[zdwagner]

Well that's great to hear about the lenses. This camera is definitely on my radar. Too busy spending money on lenses for my K-5 IIs currently, but would love to pick this up one day. By then, yours will be well-used and that brass will have taken on a fantastic worn beauty.
Sorry to hear your XZ-1 died. I actually loved that camera. I ended up selling mine, but not because I hated it.

Would love to see more pics if you get a notion. If not no worries. I hate feeling like I need to provide examples (I'm easily stressed), so certainly can't expect the same of anyone else.

[GeneV]

My first digital point and shoot (which I bought in 2004) has the same sized sensor and the same basic features (PASM and video) as the MX-1, so I would say that Pentax is a bit late to the game with their enthusiast point and shoot. And the LCD screen completely ruins the appeal of the retro design for me...

My first digital had about that sensor size as well, though it was a few years before 2004, and it had a lot fewer pixels.

[Biro]

Some of my best photos were taken with a Canon S3 IS, which had six megapixels and a tiny 1/2.5 CCD sensor. Zoom range was 36-432mm at an astounding (for the time) f/2.7-3.5. It also had an articulating rear LCD and a built-in EVF - both fairly low resolution, however. But that really doesn't tell the whole story. Camera response, image processing and sensor technology have come a long way... and, together, they make a big difference.

The MX-1 is a good camera. Of that, I have no doubt. We'll have to see, after Adam's full test and others (and more owner feedback), if it's a great camera. I find it very attractive but I don't know if I can justify it at the current price, given that I have a K-01 as well as my K-5, and a full micro four-thirds kit. But I'd love to see it compared against the Panasonic LX-7 and Fuji X-20 (when it's available at the end of the month).

[Adam]

The MX-1 is a good camera.

Indeed it is! After having it for over a week now I think I can safely conclude that it's a great camera overall, with excellent image quality and all the features an enthusiast would need. With that said, I would certainly not buy this camera for its design. And at least for me, there's no "wow factor" surrounding the MX-1. It's an enthusiast camera that's late to the game, and while good overall, it isn't going to be "the next big thing". Leica already has plenty of old-school looking rangefinders, and the MX-1 is styled like a film SLR without being one. On top of that, the eco box it comes in even needs a sticker to tell you which color you bought!

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[monochrome]

On top of that, the eco box it comes in even needs a sticker to tell you which color you bought!

I suppose if Ricoh saves $1 a box packaging costs and sells 100,000 boxes ......

There is an investment consideration is called "Socially Conscious Investing." Maybe Ricoh is positioning there.

[Mareket]

If Pentax have started using boring recyclable boxes then that's awesome. I have a vendetta against boxes. But you'll see it maybe once and then chuck it so why make it look nice? Seems incredibly wasteful really. Just so someone can wet themselves a little more when they're unboxing something new. Then again if people are more likely to buy things because they want a nice cardboard box to look at I guess it'll help sales.

I wish all lenses/cameras came in these weird brown egg box boxes boxy things.

[Adam]

So was out shooting with the MX-1 for World Pentax Day, and I must say that in RAW mode it's extremely sluggish. Apart from that, no real handling complaints, and I managed to get some nice photos using the 1cm macro mode.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[zdwagner]

That's too bad about the sluggishness, though to be honest a lot of people would probably just use the jpegs and forget about it for such a camera. I'd even think about doing that myself (and I always shoot RAW) if the jpeg engine was good.
So... is the jpeg engine good...?

Actually I'm lying; I probably couldn't just shoot jpegs. But I am curious how they come out!

[Adam]

That's too bad about the sluggishness, though to be honest a lot of people would probably just use the jpegs and forget about it for such a camera. I'd even think about doing that myself (and I always shoot RAW) if the jpeg engine was good.
So... is the jpeg engine good...?

Actually I'm lying; I probably couldn't just shoot jpegs. But I am curious how they come out!

Well, that's why I used raw+. We will know soon enough- I'm about to download the files. And the sluggishness certainly didn't help considering that it was freezing outside and I forgot my gloves

[zdwagner]

Hey everyone! Just noticed DXOMark did a (favorable) review of the MX-1... good sensor performance!

DxOMark - Comparaisons

[renegadesv]

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but this seems to be a pretty favorable review of the MX-1 as well...

Pentax MX-1 Review - Worlds Best Value Compact? (+ RX100 Vs MX1 )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kuOpygcOVJE#!

[cali92rs]

Hey everyone! Just noticed DXOMark did a (favorable) review of the MX-1... good sensor performance!

DxOMark - Comparaisons

The LX7 seems like a much better value.
More features and cheaper.

[Adam]

The MX-1 in-depth review has just been posted:
Pentax MX-1 Review - Introduction - PentaxForums.com

Enjoy!

[zdwagner]

Bummer about the pathetic responsiveness... do you get the feeling this is something that could be, if not totally fixed, perhaps alleviated in a firmware update?

[mecrox]

Bummer about the pathetic responsiveness... do you get the feeling this is something that could be, if not totally fixed, perhaps alleviated in a firmware update?

I have one and do not find it particularly unresponsive, FWIW, Fast enough here - no speed demon but then what camera like this is? It's a compact camera. Compact cameras have limited feature sets and aren't designed to do what $1000-dollar cams do. Accept the MX-1 on its own terms, as a fine example of this class of camera, and I think you'll enjoy it. Hanker after all the things it was never designed to do and chance are you'll be disappointed. For example, I don't think cameras like this are designed for prolonged RAW-only shooting. They'll certainly do RAW but they are primarily jpeg cams. A lot of folks out there don't want to "develop" their pics - they just want the pics done and dusted, as jpegs out of the camera and on to a tablet, social network, etc. In this regard, leaving wifi off the MX-1 is probably a more regrettable omission than a beefier processor for fast RAW speeds.

Also, a fair halfway house towards full RAW shooting is to shoot to jpeg and then use Topaz Dejpeg or similar software on selected shots to produce a tiff for editing. Works here.

I'm using mine for street photography and "go anywhere" stuff. It's great, the camera is small enough not to hassle people. The tilt sceen on the back is a godsend for street stuff, a very useful feature. Puzzled that the recent review on this site didn't rate it.