Previous news story    Next news story

Just posted: Pentax MX-1 review

By dpreview staff on Jul 1, 2013 at 21:34 GMT

We've just posted our Pentax MX-1 review. Designed to recall the golden days of camera design, the Pentax MX-1 features a bright F1.8-2.5 28-112mm equivalent zoom lens, a 12MP 1/1.7" sensor, and a 3-inch, 920K-dot tilting LCD screen. Brass plates top and bottom are a minor feature of the MX-1 that Pentax was nevertheless careful to highlight as giving that old camera feel, even showing signs of wear over time. A retro look and feel is great, but does that translate into a good camera for modern times? Click the links below to read our review.

47
I own it
18
I want it
4
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 101
digimaan1
By digimaan1 (5 months ago)

I have just bought the MX1 and love it, its amazing how much better the quality of the pictures are than cameras using a four thirds sensor - (see comparison between MX1 and Olympus EP1 even the Pentax APS-C cameras in the review). It makes the Ricoh GXR with P10 look really awful!!
I'm seriously thinking that big hulking SLR's are a thing of the past.
It just reminds me old the old MX I used to have, a camera I also loved at the time, well done Pentax.
Phil

0 upvotes
Kevin Purcell
By Kevin Purcell (9 months ago)

"The MX-1 shares a lens (and probably sensor) with the Olympus XZ-2: a 28-112mm equivalent zoom with a relatively bright F1.8-2.5 aperture across the zoom range."

Do you have this infromation from Pentax that they share the same lens design?

Who did the lens design?

0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (9 months ago)

A third party developer. Both Olympus and Pentax used same source to procure parts they used in assembly of the XZ-2 and MX-1. They also felt feee to tweak certain parts for their distinctive use.

1 upvote
Kevin Purcell
By Kevin Purcell (9 months ago)

Thanks.

Interesting so it's really an OEM lens (I've seen quite a few patents from third parties for very similar lenses).

I'm suprised that for a top end compact they're not doing the design in-house. I guess they save money and put that into the brand.

0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (9 months ago)

Olympus and Pentax add value through other elements of product design, and put more efforts in projects that demand more serious innovation. But lets face it: both XZ-2 and MX-1 are such good compacts with very refined and evolved third party design that one must try really hard to make a horrible shot with them.
Choosing between them is more a matter of personal taste and style than a matter of function or image quality. Style — and that is becoming more and more the only real distinction between products today, which all do their job well.

0 upvotes
hwalker
By hwalker (9 months ago)

Sharing of lens designs has been going on forever. I clearly remember this one from 10 years ago

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2002/3/6/stevepanadmclc5

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
lastunicorn
By lastunicorn (9 months ago)

Interesting review. I just clicked the comparison-button and added the Lumix LX7. The comparison indicators of this two "Premium Enthusiast Cameras" show nine of the green bars out of eleven (I skipped the value-bar for good reasons) with yellow tips in favour of the LX7, one with the same rating (Build quality) and only one (Flash performance) with a better result for the MX-1.

Taking into account that these are comparable cameras and even in competition with each other it would be interesting to get some transparency how the score of 74% for the MX-1 in comparison to 75% for the LX7 has been calculated.

I am just questioning the lack of transparency - my favourit cameras are the great (but larger) products from Fuji and Olympus, so I do not own neither a LX7 nor a MX-1.

Best regards, The.Lastunicorn

1 upvote
erebuni99
By erebuni99 (9 months ago)

Or, you could ask: "Why Fuji x20, that got 77% and reviewed as better camera with better quality photos vs Fuji x10 (76%), appears worse on the same "comparison scale"? More specificaly, x10 gets more marks for: Exposure & Focus Accuracy; JPEG Image Quality; Low Light / ISO Performance; & Optics". But... x20 has better RAW Image Quality.

I guess, as probably everywhere else, there is too much subjectivity and politics involved in all these reviews and final marks.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
drezzd
By drezzd (9 months ago)

trying pretty hard to look like an x-e1 / pen

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (9 months ago)

Trying to look like old Pentax camera. Fuji and Olympus are using their own old designs too.

2 upvotes
joe1512
By joe1512 (9 months ago)

I don't get it. Its yet another 1/1.7 with fast lens and it costs 500 bucks. Why would you get this instead of an old RX100 with a 3x bigger sensor, for just a little more cash?

Alternatively, how is this different or better than the XZ2 or LX7?

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

In the US, the MX-1 is $399. The RX100 is $650, and the RX-100 II is $750, a significant difference for slightly better to a good deal better IQ depending on who you ask.

For some, better high ISO ability or DR is not a primary concern. If it were, everybody would shoot FF or APS-C and the RX100 wouldn't stand a chance against small m43, APS-C or FF cameras.

Many people only shoot near base ISO where IQ differences are minimal between these models. As always features, price and the types of images people plan to shoot are the more important concern than sensor size.

The XZ-2 is $599 for slightly more features but essentially the same IQ and body size.

7 upvotes
tompabes2
By tompabes2 (9 months ago)

because it has a faster lens on the long size, it looks gorgeous and has the brass plates.

1 upvote
thx1138
By thx1138 (9 months ago)

Looking at the test scene comparison, Lumix LX-7 is rubbish beyond ISO 200, while the Pentax actually is usable at ISO 800/1600. I'd get a second hand m4/3 or NEX personally however. To me the era of tiny sensors is dead. The Sony 1" sensor in the RX100 is the new entry level. Well worth the extra coin. I do like the idea behind the MX-1, but it should have come 3 years ago.

2 upvotes
wymjym
By wymjym (9 months ago)

not 10 FPS!!!
I believe it is closer to 5FPS in jpg, with a total of @ 10~12 depending on size

wj

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

Lots of comments about the size of the MX-1 but it's about the same thickness as the LX7 and XZ-2, mostly because of the tilt-able LCD and large aperture zoom.

The Ricoh GR or Coolpix A managed to fit APS-C sensors by using a fixed lens. The RX100 manages it's small size by using a slower optic.

But the general trend of miniaturization for cameras is about convenience, not performance, ergonomics or usability.

Tiny, pocketable cameras are great for transporting terrible for shooting. Slower lenses, cramped or non-existant buttons. For adult male size hands many of today's "compacts" are simply too small to operate comfortably.

MX-1 and iPhone

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QmFv7G2nu7Y/UQNdTGcDliI/AAAAAAAALSY/Z5x9sKBcerQ/s1600/MX1_gs.jpg

7 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (9 months ago)

Re lens design: Both Pentax and Olympus use third party suppliers to furnish their entry level offer.

Third party suppliers provide them with components and solutions which Olympus and Pentax buy, upgrade, tweak, and brand as they please. It is much cheaper like that, and involves less R&D cost. For example, Pentax has opted to change optical formula a little for its first prosumer camera.
Olympus XZ-2? Olympus by name and looks, not by components. Same for MX-1.

1 upvote
depscribe
By depscribe (9 months ago)

Sorry, but if it has no viewfinder and isn't a view camera it's simply a non-functioning smartphone. Even if it looks as if it was designed by a six-year-old. I predict that Pencoh will sell up to a dozen of these.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

True MX-1 users won't be able to hold it up to their faces to make pretentious self-portraits, but just like 99% of compact cameras, just like the RX1, XM-1, RX100, Rollieflex or whatever other camera you want to name, it has a VF. Just not an eye-level VF.

2 upvotes
Houseqatz
By Houseqatz (9 months ago)

yes, it's definitely NOT one of these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_camera

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (9 months ago)

Take Sony sensor, Olympus lens and Fujitsu (not Fujifilm!) processor, and you got yourself a Pentax camera.

BTW, looks like they have lost their lens-designing capabilities completely, WG-3 also has a lens from Olympus, and before that they released SLR lenses designed by Tokina. :(

0 upvotes
asw66
By asw66 (9 months ago)

From the review:

>The MX-1 shares a lens (and probably sensor) with the Olympus XZ-2: a 28-112mm equivalent zoom with a relatively bright F1.8-2.5 aperture across the zoom range.

I think you'll find that the two lenses are not quite the same, though their overall specifications are undeniably similar. I believe the XZ-2 has 3 aspherical elements, the MX-1 has 4.

3 upvotes
ludwik123
By ludwik123 (9 months ago)

The MX-1 lens f1.8 to f2.5 !!! 28 to 112mm
Looks identical to the Olympus xz-2 lens.
Are Pentax using the Olympus lens ?

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (9 months ago)

No doubt. Just like with WG-3.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (9 months ago)

Here's a good practice: read the review first and then post.

3 upvotes
groucher
By groucher (9 months ago)

" Designed to recall the golden days of camera design"
What golden age? Certainly not the golden age of the ME Super for example. This thing has no pentaprism, not even an EVF, but it does have all the usual useless gimmickry and stupid great display so beloved of the gear heads and newbies. Come on Pentax give us a real 'golden age' digital camera. You know you can do it.

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (9 months ago)

That would look very different and be much much more expensive. But sure I would like to see their best. Considering 645D, it might be pretty impressive thing..

0 upvotes
Johannes Zander
By Johannes Zander (9 months ago)

Why no pentaprism housing with EVF?
It looks like brick design

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
limlh
By limlh (9 months ago)

They could have made it into a very competitive camera, but it isn't. The only thing they can play around with is the price. They didn't learn from the K01 disaster.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (9 months ago)

The "K-01 disaster"? That's subjective, at best. K-01 is the only Pentax-mount camera I have kept... For its concluding price it is an extremely powerful camera.

1 upvote
hwalker
By hwalker (9 months ago)

RStyga, the reason you could've bought it for such good price was because it was a sales disaster.

0 upvotes
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (9 months ago)

Aren't _these_ the golden days of camera design? Features, functionality, optics, and prices that photogs of previous eras could not even imagine. Nostalgia is one thing, but there's a reason that we don't all shoot manual focus rangefinders or big 4x5s and carry a lightmeter and exploding flashbulbs.

1 upvote
DPReview Staff
By DPReview Staff (9 months ago)

And yet many of those 40+ year-old cameras still work.

6 upvotes
ezradja
By ezradja (9 months ago)

the problem I found (probably not in Japan or US or EU) to use film camera is not with the camera, but with the film. It's rather hard to find celluloids except in big stores at big cities.

0 upvotes
TheChefs
By TheChefs (9 months ago)

I love my film cameras and that's my Pentax MX and Hasselblad 501c. I like caring that hefty camera with my incandescent/flash light meter in my other hand. That setup is great for people who like to take one perfectly exposed photo instead of random 100 photos hopping that one of them is good.

I even use the lightmeter with my DSLR. Another benefit of this old cameras is that the viewfinders are unmatched by today's cameras. The MX viewfinder has close to double the real estate of modern FF DSLRs.

0 upvotes
WellyNZ
By WellyNZ (9 months ago)

@ezradja

I shoot film (4x5 and 8x10 large format) but was shooting 35mm film up until recently. I can't say I've ever experienced problems buying film. It's available almost everywhere.

0 upvotes
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (9 months ago)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not disparaging old cameras. But there is an awful lot to be happy with in the current ones.

2 upvotes
timo
By timo (9 months ago)

If only it had a VF. It's a neat camera to handle. And very good-looking IMHO (of course the purist users of DPR would not be influenced by looks in the slightest ... :) )

6 upvotes
Absolutic
By Absolutic (9 months ago)

Boy...these were the most how should I say it nicely.... uninspiring samples ever from you guys. What happened to gorgeous London samples of yester years. Seattle is just not that picture-friendly? If there are no more interesting subjects to shoot, at least find some attractive people to take pictures of!!!! Sorry if I sound harsh, but I used to love the samples when they came from London. These days I don't even want to open the samples anymore.

4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

The London samples were years ago in Phil Askey days. But Washington State has tons of places like Mount Rainier for landscape and nature photography. Everybody has different interests. Some people want to see Tower Bridge from all angles, some not so much.

But the original Pentax MX-1 Preview Gallery has other types of images with some interesting landscape, mountain images done somewhere in Washington.

MX-1 Preview Samples (copy paste link below)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/03/pentax-mx-1-preview-samples

1 upvote
DPReview Staff
By DPReview Staff (9 months ago)

Seattle is 162 years old with mostly modern structures, and London is many thousands of years old. I'm told it was very easy to walk out the door from DPR's office and get great shots of London's many landmarks, at least when weather permitted. Seattle has very nice vistas as well, but they're not just outside the office. We do our best, but the days of easily accessed London subjects are in the past (except for Andy Westlake). We'll continue to try to improve our galleries, but I believe the more important mission is to produce more reviews more quickly so you can pick the right camera to make great art.

5 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (9 months ago)

It's never easy to get great shots, wherever you are, but the point here is that these are review samples galleries designed to show off what the camera can and cannot do, in the context of a detailed review of its various functions and features. We do our best to get interesting shots on every camera we review, but we have strict rules about what we include in samples galleries (for example no post-processing except for occasional RAW images) and we do not generally have the luxury of vacationing to amazing places to take the pictures.

And to anticipate someone's next point - although we have on occasion lent products to other photographers for certain articles., etc., we do not normally have the luxury of doing that. Timing is an obvious reason (it's a logistical nightmare, juggling cameras between the studio, us and third-parties), but also strict loan agreements with manufacturers who lend us their cameras and lenses for review.

2 upvotes
David Fell
By David Fell (9 months ago)

In the same vein - most shots tend to be at base ISO and those at higher ISO tend to be of subjects that mask the noise so we get a warped view. Naturally the manufacturers want their product in the best light ('scuse pun) however all cameras have this so it is no surprise, a testing scene would help me discriminate between cameras. Is that not the purpose of this site?

1 upvote
DPReview Staff
By DPReview Staff (9 months ago)

David Fell, You are correct, there should be more night/high ISO shots, but please refer to our Studio Test Scene.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-mx-1/8

There are also a few high ISO shots on this page: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-mx-1/6

0 upvotes
DDWD10
By DDWD10 (9 months ago)

A nice-looking and solid performing camera without a doubt, but nothing to really set it apart from its peers.

2 upvotes
nofumble
By nofumble (9 months ago)

One ugly camera with so so specs.
Wish you well, Pentax.

3 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (9 months ago)

As trollish as that sounds, having handled the camera I'm tempted to agree. Not on my wish list.

3 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (9 months ago)

I can't disagree with you. Took a look at the MX-1 sometime ago and it look so clunky. Wonder what Pentax is trying to do. However, the K-5IIs is so much better. Strange!

The best small sensor camera is still the Lumix LX7. The lens is so good it can outresolve the sensor. Good price too.

1 upvote
Impulses
By Impulses (9 months ago)

LX7's only down to $350 or whatever because of it's age and because a replacement is probably due sooner rather than later... Which doesn't take away from it's value right now.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

Not ugly at all, IMHO. Other than the X20, it's about the nicest looking compact on the market. The fantastic Pentax UI and IQ don't show up in specs.

Camera bling (copy paste link)
http://marekmusilfoto.cz/images/mx-1/mx-1_(9).jpg

1 upvote
Gesture
By Gesture (9 months ago)

Looks like a neat camera. Too bad they couldn't squeeze a larger sensor in there. Not the same size, but an Olympus E-PL1 with kit lens for less than $200 is a compelling alternative, as is a Samsung NX100 with kit lens at the same cost.

1 upvote
abortabort
By abortabort (9 months ago)

MX-1 will pound any 12MP m43's with kit lens into dust. Sensor size is NOT everything.

2 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (9 months ago)

As will the near identical XZ-2 - So don't think I am being anti-Olympus ;) Having owned an E-P3, E-PM1 and E-PM2, unless you are putting some nice nice glass in front of them, don't bother, this is better.

1 upvote
Impulses
By Impulses (9 months ago)

And nice glass is either gonna come in the form of prime lenses that cost as much as the camera or in the form of $1,000 zooms with f/2.8... This is what everyone crying about sensor size doesn't get, the RX100 isn't magic.

Sure it was a gamble by Sony and it's a nice camera, but the tradeoff they made as far as sensor size vs lens was pretty much the only permutation left that nobody else had tried... It didn't involve some sorta breakthrough in making electronics or lenses smaller, nobody had simply been willing to go for that exact combination (specially the bean counters at any of these companies I imagine).

No one's gonna be able to magically break the laws of physics and release a camera with a 1"+ sensor and a retractable zoom with a large aperture throughout it's focal length, all while packing it in an RX100 sized body (or even an LX7 sized body), at least not barring any huge breakthroughs in lens design (liquid lenses maybe?).

0 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (9 months ago)

Big camera, small sensor. What a waste. Fanboys will defend it. The samples look average.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

@mcshan

Fanboys don't need to defend anything: the MX-1 got the same exact "Silver Award" as the slippery little bar of soap with the slow lens known as the RX100.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
1 upvote
mcshan
By mcshan (9 months ago)

Fanboys are defending it. It is a matter of taste but I'd take the bigger sensor over the faster lens. The Canon G15 has the faster lens but the Sony RX100 produces better images. The jury is still out on this new MX-1.

1 upvote
utomo99
By utomo99 (9 months ago)

I believe camera manufacturer looking at the Fuji X series success, and pentax one of the manufacturer who want to get some part of the market.
for first try on this premium pocket camera I think it is a good trial.
I suggest pentax to keep improving this cameras based on the reviewer and user comments. don't give up if this cameras is not success.

Now it is the premium cameras time.
and many are using Fast lens.
For other manufacturer, I suggest also using the Fast lens instead of the slow ones for their premium cameras

2 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (9 months ago)

12MP 1/1.7" sensor.

Should have competed with 1" crowd.

.

5 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (9 months ago)

The 'crowd' of one?

8 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (9 months ago)

More form and less function = piece of crap. For a body twice the volume of RX100, they couldn't fit anything more than a 1/1.7?

Nokia, SONY and Apple are coming out with big sensor smartphones, pretty soon any sensor smaller than 1" will be outdated. Why aren't more company copying SONY I have no idea.

4 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (9 months ago)

The key point here is that the lens doesn't slow beyond f2.5 at the telephoto end.

To achieve that with a zoom lens attached to a larger sensor, the lens itself would have to be much bigger. Hence why the RX100 slows down to 4.9 at the telephoto end.

11 upvotes
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (9 months ago)

" Why aren't more company copying SONY I have no idea."
You could have omitted that though.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
1 upvote
utomo99
By utomo99 (9 months ago)

If Any brand can produce Good cameras with big sensor 1" or APSC with fast lens. I believe it will be success.
But we did not know who will produce it.

long time ago before sony releasing RX 100. many people say it is impossible, but it is possible.
So don't say impossible. let them find out how

5 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (9 months ago)

@Beat Traveller
I want to see more company try. SONY tried and the result is a hot selling camera. I feel most company just want to repackage the samething. MX-1, LX7, XZ-2 and EX2F are just the same concept in different package.

@Gully Foyle
I don't get what you are saying. RX100 is the best selling large sensor compact.

3 upvotes
Beat Traveller
By Beat Traveller (9 months ago)

So you want them to stop copying each other and start copying Sony. Got it.

0 upvotes
rb59020
By rb59020 (9 months ago)

B&H sells the RX100 for $648.00 After spending $399. on the MX-1 I still have enough left over to fly round trip to the Bahamas! I'll take some pictures on the beach in Nassau.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

Because:
a) the RX100 and RX100 two are $700 and $800 cameras. Variety of price points is what makes the camera industry work.

b) with cameras smaller doesn't mean better, as to get the RX100 so small, Sony had to cripple it with a dog slow f/4.9 max aperture at 100mm. Which means the MX-1 actually has more shallow DOF than the RX100 at full tele, meaning for subject/background isolation, the MX-1 is actually more useful.

c) the RX100 gets less than 1 EV better high ISO performance. The number of people who need their P&S to produce clean ISO 3200 images is much less than you think.

d) at base ISO, the difference in IQ is not as dramatic is you think and for many the IQ produced by a 1/1.7" sensor is more than adequate.

e) one RX100 fanboy's "piece of crap" is another man's gem.

f) DPR gave it the same Silver award as the RX100.

g) m43 or APS-C cameras can be had for $800

h) if sensor size were the most important feature of a camera, we'd all be shooting FF.

5 upvotes
Impulses
By Impulses (9 months ago)

"If Any brand can produce Good cameras with big sensor 1" or APSC with fast lens. I believe it will be success. But we did not know who will produce it."

The RX100 wasn't a magic bullet, it just explored one of the few permutations of sensor size vs lens aperture and focal length that no one had tried yet... To get a 1" sensor (let alone APS-C) with a lens that's faster throughout the focal length would simply require a larger body than the RX100.

There's no way around that with current technology, these companies have been designing and outsourcing lenses for a lot longer than they've been building sensors. Look at larger cameras, you can get faster lenses that are small and relatively inexpensive in the way of primes, but once you start looking at lenses with any degree of zoom range and a large aperture you're taking a big size penalty (proportionally larger between m43, APS-C, and FF) and thousands of dollars rather than hundreds.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

Fujifilm X20 77%
Pentax MX-1 74%

This score I'm guessing is because of the excellent X20 VF, and really solid Phase Detect AF which really does work great.

RAW IQ is listed as considerably better for the X20, which has to be a mistake.

Logically the X20 should have better IQ, but having owned the X20 (and looking at the RAW comparisons), I'd give it to the MX-1 easily.

This may be because of LR, but at a certain point you get tired of waiting for LR to figure out X-Trans. Still it would be difficult to say the X20 has significantly better RAW IQ than the MX-1 (at least DPR's own RAW Comparison tool doesn't demonstrate their conclusion).

Both extremely nice cameras though but I had a bit higher hopes for the X20.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (9 months ago)

I agree, although I totally don't give heed to the score.
If the X-Trans holds any RAW potential hidden by the lack of proper demosaicing, it better be unveiled soon. Still, the high ISO comparison is an easy win for Fuji, but that was the case with the EXR sensors as well (X100). So, seeing how the Bayer AA-less sensors perform, I can barely justify the whole concept (less moire, better resolution etc.) I'd definitely get one, but not for the sensor.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

Gully wrote: "Still, the high ISO comparison is an easy win for Fuji"

But it not a win for the X20 at all as DPR correctly has the MX-1 outperforming the X20 at high ISO (See Conclusion and Add X20 to comparison).

Look at RAW Comparison Crops, the grain structure on the X20 at ISO 800 or 1600 is much larger than the extremely fine grain MX-1 files. DxOMark has the MX-1 as one of the very best performing at high ISO for it's sensor size and it's easy to see why with the comparison tool. The MX-1 RAWs are sharper all around, but this could be ACR.

1 upvote
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (9 months ago)

I can't say for RAW as it's obviously the weak point of Fuji and I imagine we both agree in that.
But I've seen high ISO, real world sample images from both and I definitely give the edge to Fuji. Blacks are blacks, colors are better defined and in general, for what most people do with small sensor cameras, the whole picture is much more pleasing. On the other hand, MX-1 has grain in solid colors, magenta-ish reds, and blue-ish blacks. Not so good for normal viewing IMHO.

0 upvotes
flektogon
By flektogon (9 months ago)

Still the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 seems to be the best camera in this section.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

The MX-1 seems to have better IQ, especially at higher ISO values.

4 upvotes
flektogon
By flektogon (9 months ago)

Just add the other cameras at the graphical comparison. Unless those graphical bars are not comparable.

1 upvote
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (9 months ago)

+1 for MX-1.

5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

Used to have an LX7, it's a solid camera. It doesn't do all that well at higher ISO settings, and I prefer overall the colors from the MX-1 / P7700 cameras with the, AFAIK Sony 1/1.7" sensor, are more pleasing. But there is no right answer at this level.

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Chris62
By Chris62 (9 months ago)

I agree-> LX7 is the best.

1 upvote
flektogon
By flektogon (9 months ago)

O.K. but then why almost each bar in the graphical comparison (including the low light performance) is longer for the LX7? I would like to get the explanation from the authors of those reviews, how reliable are those graphical comarisons.

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (9 months ago)

were the lx7 reviewed today it wouldn't get 75% anymore

0 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (9 months ago)

Interesting camera all around, but at that size, it should have a hotshoe, in my opinion. What's with those stap lugs in front like that? I'd like to sit with the designer and ask why, and how hard is it for these camera companies to understand some of us want complete and easy control. We want twin command dials. We know most photographers shoot in some automatic mode and don't need it, but there are enough of us that want the extra dial and Ithink it's pretty trivial to include it. Many of us would absolutely go bonkers with having to put up with three or four controls which some of the NEX give us or Nikon One. We all aren't Aperture Priority or Program mode beginners. Trade that EC dial for a second control wheel.

4 upvotes
sdribetahi
By sdribetahi (9 months ago)

Not using AP doesn't make you more advanced.

3 upvotes
Mahuna
By Mahuna (9 months ago)

if you actually read the review it explains the idea behind the lug placement .

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (9 months ago)

Aperture Priority AE is not a "beginner mode" at all, in fact it gets mentioned as one of the most often used exposure modes in all the photography magazine interviews.

Some cameras, like DSLRs with twin command dials make Manual exposure quite easy to use, but many P&S and MILCs don't have twin command dials (The Nikon 1 V1 has two dials, a rocker and a wheel around the four way controller so M mode is quite easy). But on cameras with one dial, it makes perfect sense to use A mode in combination with EV comp and AE/AF Lock.

1 upvote
Gully Foyle
By Gully Foyle (9 months ago)

Not again... The wants and likes of everybody!
If every manufacturer built products with everything every user has ever wanted, we would end up with only one product! Distinction, diversity, difference, plethora, variety etc.
Which word you don't get?

7 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (9 months ago)

copy what from sony? like....nothing?

0 upvotes
nathantw
By nathantw (9 months ago)

Pentax is definitely recycling old names from their past. The MX-1 used to be their all manual camera. Just waiting for the ME or ME Super to come out.

0 upvotes
Guidenet
By Guidenet (9 months ago)

Or how about a Pentax LX with removable finder and screens as well as a replaceable sensor (removabe back on film). Was one of my favorite Pentax models. They just took too long to come out with a systems camera. Nikon and to a lesser extent Canon had already grabbed the Professional market.

0 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (9 months ago)

I think H1-a has a nice ring.

0 upvotes
Nathebeach
By Nathebeach (9 months ago)

Sooo many positives, especially on image quality. Shouldn't the overall score be weighted toward IQ? Also please include LOW LIGHT SAMPLES in the end section under sample photos. Think about it. A portable camerea is specifically for taking out on the town and shooting pictures without drawing attention.

0 upvotes
LarryLatchkey
By LarryLatchkey (9 months ago)

Curious to see the Q7 with that sensor...

3 upvotes
Pikme
By Pikme (9 months ago)

Why do you keep talking about the Olympus XZ-2 but never post a review for it?

8 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (9 months ago)

...maybe they realize is doesn't need a review to show how awesome it is.

Or maybe they realize that we don't need their review to know it's awesome, while cameras like the MX-1 need help.

2 upvotes
DPReview Staff
By DPReview Staff (9 months ago)

The Olympus XZ-2 was a part of our Enthusiast Zoom Compact Cameras Roundup. It is a worthy camera that has a great deal of value. The conclusion named it the one of two 'best all 'rounders' alongside the RX100. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2367736880/roundup-enthusiast-zoom-compact-cameras/8

1 upvote
rb59020
By rb59020 (9 months ago)

Ordered mine in black from B&H this afternoon as it is @ $399.00

From the artical:
■Excellent image quality in JPEG and Raw
■Fast autofocus
■10fps full-res burst mode
■1cm Macro mode allows extreme closeups
■Raw files contain a lot of extra detail in both highlights and shadows
■Dedicated Movie record button
■Built-in sensor-shift and pixel-track shake reduction

But still just a "74"?

Must of been the missing hot shoe. :-(

1 upvote
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (9 months ago)

74% is not bad. I don't see any competitor gets 80% or higher.

2 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (9 months ago)

The lack of a hot shoe isn't minor. I also wish they had kept the control ring around the lens. It's an incredibly convenient location. At least they gave it a proper rear control dial instead of relying on a ring around the directional pad. Those never work well.

1 upvote
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (9 months ago)

Article.

And 1cm macro focusing is very common.
RAW provides to more detail and highlights for every camera.
G15 does high burst rate too and has a hot shoe.

1 upvote
mcshan
By mcshan (9 months ago)

In the end the scores mean little.

1 upvote
JacobSR
By JacobSR (9 months ago)

With a bright F1.8-2.5 lens and great hi ISO quality you probably don't need a hot shoe. On this type of a camera how often will be used?
I never used external flash on compacts. For me, natural light is best.
But there is a built in flash, if need be, it can be used as trigger for external remote flash.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 101