I don't know if I need a push, or need to be talked out of a G9X

Bottom Line: I'm thinking of replacing the MX-1 with a G9X. I think the 1" sensor will make up for the dimmer lens, and the pocket size will have me carrying it more, thus not relying on my iPhone as much. Downsides: Wife will be a little mad I bought another camera and it is not as beautiful as the MX-1. (this is the price for true compactness, it seems, as the Ricoh GR is also ugly)

Full Story follows:

Years ago, when I was more "serious" of a photographer, I shot my dSLR . (APS-C sensor, 6 MP) It's old now, old enough that my bridge camera (Panasonic FZ1000, 1" sensor, 24-400, f/2.8-4) just blows it away in nearly every respect.

When I realized that I carried my little SD600 Elph (1/2.3" sensor?) around a lot more and was settling for lower IQ, I bought a Canon S90. (1/1.7" sensor, 28-110 f/2.8-5) I loved that little thing! Carried it and used it all. the. time. Close enough to my SLR's IQ that the SLR only came out once a year or so.

I did feel like it was a bit slow at the tele end, resulting in noisy or blurred indoor pix.

So I upgraded to an Olympus XZ-1 . (1/1.7" sensor, 28-112 f-1.8-2.5 lens) I loved this camera too, but it was enough heavier and thicker that I wasn't carrying it quite as often as I'd carried the S90. The lens was outstanding. It was kind of slippery to grip too.

...so I sold it and bought a Pentax MX-1 . (same lens and sensor size as the XZ-1) this one, I bought because the aesthetics are just smashingly handsome to me. Looks like a 1970s Pentax MX film SLR. Has real brass top and bottom plates. But I lost the hot shoe for the good looks and slightly better firmware and interface. The creative modes on the Olympus were also better.

That MX-1 takes great pix, but again, I find myself forcing myself to carry it, rather than just slipping it in a pocket. It's large and heavy even for a coat pocket camera, and in the summer, I just leave it home.

I'm finding myself settling for iPhone pix more often than not again, and I'd like to change that.

Meanwhile, I bought the FZ1000 a couple weeks ago. Wonderful camera to replace the SLR, for kids' sports, and when I don't mind carrying The Big Boy. I think it'll get a lot of use.

However, I still find myself hankering for a proper pocket camera. Panasonic doesn't offer anything of this caliber. Sonys are too expensive. Olympus didn't follow up the XZ-2 with anything pocketable with good quality. Pentax/Ricoh only has the GR. (fixed 28mm isn't going to do it for me, I think) The thing is that the lens is better on the MX-1. Not just faster, (which doesn't matter so much any more) but also as far as edge-to-edge sharpness and lack of distortion. This was made in the days before they were making optical compromises to be fixed in software, and before they were stretching the edges of the image to fill the frame.

Will I regret getting rid of the MX-1, or will I forget about it when I see the images from the little Canon?

Sorry for the long post, but thanks for taking the time to read it!

Purely on image quality I don't see the G9X outperforming the MX1. I'd call it a tie. https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Question is then if just the significantly smaller size will make you enjoy the G9X more.

You clearly love that MX-1...I know, I have one too.  It's special to look at, hold, use, and it does produce special pictures, regardless of the relatively small sensor.  Pentax/Ricoh has a qualitatively different look from Canon.  It's totally subjective, but I think of the MX-1 more as a creative-use camera.  I wouldn't get rid of it if I were you; you'll miss it.  The G9 X looks like a perfect pocket camera, much more utilitarian.  Sell the old DSLR you aren't using.  You won't get much for it but you'll get something, and it won't be sitting around unused.  It's a good starter camera for someone who doesn't want to make a big initial investment.  Ask your wife for the G9 X for your next birthday and tell her it's so you will never be caught without a good camera ready to capture special family moments (not as a way to connive her; I think it's true).  Life is short; make memories.  Good luck.

Rudy

Thanks Mark, for posting that link. I didn't know about that site. Actually, I would say the XZ-2 (MX-1 by proxy) image looks a little better at ISO 200. Looking at the left of the frame at the model's sweater sleeve, we can distinguish the individual yarns in the XZ-2's pic. That may be an artifact of JPG processing. One thing dpreview commented on in the XZ-1 review was that Olympus' JPG processing is very good.

Part might also be that it is a better lens. Canon must have made some lens compromises (other than speed) in the interest of miniaturization. There are some reports of softness at 28mm, for example.

To me, the fact that it is so close, even though the G9X is half the size, is just amazing. It all comes down that sensor that is twice as big.

Hi All,

Thanks for the extra points of view.

I just bought it; the silver one with brown trim. I'm not sure which scheme I like better, and the silver/brown one seems a bit "girly" but I decided its time for a little variety.

I wound up buying from Cameta Camera on feeBay. Didn't want to pay $40 tax to buy through Amazon, and B&H's shipping was pretty slow, despite "guaranteed expedited shipping" on my last order.

Adorama was charging $300 too much, and promised to give a $300 rebate gift card later. (that's a bunch of hoo-ha. How about I just keep my $300 NOW, by ordering from someone else?)

Smaug01 wrote:

Thanks Mark, for posting that link. I didn't know about that site. Actually, I would say the XZ-2 (MX-1 by proxy) image looks a little better at ISO 200. Looking at the left of the frame at the model's sweater sleeve, we can distinguish the individual yarns in the XZ-2's pic. That may be an artifact of JPG processing. One thing dpreview commented on in the XZ-1 review was that Olympus' JPG processing is very good.

Part might also be that it is a better lens. Canon must have made some lens compromises (other than speed) in the interest of miniaturization. There are some reports of softness at 28mm, for example....

G7 X also suffers softness at corners/ edges at the wider focal lengths due to its lens image circle dose not fully cover sensor and large barrel distortion being corrected by camera's JPG PP. See my post HERE with a uncorrected G9 X WA RAW image.

If doing 100% pixel peeping viewing on display, then do so by making sure you're doing as close as possible "apples-to-apples" comparisons; e.g., equivalent: focal length, aperture, ISO, aspect ratio and MP resolution.

With a 96 DPI display viewing a 12 MP image at 100% be similar to viewing a 42" x 31" print close up; likewise viewing a 20 MP image at 100% be similar to viewing a 57" x 38" print close up.

Below are Imaging Resource Studio Scene MX-1, and G9 X image that I did a loss-less crop of the image to the 4:3 aspect ratio and re-sized to match the MX-1 4000 x 3000 12 MP.

MX-1

G9 X: 4:3 Aspect Ratio and 4000 x 3000 12 MP

So as to the G9 X basically comes down to two questions, how often do you "view" images 100%, and are you going to be doing large enough prints, when viewed at normal viewing distance, to be able to truly notice the softness as in the 100% pixel peeping?

Also at 400 ISO and higher the G9 X RAW PP images should be far better than any 1/1.7" sensor.

For myself would have no reservations about using the G9 X for the same reasons/ conditions I would use my S110. I'm not a 100% pixie pixel peeper, and pretty much agree with Ken Rockwell's "Lens Sharpness" article.

Cheers,
Jon

Smaug01 wrote:

Hi All,

Thanks for the extra points of view.

I just bought it; the silver one with brown trim. I'm not sure which scheme I like better, and the silver/brown one seems a bit "girly" but I decided its time for a little variety.

I wound up buying from Cameta Camera on feeBay. Didn't want to pay $40 tax to buy through Amazon, and B&H's shipping was pretty slow, despite "guaranteed expedited shipping" on my last order.

Adorama was charging $300 too much, and promised to give a $300 rebate gift card later. (that's a bunch of hoo-ha. How about I just keep my $300 NOW, by ordering from someone else?)

Jeremy,

I've just seen this thread. So you bought it, yay!! Don't worry, silver is not girly at all. I think it is very classy and would look especialy nice with a suit and tie.

Hi Jon, and thanks for doing that legwork. I'm not sure how to do it.

I pixel-peeped it a little, and the apples-to-apples image from the Pentax is a little better. (look at the detail on the peppercorns in the lower left) But it wouldn't ever really be apples-to-apples, if we were shooting both for best results. What I mean by that is if I wanted the best results from each one, I'd shoot at their maximum resolutions. The Pentax's is 12 MP and the Canon's is 20 MP.

So I'm betting if we made a crop of each camera's shot at maximum resolution, I guess the G9X would be the clear winner, despite having the inferior lens.

I started reading the Ken Rockwell article you linked, but couldn't make it all the way through. His arrogant and condescending tone just ruined it for me.

Smaug01 wrote:

Downsides: Wife will be a little mad I bought another camera...

Wanna hear something ironic?

My wife just asked me today to go get a lawyer so we can divorce. Nothing to do with cameras though.

The camera will cheer me up when it arrives though.

Smaug01 wrote:

Hi Jon, and thanks for doing that legwork. I'm not sure how to do it.

You're welcome.

I pixel-peeped it a little, and the apples-to-apples image from the Pentax is a little better. (look at the detail on the peppercorns in the lower left)...

Yes the soft corners/ edges are the trade-off for having a much larger sensor in such a small camera size.  The FZ1000 has the very same issues at the WA focal lengths to keep the FZ1000's 25-400mm FOV lens smaller. Except of course for the corners/ edges, the overall appearance differences between the MX-1 and G9 X images are due to the differences in cameras' JPG PP; e.g., the MX-1has more contrast and color saturation.

... But it wouldn't ever really be apples-to-apples, if we were shooting both for best results. What I mean by that is if I wanted the best results from each one, I'd shoot at their maximum resolutions. The Pentax's is 12 MP and the Canon's is 20 MP....

Prints of the same size and from the same printer yes, 100% pixel peeping comparisons on a display of a 12 MP vs. 20 MP no, for the reasons I noted.

,.. I started reading the Ken Rockwell article you linked, but couldn't make it all the way through. His arrogant and condescending tone just ruined it for me.

Yes I agree, and generally do not care for or makes reference to his articles.  But in this article he does make a lot a good points one would not generally find in a single article of this size.

Cheers,
Jon

Buy the cameras quick as the divorce will take all the cash, but nobody will take the cameras away