[PenTX]

DXO has tested the MX-1. It turns in a respectable score, but what's even more impressive is how well the Q does with its smaller, older sensor. I never cease to be impressed by the tiny little Q. At recent firesale prices, it really is a tremendous bargain. I like the MX-1 a lot, but it seems unnecessarily large and heavy by comparison. That's ironic since the Q is the one with interchangeable lenses...

Comparison.

[Adam]

The MX-1 is in no way large or heavy IMO...then again the Q is tiny. Still, the MX-1 has a good deal less noise. The only issue with the MX-1 is that you can't control the noise reduction at all in JPEG.

[GibbyTheMole]

I like the MX-1 a lot, but it seems unnecessarily large and heavy by comparison.

And the Q also has a hotshoe.

[Clarkey]

Well at least I now know why my DXO thread was removed, and I believe the original Q was a little lower (42, vs. 49 for the Q10).
I'm still very interested in the original Q, just been travelling with the NEX-5n, and it seems just a little too big in the laptop bag.

The standard and the fisheye beckon....not to mention the birding pics.

[mille19]

I've just had this image, taken with the Q, accepted in a stock library.
The quality of the images taken with the Q, for such a small sensor, always impresses me.
Who needs FF ;-)