Pentax MX-1 hands-on preview

January 2013 | By Shawn Barnett

Preview based on a pre-production Pentax MX-1

With a rich history in camera design, it seems fair that Pentax would seek to recapture the two-tone camera designs of the last century with its MX-1 enthusiast compact. A metal top and bottom and a leather-like band around the middle provide a gripable surface as well as a classic look. Thanks to the painted brass top and bottom plates, we're told users will enjoy that old tendency toward 'brassing' exhibited in well-used vintage cameras as the MX-1 accumulates wear. We haven't yet bashed the Pentax MX-1 around enough to test this feature, but there's still time.

Following the near extinction of the standard pocket digital camera in the wake of the smartphone juggernaut, camera manufacturers are aiming more squarely at the enthusiast market, and the MX-1 is a clear sign that Pentax considers it an important segment to serve. Dominated largely by cameras like the Panasonic LX7 and Canon Powershot S100, and more recently by the Sony Cyber-Shot RX-100, the enthusiast pocket camera market consists of cameras with larger sensors, premium lenses, raw capture and a bias toward manual controls and modes, in addition to the usual auto and semi-auto modes.

One only has to look into the lens of the Pentax MX-1 to see it shares a lens with the Olympus XZ-2: a 28-112mm equivalent with a relatively bright F1.8-2.5 aperture across the zoom range. Aside from the 12-megapixel sensor, though, that's about all the Pentax MX-1 shares with the XZ-2. The MX-1 is both wider and thicker, lacks a hot shoe, and surprisingly has only one control dial, skipping the trend toward a customizable control ring around the lens. In the MX1's favor are a slightly larger LCD (thanks to its 4:3 aspect ratio), that flips up and down in the same way as the XZ-2, and an EV adjustment dial that hangs over the right rear edge ever so slightly for quick changes to the auto and semi-auto capture modes; it's also stiff enough that it doesn't turn by accident.

We were a little disappointed to see no hint of Ricoh's influence on the interface (Ricoh purchased Pentax 18 months ago, so we'd expect to see some of the fruits of that deal appearing soon). In particular, some of the GRD and GXR's control features, with customizable access to key menus and simple, smart controls would have been welcome. But several other omissions show that the MX-1 wasn't quite aimed at the same market as most premium pocket cameras.

Built as much as a premium camera for the casual snapshooter as it is for the photographer craving more control, the Pentax MX-1 makes accessing its high quality optic and potentially good sensor less intimidating. It looks cool, and if it measures up to expectations, particularly from its lens and sensor, it will make a good street camera for semi-auto shooters, and a reasonable substitute for carrying an SLR everywhere.

Pentax MX-1 key features

12MP backlit CMOS sensor
4x 28-112mm equivalent F1.8-2.5 lens
ISO 100-12800
3.0 inch, 920K dot LCD screen
JPEG, RAW (DNG), RAW+JPEG capture
1080p 30fps video recording with stereo microphones
Rear control dial and EV dial
Pentax SLR-like interface
HDR mode

CMOS sensor

The Pentax MX-1's 1/1.7" backlit CMOS sensor has a total resolution of 12.76MP, outputting a 12-megapixel image measuring 4,000 x 3,000 pixels. Many of the Pentax's rivals, including the Olympus XZ-2, Nikon P7700 and Samsung EX2F also use 1/1.7" 12MP BSI CMOS sensors. Given that these are not huge mass-market products, it seems likely that most of them share a single sensor, such as the one Sony published details of in October.

Sensor sizes compared

The diagram below compares the size of the MX-1's 1/1.7" sensor to those in its nearest competitors - in general larger sensors potentially offer better image quality. The MX-1's sensor is equal to most of its direct competitors, like the S110, XZ-2, and LX7.

The MX-1's sensor is smaller than recent premium pocket leaders, but on par with most premium pocket category competitors.

Enthusiast compacts: lenses, sensors and background blur

The table below compares the MX-1's lens specifications and sensor size against its main competitors and the X10. Along with the familiar 35mm-equivalent focal length, we've also included a 35mm-equivalent aperture range, which gives some idea of the control over depth of field offered by each camera's lens.

	Sensor area, mm² (dimensions)	Focal length range	Focal length range (equiv.)	Aperture range	Aperture range (equiv)*	Dimensions (mm)
Pentax MX-1	41 (7.4x5.6)	6.0-24mm	28-112mm F1.8-2.5	F1.8-2.5	F8.4-11.6	122x64x51
Fujifilm XF1	58 (8.8x6.6)	6.4-25.6mm	25-100mm	F1.8-4.9	F7.0-19.1	108x62x33
Sony DSC-RX100	116 (13.2x8.8)	10-37mm	28-100mm	F1.8-4.9	F4.9-13.4	101x58x36
Canon S100	41 (7.4x5.6)	5.2-26mm	24-120mm	F2.0-5.9	F9.3-27.4	99x60x27
Fujifilm X10	58 (8.8x6.6)	7.1-28mm	28-112mm	F2.0-2.8	F7.9-11	117x70x57
Panasonic DMC-LX7	34** (6.7x5.1)	4.7-17.7mm	24-90mm	F1.4-2.3	F7.1-11.7	111x76x46
Samsung EX2F	41 (7.4x5.6)	5.2-17.2mm	24-80mm	F1.4-2.7	F6.5-12.5	112x62x45

* Equivalent aperture, in 135 film terms - this gives an idea of the depth of field control offered by the lenses when the sensor size is taken into account.
** Panasonic DMC-LX7 sensor area figures based on 4:3 aspect ratio mode

Photographers tend to be interested in how well a lens can blur backgrounds when shooting portraits at full telephoto, and in this respect the MX-1 is among the best in its class - matching exactly the ability offered by the Olympus XZ-2. This isn't the sort of shallow depth-of-field that a DSLR will offer with a specialized lens, but at the long end of the lens it'll give about the same flexibility as most DSLR kit lenses will offer.

The equivalent apertures also give a rough idea of how the cameras might compare in low light; to a degree they indicate how far a larger sensor should be offset by a faster lens. Obviously this isn't the whole story; the characteristics of the individual sensors matters too, as does the quality of in-camera processing for JPEG shooters. But the story is essentially the same - the MX-1 should do a bit better than most small-sensor cameras, but not as well as the RX100 over most of its lens range.

Size compared

The MX-1's larger lens and articulating screen means it's a little thicker than most cameras in this category, as well as a little wider. It's also thicker than the XZ-2. The Pentax MX-1 is still small enough to slip into a shorts or jacket pocket, and there's enough space on the back for a few extra buttons and controls. We have a feeling many users are likely to want to take advantage of the camera strap to show off this good-looking camera.

The Pentax MX-1 is shorter than the XZ-2, with a wider stance, which draws attention to the lens, making it appear somewhat larger. Note the infrared port on the front, right next to the AF-assist lamp.


While the XZ-2 tapers in specific places to make it feel slimmer - and ultimately be slimmer - the Pentax MX-1 embraces the idea of bulk, probably for the sake of a more retro look and feel.

Though both cameras have a control dial on the back, the XZ-2 has another dial on the front, customizable to adjust focus and either aperture or shutter speeds, while the MX-1's main 'extra' control is the EV dial. Like its SLRs, Pentax has included the green 're-center' button for quickly jumping back to the default setting regardless of the exposure mode.

If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

Comments

Total comments: 214

The question is, will the camera innards last long enough to make any brassing 'worthwhile'? An old mechanical camera with some brassing on it, has probably seen many years of use, due to it's lack of battery, LCD screen, digital sensor, circuit boards, and myriad other things to go wrong. I'd wager that not many MX-1s will be operational and looking well loved in fifty years time for example.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

I have yet to see a digital cameras "innards" wear out from use. It's mechanical cameras that have an issue of "innards" wearing out because those are the cameras with actual moving parts that can wear out. Today's electronic cameras have very few, if any, moving parts inside them. Circuit boards don't "wear out." Digital sensors don't "wear out." Your statement reminds me of people who, years ago, used to say that top-plate LCD screens on film SLRs were a bad thing because those screens would not last long and would "wear out." LOL.

Plus, it looks like the construction of the MX-1 is a bit above your average throw-away plastic compact digicam.

At any rate, I think some of the people who buy the MX-1 will manually brass the camera with some steel wool or a Brillo pad in order to get that "brassed" look without having to wait years for it to happen naturally. It'll be a way for them to give their cameras a very personalized, aged look sooner rather than later.

3 upvotes

Perhaps "wear" is the wrong choice of words. Fail, would be better. Working, as I do, in camera retail, I do get to see an awful lot of older digital cameras that simply stop working, be it a sensor issue, or a connection between one board or another failing.
Also I'd say battery lifespan might be an issue. Sure you can pick up a spare Li-On battery now, but how easy will that be in five years time? Ten? If you can't get a manufacturers own brand battery after that period, will there be third party batteries, and if so, will you want to trust them in your lovely, antique looking MX-1?

0 upvotes

T3 tell that to samsung, my s2 i purchased a few months ago shorts out and turns off right away if i take 3 photos in a row with the led on.

0 upvotes

Is it just me, or does the bulbous tilting/spinning/flipping LCDs on these retro designs kind of ruin the look a little??

5 upvotes

Believe me it's not just you.

0 upvotes

Auto Lens cap (Olympus LC-63A) would be nice. Q10 top design (middle peak) to include Pentax name and hotshoe. Optional grip like XZ-2. Silver dials like X20. Wifi like Samsung.

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

WOndering if Olympus XZ-1 / XZ-2 lens adapter (CLA-12) would fit on it too... I might buy this.

But i also getting ready to buy a Pentax Q as well, whch s very affordable now.

Pentax, good to have you back. Give us more, we will buy YOU.

0 upvotes

I really like the looks of it but like other I don't think it will be on my list of must have since there no hot shoe and I'm sure this will affect the sell of it.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

This camera would be off my list because of no hot shoe, but the camera looks good, shares a great lens with the Olympus, and should have great IQ. It could be really neat. Will look forward to read reviews.

2 upvotes

Feel much the same way. I agree that a camera of this class should offer a hotshoe. The lens is probably decent though if I were doing the specs it probably would have been a fast 24-90-equiv instead.

Even though a little solidity is welcome, I wonder how just how many cameras of this sort are likely to be used for enough years (before replacement) for that 'brassing' to occur. The presence of plastic lens housing and rear LCD and relatively light weight mean that most users tend to treat cameras like this with kid gloves, otherwise they'll break well before the housing gains an attractive patina.

1 upvote

I would suppose , that targeted consumer will among first things , look for sleek body design ... which is none seen on this camera

0 upvotes

Weird placement of the shoulder strap lugs.

0 upvotes

They are in the same position as the classic Pentax SLR's of the 60's and 70's. Having both the SV and Spotmatic F, in all honesty it is not an issue.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

Yeah, it doesn't look like an issue, just peculiar, though I have no experiance with CLASSIC pentax SLRs either. Just a note of something that stood out to me. ;)

0 upvotes

Fair point Corgi. But if you are aware of the classic Pentax SLR and have some their bodies, you can see where the retro look comes from. When I say retro, yes it looks like a camera from a bygone era, but if a certain part works, then why not replicate it? Have a look at some of the old Pentax cameras in the flesh, you might think, mmm yeah, that looks good and works. :-) At least the camera does not look like the Nikon V2.........LOL (sorry, being cynical)

0 upvotes

Look at classic 35mm SLR bodies like its MX namesake. Strap lugs were on the front corner faces, just like this.

0 upvotes

If you mean on the cut away corners of classics, then yes, same as the SV, SpotF etc

http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/bodies/film_M/MX.html

0 upvotes

"At least the camera does not look like the Nikon V2.........LOL (sorry, being cynical)"

No apology needed, the V2 is an awful design, IYAM.

0 upvotes

Finally, Pentax enters this segment of the market with what looks like a good proposition. I'm really bored of the retro looks though, and I think much of the success of the X Fujis and the Oly OM-D is down to their retro look. I guess camreras look more serious with an old fashion design. I think retro is easy and unimaginative.

0 upvotes

The specs - Live view - No. How it could be? :) The shutter - 1/8000, by the way, in Av, S and M mode.

0 upvotes

Nice looking camera, but looks to imitate the Leica style?
Still curious why not use CMOS 1 inch size sensor?

1 upvote

Shutter speeds 1/8000sec with Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority,Manual Exposure, and combination of electronic shutter enabled

2 upvotes

I just checked, in the second page of this preview, it says 1/2000", not 1/8000". I wonder what you guys are talking about. It'll be cost-prohibitive to make a reasonably accurate 1/8000" shutter speed camera. IIRC, Olympus XZ-2 has a 3-stop built-in neutral density filter if you are shooting under bright light.

0 upvotes

The 1/8000sec came from Pentaximaging.com. The 1/8000sec will work/appear if the camera's mode is set to Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority,Manual Exposure, and combination of electronic shutter enabled...

1 upvote

Thanks for the info, RichardBalonglong. Now you're making me curious. Is this a physical shutter speed or some emulation mode?

I am not sure I like electronic shutter.... Maybe that's why there is no hot shoe on top. But then, most compacts are using electronic shutters.

0 upvotes

Well my old Casio EXILIM Pro EX-F1 had Shutterspeeds in Shutter Speed Priority AE: 60 to 1/40000 second!
That was 5 years ago... so the 1/8000th of Pentax is no miracle! ;-)

1 upvote

It's no miracle, but it's good.

1 upvote

Physical shutter - 1/2000th max
Electronic shutter - 1/8000th max

We've updated the specs to clarify this.

2 upvotes

looks great - a comment on sensor size, clearly we are tempted to and do believe that the larger the better, there is more. I have produced A0 size (46.8 x 33.1 in) prints from my Nikon D700 sensor 24 by 36mm and my Lumix FX-35 sensor 6.2 by 4.6 mm, both at the 28mm lens setting and simply showing these pictures to a dozen people to guess the expensive camera shot (the FX-35 was used and cost £30) and most picked the image from the cheaper camera. Also the smaller sensor means that lenses will be appropriately shorter to deliver the 35mm camera equivalent focal lengths - if you love good depth of field this is a good thing. My Canon G1x suffers with a huge lens that extends because of the larger sensor and a reduced depth of field.

What we do miss is that not all camera of the same make and type will do not deliver idendical results - manufacturing tolerances means some will deliver better results vs an identical model.. having tries back to back this is my experience.

1 upvote

Yes, and I shall add one more reason why one should try their prospective cameras out before buying it: handling.

During Christmas sale, I bought an Olympus E-PL3 during lightening round. I returned it after a few shots, and understand why E-PL3 is placed lower than Olympus's more professional models: handling and ergonomics! On paper, E-PL3 has the same specs as E-P3, except maybe E-PL3's screen is arguably better because it's articulated. E-PL3, however, is awkward to hold except for pancake lenses (no grip), and with its standard P&S dials for control, it behaves just like a P&S.... Yes, it has PASM dial, but you won't be using them.... Yes, it has every control of a DSLR, but you won't be using them.... Ergonomics and handling are what set a professional model from an amateur one.

And yes, quality assurance is a big issue. That's why I've always bought Olympus, but not Pentax..., though Pentax's specs are very competitive for their price.

1 upvote

another failure from Pentax...where is my FF K-1 or MZ-D however you want to name it? geeeeeez....

NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4 upvotes

I am sure once Pentax makes a FF, you won't like that either and be first in line to whine about how it's not the greatest camera ever made, with every feature you personally wanted, at the cheapest price point in the market. Has it ever occurred to you to just go buy a full frame camera from someone else and find some happiness in your miserable existence?

17 upvotes

Your comment is a Failure.

4 upvotes

@ not-so-canny cane....
You are wrong. I am still in love with my 1Ds Mark II which I purchased from a friend years ago. Pentax/Ricoh will likely buy the sensor from Sony anyways....but regardless if they do come out one with K-1 design or something close to MZS I will buy one. MZS is one of the sickest 135mm camera ever made!

1 upvote

I for one is waiting for FF Pentax. But man, be happy with what you have now and take great photos with it. FF Pentax will come one day...

4 upvotes

Although this camera isn't for me, I like the brass, and I hope to see that as an option on future Pentax offerings.

But FFS, what is with the goofy sensor measurements? What is 1/1.7 of an inch? Who thinks in those terms? Why not say .58 inches, or better yet 15mm.

0 upvotes

1/1.7"? Well, it's the standard for a long time now. Don't know who thought of that up. But the purpose of standard is to be consistent across the board, so people can make a meaningful comparison/measurement. If you suddenly change it to metric and no other manufacturer followed, it'll cause a lot of confusion and lose the purpose of a standard.

When they changed from large format (8x10 or 4x5, in inches) to medium format (6x7, 6x9, 6x4.5, in centimeters), to small format 35mm (35mm is diagonal distance), and now back to inches (1/1.7", 1/2.33", 1", 2/3" for compact format, I think the changing standard is to make sure you don't realize how the format is getting smaller and smaller....

0 upvotes

I'm just saying, if they want a decimal they should have a decimal, if they want a fraction they should have a fraction, but decimals within fractions really grind my gears :P 9/16th would be reasonably close, and it's easy to visualize, just over half.

But I still maintain that millimeters would be the best way to measure it since lenses are measured in mm. And it gives you a point of reference, 15mm would be the sensor diagonal of this camera, hence a zoom setting of 15mm would equate to a "normal" lens, or 43mm in 35mm terms. From there we can work out the crop factor, 43 ÷ 15 = 2.9X

I agree the only reason to use such confusing notation is to obfuscate the diminutive size of the sensor.

2 upvotes

I agree with you, Maxfield, that'll make life easier. But unfortunately the convention is set up this way. I studied accounting before, so I know changing standard from one to another is more problematic than one could possible imagine (lots of tiny details will have to iron out, it's not as simple as it seems). The standard print sizes are still 8x10", 11x14" and the likes, though those are from the large format days!!! Fortunately this camera, like most compacts, uses 4:3 aspect ratio..., so it's easier to print standard sizes like 8x10 or 11x14.... (compact camera has too small a sensor to print 12x18).

And most of the photography terms are counter-intuitive, anyways. Just use what you're given, because the convention is just too set-in. It's easier to adapt than try to change the world is what I've learned over the years....

0 upvotes

" 9/16th would be reasonably close, and it's easy to visualize, just over half. "

Absolutely not. First of all, this 1/1.7" designation has nothing to do with the real sensor size. Second, only in US people can still visualize in inches. And third, you don't need to visualize the sensor size at all.
What really should have been shown is the AREA of the sensor, as it directly and linearly relates to the amount of light the sensor receives with the lens of given brightness in a given time.

Effective area (with electronics and other losses excluded) would be even better.

0 upvotes

For those interested in the meaning and origin of this sensor-size designation, see:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensor%20sizes, or,
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2002/10/7/sensorsizes

0 upvotes

It's not eventhe real size - it represents the size of the image circle, from another era. I agree they should change it, but they haven't (and I really really really wish they would!), and although most measurements are in mm, the nomenclature for sensor comparison is in this format. That way you can see instantly that it is in the same category of the Oly XZ2, Pana LX7, Can G15, Sam EX2F, etc. (and it's easy to see that this whole bunch is smaller than Fuji's 2/3" and wayyy smaller than Sony's 1", in this category).

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I have a Fuji X-e1 with zoom in my B&H cart, then...I saw this. I've been waiting for years for a digital replacement for my film Pentax MX (black)..a great camera.
However, my excitement completely went to zero, when I saw the small sensor and lack of manual control (external).
Time to hit the buy button on the Fuji.

6 upvotes

If you care about the features that make a camera great, I highly suggest you put your hands on a camera you're buying. I admit I was very excited when I read about Sony RX-100's features and specs (large 1" sensor and excellent lens). All that excitement went down the drain when I actually handled one. The controls are awkward, which is probably good if you just use Auto, but not anything else (not even good for P mode). So be sure you handled your Fuji X-E1. This camera does have a rear dial, which is the same amount of control as most entry DSLRs.

1 upvote

I agree with Louie - partially. Do handle it, because ergonomics are partly a subjective thing, depending on one's personal preferences. I'm sure there were some humans in Sony's design department who felt the ergonomics of the RX100 were just fine.
Do take a look at the Fuji 2/3" sensor and apsc sensor models. I coupled a 30mm f2 lens onto a Samsung apsc camera and feel I have better than what you see here, at a lower price. So there are lots of options for you.

0 upvotes

about the body they did it just right. i love it. but the lens and the sensor... killed it, imo. they could have used that 1-inch type.

0 upvotes

putting a 1"-sensor in it might take away the SR...

0 upvotes

I like it ... It resembles a bit my Pentax MX, which I like very much, too :-)

0 upvotes

For those questioning only a single control dial -- Pentax DID include two dials, it's just that one is dedicated to EV comp, which for most photographers is heavily used; and here you don't have to push any buttons to access it, and you can see what it's set to, even with the camera switched off.

For me the lack of hotshoe is unfortunate though, and I'd probably prefer the 24-90 focal range of the LX-5/7.

I do wonder why Pentax couldn't have made their 02 zoom (5-15 f2.8-4.5, ~27-82eq) for the Q closer in spec to this one -- that camera's even smaller sensor could benefit from a faster long end. At least the new 06 zoom for Q is constant f/2.8 from 15-45mm (~82-250-equiv).

4 upvotes

A rebadged XZ-2 without the hotshoe or accessory port? What is Pentax thinking?? "Nobody wants to use flashes on this thing and nobody wants EVFs eitehr...people love the size though so let's keep it chunky and add some extra weight by using brass peices that we'll paint...just what everyone wants: all the weight and bulk but no more nonsense extras!!!"

SMH.

4 upvotes

It doesn't look anything like an xz-2 Pentax-Ricoh doesn't cooperate with Olympus. They probably got the lens and sensor from the same suppliers though. Sony and ... Anyways the xz-2 doesn't have smc-coating.

2 upvotes

Give it a rest...when you steal the same sensor and lens you've got the same results. The differences in lens coatings is such a non-factor that I have no idea why you are even mentioning it.

2 upvotes

D1N0: Who do you think supplied Zuiko Lens to Olympus for XZ-1/2?-)

1 upvote

Who supplies the lens? We need to find that out, but most likely scenario is cash-strapped Olympus sold the patent to Pentax, /assuming/ the lens contains the same lens group arrangement (which is not specified in the specs). It may or may not be manufactured in an Olympus plant, because it doesn't carry the Zuiko logo.

It is an _intellectual infringement_ if some manufacturing plant makes the Zuiko lens for Pentax, given the lens is patented by Olympus, and under typical OEM confidential agreement, the plant MUST not leak company secrets to third party without legal consequences. Lens formula isn't an open source design.

To D1N0: the page linked is for a different lens (both focal length range and aperture range are different).

To AngryCorgi: coating is for flare resistance at the cost of light transmission (i.e., it lowers resolution). Good modern coating shouldn't affect sharpness that much.

To both: the purpose of a civil debate is to increase knowledge.

4 upvotes

Olympus 6-24mm f/1.8-2.5 patent

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

0 upvotes

Either way, it's a damn fine lens and the highlight of both cameras, so it's really a non-issue isn't it?

0 upvotes

So does the screen move or not? The review doesn't say.

1 upvote

Oh. There it is,in the specs. Tilting. Good, then.

0 upvotes

I would buy it if it had a viewfinder (EVF or GOOD optical)!

2 upvotes

Agreed- No v/f- no sale. VRR

0 upvotes

You can't take good photos without any viewfinders? And I don't think a viewfinder is usable with this compact camera as small as iPhone 4s...

2 upvotes

A VF is a help in taking good pictures.

Logic is a help in communicating well. No, a necessity.

0 upvotes

I second RichardBalonglong's statement.

What kind of viewfinder should be mounted on a camera this small? Is the VF on the G12 or G1X any helpful? I would agree to the X10 and the Leica M9, but on this... is it even needed?

Logic is also a help in understanding well.

1 upvote

A VF on a compact is NEVER about framing. It's about steadiness. Especially at longer focal lengths in a wind.

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

That's all I'm saying.

A VF is a HELP in making good pictures. It increases the number of good pictures that you can produce in a day. It helps you not to waste your time.

It provides an extra margin of effectiveness.

Yes, you can take good pictures without a viewfinder, but with a viewfinder you can take more of them in a greater variety of circumstances, avoiding failures and making a better use of time.

I once had a tiny Sony P150, smaller than the MX-1. It had a tiny ZOOM viewfinder, which provided the benefits cited above.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Why would anyone buy this?

3 upvotes

Same question was asked about the K-01 and the Q as well. Still, some people did buy them...

2 upvotes

Correction: Nobody is buying the K-01...even at $317, nobody is buying it.

3 upvotes

Same deal with the Q, poor sales even at half price.

This looks like a great upper end compact - for 2010.

3 upvotes

So, those posts with pictures taken with the Q and the K-01 on Pentax Forums are actually fake? They were taken with another camera instead?
I'M SHOCKED :O

Seriously, people, I never said that it'd be a 'sales success' or anything close to it. But some people do buy those cameras. Wheter you like it or not.

0 upvotes

Oh, you were just claiming that they've sold one or more Qs and one or more K-01s? I got it now. I thought you were implying that they were being successful. My mistake.

2 upvotes

Actually, the K-01 is currently Amazon's best selling compact system camera. Try again.

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Compact-System-Cameras/zgbs/electronics/3109924011

1 upvote

For the past hour anyway.

And look at the price. $400 with a $250 lens included. That means the K0-1 is selling for less than 5 year old used Canon Rebel bodies. They might finally be selling, but Pentax isn't making a dime at those prices.

1 upvote

Hmm .. as far as I know ... the Q has been top of the selling list in Japan.

5 upvotes

It's $100 cheaper than Olympus XZ-2, because a lack of hotshoe and a touchscreen. Maybe somebody will buy it instead of XZ-2, which is extremely expensive for that kind of camera. There are also Panasonic LX7 and Samsung EX2F for around $300, more preferable buys, IMO.

1 upvote

"Hmm .. as far as I know ... the Q has been top of the selling list in Japan."

Actually, its #7 (according to petapixel) in Japan against other ILCs. Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony cover #1-6. That's not a good indication of success, especially when the #6 camera (Nikon J1) holds 8.3% of the share, while the Pentax takes a drop to 5.9% of the share. And this in Japan, where its been MOST successful. Elsewhere, it has flopped.

1 upvote

2 tkbslc
"They might finally be selling, but Pentax isn't making a dime at those prices."

So who cares?

0 upvotes

what counts is that Q was sold more than OMD. I will take that, because if Q wasn't selling the OMD was complete failure by those same standards.

0 upvotes

AngryCorgy, the K-01 is selling like crazy. I think all the regulars from the US on the Pentax DSLR forum have one by now - check out the poll thread: 50 some and counting. Prices are still high in Europe, so i'm waiting.

I don't see the lack of evf or hotshoe as a big drawback for the MX1: i'd want this for practial reasons: a zoom that fits in a pocket and looks decent if it's hanging from my neck. If i wanted to get technical, i'd much rather use my K5.

0 upvotes

>So who cares?

This is the nub.

0 upvotes

@miles green - agreed. I have never used the hot shoe or purchased the EVF for my XZ-1. The former is unnecessary on this level of camera, and the latter is too expensive (how can I spend $250 on an EVF when I only spent $400 on the camera? Not a good value proposition).

If this camera matches the performance of the XZ-2, then it isn't behind the times at all. There's even a chance Pentax eked a little more out of the sensor, just as they do with their DSLRs. While I doubt they spent a lot of time or money on the development, Pentax engineering is quite good at optimizing performance where they want to.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

@Mescalamba
Same as why would anyone buy a Canon, Nikon or Sony: "I need a good small camera..."

the rest is all called "personal preference".

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

actually the K-01 takes wonderful picts and very good video.. and thats what I ask from a camera to do..

0 upvotes

@Angry- actually the Q has been selling quite well in Japan. The percentage you describe is of the Q itself, not other models. Oh btw, being #7 seller in a list of like 100 is actually a pretty good place to be: top 10.

0 upvotes

i don't understand this 'no evf' thing on enthusiast cameras.
Many, if not most, if not all 'serious' photographers, like to 'immerse' themselves in the experience of framing a shot, without all that extraneous visual detritus one gets when they hold their lcds up in the air to frame a shot. .
(hey. i like that phrase .. i'll call it EVD. You can all borrow it as you wish)

2 upvotes

No, just most old people do that are stuck in their ways and refuse to do anything other than what they've done for 30 years.

0 upvotes

Now, you @Cane, you shall show some respect to elders and also not generalise. I am soon 60 and I gladly chimp around using the LCD. But I also gladly use a good SLR finder.

2 upvotes

One does not simply stick his eyes into a camera's little window and suddenly become a "serious photographer".

0 upvotes

Why does it have to say 'Brass' on the top? That spoils the whole brass thing for me.

3 upvotes

Hahaha...I agree...it's kinda goofy...like they have to tell you on top in order for you to appreciate it...because its painted...lol

3 upvotes

…so you know where to apply the emery paper to first?

0 upvotes

Live view: no; Viewfinder: none?

0 upvotes

hehe ... it surely has to be a typo. No?

0 upvotes

It's the new Point-and-Guess series.

1 upvote

I've used the ZX1 of a friend during a week, and the only limitation for me was the 1/2000s shutter speed, which was too slow for bright days photos with the sun in the frame.
1/8000s like the MX1 could do the trick.

0 upvotes

I am not against Pentax. I do like Pentax very much!

But honestly, how can MX-1 compete without a viewfinder?
Are we expected to hold the camera in the air with one hand, and focus with the other by looking at the LCD?
Yes, we can use a tripod, but in reality, that's not how we take a photo?

0 upvotes

Hold camera against your belly with the rear screen facing up, and look down like you would a TLR. Good stability, and the screen will be more shaded. (A viewfinder would have added much more cost, I think)

2 upvotes

You couldn't take a photograph without a viewfinder?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

You mean like the majority of cameras made? Oh the humanity!

0 upvotes

The logic quotient around here is becoming vanishingly exiguous. Let's go to Aristotle school.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

Agree with ihasa. I thought I'd miss the viewfinder when I bought the Oly EPL3 but I just look down at the upturned lcd - shades itself. 8 months shooting every day with this camera, often in sunshine, and not missed the viewfinder once. I think this pentax compact look great.

0 upvotes

no EVF
any way to focus manually?

0 upvotes

dpreview - why do you compare this camera so much to the Olympus XZ-2, but then do not have the XZ-2 included in the table of "main competitors"?

3 upvotes

You read my mind...I was confused about this as well...

0 upvotes

Everybody complain about DPREVIEW being biased over canikon but, despite some (fair....) rough coments about the K01 and lack off a proper review of the Q, they always write good preview/review of Pentax cameras. They seens they liked the preproduction sample and, that's good sign.
Maybe the MX1 won't become a king on the segment, nor threathem the likes of Fuji or Panasonic, but i think this will be one of the (unfortunate...) few hits of Pentax nowadays. Still, i prefer the original Q design (thankfully, it is now with a more palatable price tag) :)

0 upvotes

Did Pentax provide a pre-brassed body or are you guys wearing sandpaper mittens?

0 upvotes

Glad to see Pentax pushing out something more traditional design wise. While the MX-1 is a great looking camera I'd love to see a interchangeable lens version with a bigger chip as well.

0 upvotes

Would be nice but that would put the Q line of cameras out of business.

0 upvotes

Anyone seeing what this enthusiast compact offers to the segment that doesn't already exist? Just looking as the basic hardware of sensor, lens, processor...

Sensor:
Larger than 1/1.7"? No.
Multi-aspect ratio? No.

Lens:
Faster aperture? No.
Wider FOV (e.g. 24mm equivalent)? No.
Longer telephoto? No.

Processor: TBD?

Can't say I'm very excited about this one on paper, though it's still early to know the full story.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

It is not the best, that is true. However the sensor is standard in this segment (G15, S110, XZ-2, EX2f, P7700) and the lens is one of the fastest. AND it is for great importance for Pentax, since it finally has something to offer to it´s DSLR users searching for a decent small back-up camera. And knowing the price politics of Pentax, it will be reasonably priced, I bet it will be cheaper than XZ-2 and most other competitors.

2 upvotes

And...
No hot shoe.
No EVF.
Single control dial.

I'm not sure how this even makes it into the 'enthusiast' category. Pentax has been making pretty to look at, spec sheet checklist, cameras for a while now. But they use to make actual photographer's cameras. Not sure why they can't anymore.

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

It does have multi-aspect ratios.

0 upvotes

It offers 1/8000 shutter speed and a brass body too.

0 upvotes

according to other resources the camera has a max shutter speed of 1/8000 instead of 1/2000!!

3 upvotes

Yes, imaging-resource previewed the camera:

"By default, the Pentax MX-1 offers a shutter speed range from 1/2,000 to 1/4 second.

However, if you enable set the exposure mode to priority or manual, and opt to use electronic shutter, you get a greatly expanded range of 1/8,000 to 30 seconds"

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-mx1/pentax-mx1A.HTM

I like their reviews & attitude. They don't feel p*ssed off if they don't get a camera to preview while other sites get one. Just see the previews of NX300.

2 upvotes

My Olympus xz1 with vf2 is much better combination.

1 upvote

You are basically saying your XZ1 is much better than XZ2. ;-)

2 upvotes

hi
is there an optional electronic viewfinder?

thanks

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I daresay none, sorry..

0 upvotes

DOA =)

0 upvotes

No hot shoe :-(

0 upvotes

somebody pushed the publish button too soon ;)

0 upvotes

Just the first page is a dead link. Just click to the next.

0 upvotes

Took me a little while for any page at all to load, then I got an empty page 1 & 2... I guess whatever issues will probably be ironed out soon. Headache for team dpr...

1 upvote