (Jan 7, 2013)

Handsome camera - nice job, Pentax! However, the Fuji X20 looks more impressive overall. Of course with the Pentax you have DNG...

0 upvotes
Daniel Lauring
By Daniel Lauring (Jan 7, 2013)

If only Pentax had added removable lenses, like they did with the Q. As it is, this is just one more in large group of 1/1.7 Sony sensored cameras with nothing to make it stand out of the crowd.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 7, 2013)

you think Ricoh/Pentax needs ANOTHER lens mount!?!

2 upvotes
RedDog Steve
By RedDog Steve (Jan 8, 2013)

No, please no new lens mounts.
We need Pentax to go with a micro 4/3 mount design.
A universal mount, like the old days.

5 upvotes
Ivan Glisin
By Ivan Glisin (Jan 10, 2013)

I'd say not another mount, rather a replacement mount. Q should have never happened with that sensor size IMO. However, introducing APS-C, 1", or m43 compact system by Pentax would compete with their DSLR line (well, with "both" cameras at this point, not counting color combinations). So Pentax needed a solid gap between interchangeable lens compact system and K-mount DSLR system, and here we go, the Q.

Note that manufacturers with no need to protect APS-C DSLR line aggressively innovate in ILC arena, most notably Olympus and Fujifilm. Others are entering that segment just to dig trenches and wait but with no real interest to release innovative products in order to protect their existing "big" cameras.

0 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Jan 7, 2013)

I am all in for new enthusiast camera from Pentax with retro design, but ... what does this camera - apart from its design - brings over the Olympus XZ-2?

And once I am a it, my very personal opinion on the design is, that it looks a bit 'unfinished' and potentially not too comfortable to hold. Soon we will know more I guess.

I guess I have just expected a more 'serious' camera from Pentax, rather than a compact. Maybe Ricoh could surprise us instead (they promised so).

1 upvote
samhain
By samhain (Jan 7, 2013)

Too bad it doesn't have a viewfinder.

2 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Jan 7, 2013)

99.9% of P&S cameras have no VF. EVF = power consumption and less compactness. OVF = useless.

Comment edited 11 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Jan 7, 2013)

OVFs are not generally useless. There are good ones, even on cheap cameras. The choice to add a useless one is entirely up to the camera manufacturer, and quite surprising.

1 upvote
eyeofgotham
By eyeofgotham (Jan 7, 2013)

My first P/S, a relative paperweight (Fuji E500) had an OVF. While not perfect, it helped me get a feel for the shot itself, and the scene in front of me... Not as translated by the camera's electronics. Just food for thought, perhaps.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jan 7, 2013)

I think some of us need to get over the idea that every camera needs a viewfinder. None of the compact cameras I own have a viewfinder, and I don't miss it all on these compact cameras. To me, it's as silly as wanting a viewfinder on an iPhone (or other smart phone camera) for taking photos. Rear LCD's provide a nice, beautiful, 100% coverage view of your framed image, which sure beats tiny peephole viewfinders that don't show full coverage.

2 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Jan 7, 2013)

I'm one of the pro-VF crowd. It would have made sense to go along with the larger size. These cameras are sometimes almost identical feature-for-feature, so I find myself deciding which one I want depending on one feature like VF, articulated screen, etc.

1 upvote
toomanycanons
By toomanycanons (Jan 7, 2013)

I can just see T3 squinting at his iPhone screen while taking a pic at the bar, shouting "I'm a photographer now, gots an iPhone!"

Just kidding. I'm in the pro-viewfinder camp. I hate holding a camera at arms length to compose a shot. Apparently there are others who think that's the only way.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Jan 7, 2013)

@toomanycanons - Time to join the 21st century. You're definitely showing your old age. People aren't "squinting" at their iPhone screens while holding their cameras "at arms lengths." Millions of people take tens of millions of photos every day with all kinds of screen-view devices with great success, great ease, and great enjoyment.

I think it's just the older generation who still thinks that using rear screens to compose images is an anomaly or travesty of picture-taking. Ironically, it's actually far more of an anomaly and novelty to see someone "squinting" through a peephole viewfinder while squashing a compact camera to their face in order to take a photo! The current generation probably looks at these oldsters using compact cameras in this manner and says, "Geez, old man, what are you doing? Looks so uncomfortable squinting through that small hole while you have your other eye shut, and contorting your face like that!"

Times change. Habits change. Ways change.

2 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Jan 7, 2013)

Do all of you only shoot from eye level? And are any of you under 65 years old? You need to get over the fact that you can't frame a picture without a viewfinder. You seriously need to open your eyes to change once in a while.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Jan 7, 2013)

@toomanycanons - "I can just see T3 squinting at his iPhone screen while taking a pic at the bar, shouting "I'm a photographer now, gots an iPhone!"

And BTW, the current zeitgeist of photography is no longer about having a certain "type" of camera that makes you as "photographer" but rather about what you DO with your camera that matters. Great photos are being produced with all manner of devices, including iPhones (just do a google search of "iPhoneography"). Ultimately, talent, vision, perspective, and being at the right place at the right time mean a lot more to real photographers than the hacks who still believe that "real" photographers are defined by a certain type of camera.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Jan 8, 2013)

>Times change. Habits change. Ways change.

But triteness endures.

Comment edited 9 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Jan 8, 2013)

A VF on a compact is NEVER about framing. It's about steadiness. Especially at longer focal lengths in a breeze. Every tittle of added steadiness makes for a sharper image.

Now they'll be calling me a sharpoholic or whatever. Or they'll say great photos don't have to be sharp. Logic takes it up the wazoo around here.

I wish people would give up the snippiness and try a little empathy. Shed the wisecracks and drill down to facts. Kick your ego in the nuts for a change.

1 upvote
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Jan 8, 2013)

P.S.

A VF also comes in handy (as a stopgap!) when the LCD is blitzed by the sun.

1 upvote
Foolishmortal
By Foolishmortal (Jan 8, 2013)

As a designer, I would be hard pressed to justfiy an OVF with the current screens we have now. Besides, the lens is a zoom--no use framing with an OVF set at 28mm when you're set at 100mm.

For me it only misses the mark by not taking the best Ricoh and Pentax have to offer like Ricoh's GR Digital's screen, interface and excellent Hybrid AF/Snap mode; and Pentax's Hyper-program and weathersealing .... that and no hot shoe.

1 upvote
DLBlack
By DLBlack (Jan 7, 2013)

It is about time. It has been a very long time since Pentax has something in the enthusiast nitch. A lot of nice features but missing some important features like a hotshoe and an accessory port for an EVF. The sensor is a little too small for wherethe enthusiast cameras are heading. So it is just another Pentax camera that missed a few key features for me.

0 upvotes
Ivan Glisin
By Ivan Glisin (Jan 7, 2013)

Looks it is based on Olympus XZ-2 hardware. Looking at the side by side pictures, lens matches XZ-2 down to the tiniest details in terms of dimensions and visible components, specs are almost identical too. I like the addition of external exposure compensation dial though, very good, something I missed on XZ-1. Since XZ-2 is a great camera, both sensor and optics, no reason to believe Pentax will disappoint. However, Fujifilm is going to steal the show with X20 in this class.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
M Lammerse
By M Lammerse (Jan 7, 2013)

Actually I feel 'they' look all the same. The same 'less is more' approach with a touch of retro.

Don't say with this that it is bad...jut wonder if it is a question to safe money on marketing or that it is a true design decision...

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
scrup
By scrup (Jan 7, 2013)

Put a big sensor on it. If they want this to last.

0 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Jan 7, 2013)

Are people obsessed with sensor size compensating?

1 upvote
samhain
By samhain (Jan 7, 2013)

Bigger is better.

1 upvote
ogl
By ogl (Jan 7, 2013)

Buy another camera with bigger sensor and relax.

1 upvote
scrup
By scrup (Jan 9, 2013)

I guess the target market is for old folks who care about how the camera looks and not the images it produces.

0 upvotes
hindesite
By hindesite (Jan 7, 2013)

I have an MX, and it was probably the best camera of that era that Pentax ever made. I like the looks of this retro interpretation, but this is copying Olympus' approach with the PEN series, hardly original to Pentax.

"takes the unusual step of including brass top- and base-plates - meaning its classic looks should become even more pronounced as it ages"

made me laugh. Really, with the extremely short life of compact cameras (they are upgraded by owners on a very short cycle, a few years at most) the plating is going to have to be rubbish to even start wearing in the life of the camera. Very different from when cameras were used for decades.

2 upvotes
Andrew Higgins
By Andrew Higgins (Jan 7, 2013)

I'm liking this new MX, especially as it recalls my much loved 35mm MX slr. But not to use the excellent Ricoh menu/interface is madness.

0 upvotes
offertonhatter
By offertonhatter (Jan 7, 2013)

I actually hope it has the same menu system as my K-5, which is far better than my earlier Pentax SLR's. The i-10 menu was awful, but I think it was "off the shelf" rather than Pentax own. As for the Ricoh menu, I have the R8 compact and find the menu awful. If the GXR is better then I stand corrected. But being used to Pentax's recent menu system, I am hoping that the MX-1 has the same as my K-5.

0 upvotes
Andrew Higgins
By Andrew Higgins (Jan 7, 2013)

The Pentax menu isn't bad, but looks a bit clunky to my eyes. I've always liked the Ricoh menu, less colourful, but quick and logical to use. We all get used to the menu on whatever camera we use most at the end of the day...

0 upvotes
offertonhatter
By offertonhatter (Jan 7, 2013)

Fair point. Like you say we got used to each.
If you get get a camera from the same make, then you are bound to know instantly where to go. I am used to both Pentax menu systems and prefer the newer one. You, as you say prefer the Ricoh one. No problem in that. As long as the menu as a whole is fairly easy to navigate to those who are not users of either, then no problem :-)

0 upvotes
offertonhatter
By offertonhatter (Jan 7, 2013)

I want one!
There said it. I have waited for Pentax to bring out a prosumer compact for years. Now they have and it is gorgeous!
Who cares about lack of hotshoe. I want one!

0 upvotes
Goodmeme
By Goodmeme (Jan 7, 2013)

I care! :) But most won't :(

0 upvotes
offertonhatter
By offertonhatter (Jan 7, 2013)

I already have LX-5, which will do my hotshoe needs apart from my DLSR's and MF, so as walkabout compact that performs, I like the MX-1 too.
Maybe the MX-2 will have one. :-)

0 upvotes
citizenlouie
By citizenlouie (Jan 7, 2013)

It is a nice looking camera. The edges at each side reminds me of the old film cameras made by Pentax and Minolta (both made beautiful cameras). The handling might be a little retro also though. It needs an eveready case for a good hand grip (that's what I do with my Olympus film OM cameras), since it doesn't have the removable hand grip add-on like the Olympus XZ-2 has.

I think the tapered end at the grip for XZ-2 is not just for modern line, but the thinner middle makes the much thicker end, essentially, a grip, without that recognizable hand grip look. A more subtle design of the modern camera. Many better designed compact cameras (including ILCs) have some sort of contour curves to compensate for the aesthetically pleasing but ergonomically awful thinner bodies.

Can't wait see the result of course. Especially a side by side comparison with the XZ-2.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
RedDog Steve
By RedDog Steve (Jan 7, 2013)

Very interesting !
I'm waiting now to see what the IQ looks like.
Comparable to the Pan LX7 and Oly XZ2 ?

rd

0 upvotes
ianp5a
By ianp5a (Jan 7, 2013)

It's cute how all the main makers have a similarly specced camera with a lens ring, wide aperture, 1/1.7 sensor and with a similar name, mostly with an X in it.
Olympus XZ-1
Pentax MX-1
Sony RX-100(1")
Fujifilm XF1
Panasonic LX5
Samsung EX2F
Does Nikon P7700 count there too? It seems too big and no X in the name.

Anyway it's nice to see the old Pentax MX name back in use too.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
RedDog Steve
By RedDog Steve (Jan 7, 2013)

No the Nikon doesn't count, no "X" and yes it's too big.

0 upvotes
fakuryu
By fakuryu (Jan 7, 2013)

Like the lovely Pentax Q, did Pentax sprinkle fairy dust on this one and also removed the AA filter.

Yes ladies and gents, like the K5IIs, the Pentax Q does not have an AA filter.

0 upvotes
grafli
By grafli (Jan 7, 2013)

Well, Pentax bought Ricoh.
In my eye's this is the next Ricoh GR Digital.
Focal length steyed the same, the aperture got a little better (1.9->1.8)
An they gave it a zoom lens!
And of course they built in the typical Ricoh 1cm macro!

Well done Pentax!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 7, 2013)

I think you'll find Ricoh bought Pentax.

There are also disappointingly few Ricoh fingerprints on this camera. If it had the GRD interface (still one of the best compact camera interfaces) we'd be a lot more excited.

5 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Jan 7, 2013)

Ricoh wasn't an overachiever in film cameras but with digital, they sure hit all the marks with their interface, ergonomics and LCD.

0 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (Jan 7, 2013)

Good move from Pentax but nothing exciting or "revolutionary"...

0 upvotes
Baxter Bad
By Baxter Bad (Jan 7, 2013)

Next time, Pentax - Let's Go All the Way. Manual zoom, hot shoe, a little glass viewfinder, and some decent-looking dials (these look terribly cheap).

0 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Jan 7, 2013)

Little glass viewfinders are pointless, other than to say you got one. It really is ok to take pictures without looking through a little box.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Jan 7, 2013)

@Cane

I thought so too, until I started using the little glass viewfinder on my Olympus C7070 after having owned the camera for a couple of years. The viewfinder let me frame in bright light. Thus there is a point to little glass viewfinders.

0 upvotes
mytake
By mytake (Jan 7, 2013)

@ bobbarber... What a cool looking old camera (the 7070). The MSRP was $700 in 2005...Holy Crap! How does it shoot?

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Jan 8, 2013)

@mytake,

I sold my C7070 last year for a move. I wish I hadn't.

As far as "how it shoots", it would be considered to have slow autofocus and slow raw write times by today's standards. Manual focus was problematic. Flash, ISO, etc. adjustments were easily made on the fly.

Images were first class. It printed as good as any DSLR at 8x10. Even at 13 x19 it was good. Macro was excellent.

It had magnesium body, a little glass VF (incredibly useful, despite what people are saying in this thread), articulated screen, lots of dedicated buttons, flash hotshoe, raw file format, lots of accessories including underwater housing, wide and tele adapters, all of which I had.

I bought mine for something like $400 in 2005, and it was still going strong last year.

I'd like to see a camera like the C7070 again. Not as big as a superzoom, but not as small as XZ-2. Let's say, coat-pocketable, with ALL the bells and whistles, and a durable chassis. I'm OK with a small sensor.

0 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Jan 7, 2013)

OVF and hotshoe for P&S cameras are almost useless. IMO.
99% of users never use it.

5 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Jan 7, 2013)

Disagree on both counts. You might be right about the 99%, though.

A hotshoe is "useless" on a camera with flash sync at any shutter speed? (I'm assuming this camera syncs at all shutter speeds; most of these enthusiast point and shoots do.)

And a viewfinder is "useless" in bright light? I found the crappy viewfinder on my Olympus C7070 indispensable, once I smartened up enough to start using it.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 7, 2013)

Did anyone mention price? If it's priced like an XZ-2, I think it's DOA. If it's fairly cheap, it could be an attractive alternative.

3 upvotes
ogl
By ogl (Jan 7, 2013)

499 USD as start price is not bad.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 7, 2013)

This looks like a great camera. I am just having a hard time getting excited about it since everyone else launched similar cameras up to 2 years ago. Around the time the Fujifilm X10 came out, this would have been a home run. Now it kinda feels like just an on base hit.

0 upvotes
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (Jan 7, 2013)

Belatedly joining the Fujifilm X-series bandwagon ...

1 upvote
fotolike
By fotolike (Jan 7, 2013)

men remain always babies !
So,, the camera looks strong and beautiful.. but I'd like an optical viewfinder too..
Love the classic looks,,,

0 upvotes
harrisoncac
By harrisoncac (Jan 7, 2013)

Thanks, Pentax.
This is the one that I have been waiting for a decade.
I hope that the K-02 will take the same course and look as this MX-1.

1 upvote
geoson
By geoson (Jan 8, 2013)

This past fall at PhotoPlus, a Pentax rep told me that Pentax would have a new ILC in the spring. I gathered from our chat that they would not use the K-01 design. I think this MX-1 could be a preview. Interesting that they revived the MX logo in a compact. Maybe there's a reborn LX in the works? Maybe they'll save that for a new ILC?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Jan 7, 2013)

Wha, wha, wha! OMG! I have never seen such a set of cry babies in my life. Could you all whine any more about every little thing? It's comical if not sad. Get a life people. It's just a camera, not your heart valve replacement. Why do old men complain about everything? If it doesn't look retro they complain, if it does they complain, if there a tilt screen they complain, if their isn't they complain, if there a hot shoe they complain, if there isn't they complain. Did your cats not find their liter box this morning?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
15 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Jan 7, 2013)

Does whining on a forum about other people whining on the forum constitute a meaningful life then?

9 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Jan 9, 2013)

Probably many of the whiners work for other camera companies.

It wouldn't be a bad guess that you are associated with Pentax.

0 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Jan 7, 2013)

If you want a retro look, dig up the blueprints from the 50's (What Fuji did apparently)
I'm sorry, but the MX-1 looks like it's designed by a committee.

0 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (Jan 7, 2013)

" classic looks should become even more pronounced as it ages"
Yeah? I thought cameras had a life expectancy of about 18 months these days so it'll have to brass up quickly.

8 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Jan 7, 2013)

I expect you will be able to get a special edition distressed model, which means you can experience that well worn look before it reaches its time to self destruct.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
babola
By babola (Jan 7, 2013)

My thoughts exactly.

Or the camera retail package may contain a 1200 grit sand paper and Cape Cod polishing cloth packed as an optional accessories?

:-)

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Jan 7, 2013)

Obviously, no one here is a guitar player. Gibson and Fender sell "aged" "road worn" instruments that have been pre-trashed at the factory, and you pay a hefty premium to get a guitar that's been thrown down a flight of stairs.

0 upvotes
bossa
By bossa (Jan 7, 2013)

I am, I have a Gibson Gold Top '57 VOS. No dings but 'pre-aged' hardware.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
GXRuser
By GXRuser (Jan 7, 2013)

Pentax version of the XZ2. Too bad it does not have the hot shoe and EVF port of the XZ1/XZ2.

I think Pentax designers must only use cameras indoors or on cloudy days. Only explanation for continued lack of EVF... K-01, Q/Q19, and not MX-1

3 upvotes
xMichaelx
By xMichaelx (Jan 7, 2013)

"I think Pentax designers must only use cameras indoors or on cloudy days."
I think this is true of nearly all camera designers. I hope as prices go drop and electronics shrink, we'll see more cameras with EVF's.

As much as I love my E-PL2, there are days when I take my 5-year-old Canon Powershot out instead because I know I'll need a viewfinder (and refuse to purchase an easily lost add-on).

0 upvotes
vapentaxuser
By vapentaxuser (Jan 7, 2013)

I have no problem with Pentax using the (presumably Sony) 1/1.7" sensor in their camera. It has proven a good performer in the other cameras where it has been used.

What I really think Pentax should've done to really distinguish it from the crowd, given its reputation for affordable weather-proofed options, is given the camera weather-sealing. Even if it meant the price approaches the RX100, it would be something unique in this crowded field of cameras.

One thing I do like is that they use DNG as their RAW format..meaning you can get your new MX-1 and start shooting and processing RAW photos right away.

But I will reserve final judgement until I get my hands on it and shoot with it. It's tempting to dismiss just based on looking at the specs...but it could end up being a very enjoyable camera to use. Especially if the AF system is halfway decent for this class.

1 upvote
RedDog Steve
By RedDog Steve (Jan 7, 2013)

Yes, DNG is an excellent move.

0 upvotes
mgm2
By mgm2 (Jan 7, 2013)

Hotshoe...why? With a lens this fast who uses flash? Well done Pentax

4 upvotes
stanic042
By stanic042 (Jan 7, 2013)

you can use wireless trigger for external flash(es)

5 upvotes
xMichaelx
By xMichaelx (Jan 7, 2013)

"With a lens this fast who uses flash?"

Photographers.

2 upvotes
mgm2
By mgm2 (Jan 7, 2013)

You mean photographers that don't know how to use natural light.

2 upvotes
grafli
By grafli (Jan 7, 2013)

Well I prefere natural light, but sometimes (in my case seldomly) you have to use a proper flash.
You almost can't take that thing to a studio because of the missing hotshoe...

0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Jan 7, 2013)

Not all "natural light" is good for photography. A little fill flash can clean up an image immensely especially with all overhead lighting. f/1.8 isn't all that fast considering the f/0.95-f/1.2 primes availavle, especially when you consider the small sensor.

2 upvotes
DLBlack
By DLBlack (Jan 7, 2013)

A small compact PnS camera would be nice for my caving but I do need a hotshoe for my radio trigger to fire my remote flashes. Weather-sealing would be great. An accessory port for an EVF would be nice. WIFI connectivity would be nice. So far this camera does look cute but it also seems like it specs was from a camera that was released a year ago. This is nothing to differeciate it from cameras released a year ago.

0 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Jan 9, 2013)

People keep insisting on putting DSLR features on P&S cameras.. (sometimes I do that too, lol).

0 upvotes
xc1427
By xc1427 (Jan 7, 2013)

I think RICOH-Pentax has said that the manufacture of compact camera will be left only to Ricoh...

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Jan 7, 2013)

Herd: "Gotta have a hotshoe." And pocketable too? Really now. A compact camera with an oversized flash or viewfinder mounted on a hotshoe makes it top-heavy, awkward, and vulnerable to damage. It's like putting a boat or a luggage crate atop a Mini Cooper or Smart.

As for the choice of a 1/1.7" size lens, as opposed to a 1" one, it remains to be seen whether the 1" doesn't confine a camera to having a narrow aperture, except at the shortest focal length, or else need to be as big as a Nikon V/J device.

7 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jan 7, 2013)

I agree...who cares about a hotshoe on a P&S with a 1/1.7 sensor. This type of camera is all about portability. If I want to use an external flash I'll shoot with my DSLR.

9 upvotes
xc1427
By xc1427 (Jan 7, 2013)

Totally agree with Clint

0 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Jan 7, 2013)

So don't use it! People will complain about anything.

2 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jan 7, 2013)

Cane...seems you missed the point. This camera doesn't have a hotshoe...as per someone else's complaint. We are saying...who cares...so we are on the same page.

1 upvote
RedDog Steve
By RedDog Steve (Jan 7, 2013)

As long as the in-built flash works well enough I would not notice the absence of a shoe.

0 upvotes
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Jan 9, 2013)

The Q has a hotshoe, but then again, that's an ILC.

0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jan 7, 2013)

So they make a great looking P&S and then tack on a cheap looking tiltable screen....ughh. Am I the only one who doesn't want a tilting screen on my camera?? So much unnecessary depth added to the camera.

7 upvotes
walkaround
By walkaround (Jan 7, 2013)

"Am I the only one who doesn't want a tilting screen on my camera?"

Yes, you are.

16 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jan 7, 2013)

Somehow I think you're wrong...

6 upvotes
unotisto
By unotisto (Jan 7, 2013)

"Am I the only one who doesn't want a tilting screen on my camera?"
No, you're not.

6 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (Jan 7, 2013)

yes, you are the only one. Probably because you are over 65.

3 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jan 7, 2013)

Cane....I may have the intelligence of someone over 65 but in fact I am only 40:) Seems to me that you are likely the one over 65 if you need a tilting screen....

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
xMichaelx
By xMichaelx (Jan 7, 2013)

If only there were cameras out there you could buy that didn't have a tilting screen.

Oh, wait...

2 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (Jan 7, 2013)

The added depth is really minimal. The difference between the Olympus e-pm1 with fixed screen and e-pl3 with tilt screen is 3mm. Hardly enough to affect pocketability/portability at all in most cases.

1 upvote
RedDog Steve
By RedDog Steve (Jan 7, 2013)

The tilt-o-screen belongs on a big camera, not a small one.

0 upvotes
timo
By timo (Jan 8, 2013)

A tilting screen is essential for anyone over 65, so the camera can be held in a stable way at arm's length. Most compacts are useless for anyone over 45, in fact.

0 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Jan 8, 2013)

Tilting screens are becoming the rage among the 17-to-33.3 demo.

0 upvotes
David Bourke
By David Bourke (Jan 8, 2013)

i was so glad that the Pentax K-5 didn't have a tilting screen. i totally agree that this camera would be better without one.

0 upvotes
jonikon
By jonikon (Jan 7, 2013)

I don't understand why Pentax is so intent on designing and marketing higher end cameras around a tiny 1/1.7" sensor at a time when most photo enthusiasts are moving to larger sensor cameras in this market segment. The Sony RX-100 with a much larger 1" sensor appears to be smaller and lighter than this clunky Pentax MX-1 retro design.
Unfortunately, It appears that the Pentax acquisition by Ricoh has not improved the marketing savvy of the old Pentax, and the MX-1 (like the Pentax Q), will be yet another poor selling over-priced camera with a tiny 1/1.7" sensor for a very small niche market. Too bad the more savvy and technology innovative Fujifilm did not acquire the Pentax camera division. Oh well....

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
xc1427
By xc1427 (Jan 7, 2013)

No. Only sony moved to 1' sensor. LX7, XZ2, P7700, S110, Samsung whatever... they all remain at 1/1.7.
Well, fuji has half moved to a larger sensor.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
walkaround
By walkaround (Jan 7, 2013)

Do you have a source or any evidence for your statement "most photo enthusiasts are moving to larger sensor cameras in this market segment"?

1 upvote
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jan 7, 2013)

I'm an enthusiast.....I'm moving to a larger sensor for my pocketable camera (RX100)...so obviously jonikon is correct:) Really, it's all about me.

3 upvotes
Greynerd
By Greynerd (Jan 7, 2013)

First Sony RX100 replaces all other cameras posting. I think we all get the message so please give it a rest.

0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Jan 7, 2013)

Well Greynerd...the RX100 is really the benchmark for this segment...hard not to compare other cameras to it..

1 upvote
DLBlack
By DLBlack (Jan 7, 2013)

I moved to m-4/3 for my small camera. No more small sensor p&s cameras for me.

0 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (Jan 7, 2013)

A camera for enthusiast sector and no hotshoe? Ok Pentax.

0 upvotes
wetfop
By wetfop (Jan 7, 2013)

The logo uses exactly the same type-face as my 1979 Pentax MX; surely mine was number 1, this should be MX-2 :-)

Mine has a hotshoe!

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
RedDog Steve
By RedDog Steve (Jan 7, 2013)

It's fully auto ... why not "ME Super 2"
Oh wait, it has to have "X" in the name.
[never mind] ;->

0 upvotes
Total comments: 173
12