Originally posted by Ivan Glisin It's not just you, they are in fact identical, as well as 90% of the hardware. And since I have owned XZ-1 which has the same lens, I can say the lens is REMARKABLE! It is not a compact camera toy lens, it is well corrected, sharp across the frame at all apertures, and fast. Zooming mechanism is smooth and precise. Wise choice by Pentax to procure the same lens as in XZ-1 and XZ-2.
I just don't like the name... MX-1? I mean, I already have MX (1) that uses film though. If they are taking hardware from Olympus, why not naming ideas: how about MX-D Pentax? (Upgrade would be MX-D2 and so on.) Well, I guess this is better than picking *ist MX...
Anyway, following Panasonic/Leica sister models, I would expect MX-2 to be the based on Olympus XZ-3 and so on. So Pentax fellows, let's keep our eyes at Olympus from now on!
I dunno, I suppose as long as it sounds different when you say it, with say an Mx-1, MX-2, etc series. (I didn't appreciate the K-m/K-x for that reason, since they sound just the same as KM and KX when you aren't seeing text.
Obviously they're trying to reference the styling cues from the old metal SLR, rather than claim it's the same sort of thing, anyway.
I kind of like it and think it's a good spot in the market to represent. Ricoh's always seemed to make nice cameras in that general bracket.
For me, it's pretty much got to have some kind of viewfinder, though: me and bright light don't get along too well.
It'd be nice if they made a version on the sort-of-pseudo-rangefinder form:it'd go well with the brass body and all. (And considering how long I've had my old bridge camera, I wonder if the black paint would actually get honestly brassed in my pocket or something.
)