[Shawn67]

As is the MX-1 is a very capable little camera. The biggest changes I'd love to see:

1) Front dial like the "Q" with the same menu options.
2) Qs function that keeps the RAW data from the last shot (when shooting JPG) to let you save it as RAW after the fact.
3) Snap Focus from the Ricohs.
4) Larger RAW buffer
5) Hotshoe

Shawn

[tclausen]

As is the MX-1 is a very capable little camera. The biggest changes I'd love to see:

1) Front dial like the "Q" with the same menu options.
2) Qs function that keeps the RAW data from the last shot (when shooting JPG) to let you save it as RAW after the fact.
3) Snap Focus from the Ricohs.
4) Larger RAW buffer
5) Hotshoe

Shawn

Oh $DEITY no...the front dial of the Q is mostly useless, given the limited amount of configuration that can be configured onto it.

Good idea, lousy implementation on the Q-series. Doing it right, it would be 4 positions, each of which able to hold a *complete* set of configuration parameters/settings (say, position 1: "RAW, bracketing +/- 1, ..." position 2: "HDR, ...") instead of this current "instagram-inspired" jpeg-only-filtering that's on the Q.

[Steve.Ledger]

I agree, I make no use of the Q front dial because it is of no use to me at all.
Neither do I make any use of a hotshoe on a compact. I agree that a hotshoe completes the 'look' of a camera, but balance is a big factor for compacts.
A PC flash sync jack for a bracket attached flash unit would be much better imho. Though I have my MX-1 on-board flash triggering a slave nicely now, which is super useful

While I am generally happy with the video from this camera (contrast and sharpness MUST be off!) I'd like the full manual controls like the Q has for video.

It's a lovely camera though, I look forward to each opportunity to use it.

[Shawn67]

OK then.. have them add additional functions to the dial. I use it all the time on my Q.

"Neither do I make any use of a hotshoe on a compact. I agree that a hotshoe completes the 'look' of a camera, but balance is a big factor for compacts."

A RF remote flash trigger in the hotshoe hardly effects the balance at all.

What slave do you use with the MX-1? None of my strobes have an optical slave mode besides the Nikon CLS mode.

Shawn

[Steve.Ledger]

I only use the cheap Godox with the MX-1 as it fits in my messenger bag along with the MX-1 and Q.
Although I also have the Yongnuo 560III

There's another thread where I talk about getting the MX-1 to trigger a slave and my final findings.

See attached

[Pepe Le Pew]

Just bought a Mx-1 for my Mother............
Giving it to her on Mother's Day

[DDWD10]

So many of the MX-1's shortcomings could be addressed with a FW update... I have both the Q and the MX-1 and the additional features of the Q are many. Of course, the MX-1 blows it away in IQ so it's a tough call between them.

[Eyewanders]

I

I would not be surprised if the MX-2 repeats the GR/K-3 success story, by coming with an entirely new (and larger) sensor, lens and updated image engine.

This is my hope precisely. Given what we know Ricoh can accomplish, I would LOVE to see that translate to the MX body with larger sensor and as much manual control as the GR offers wrapped in a Pentax MX styling and feel, complete with a 35mm or 50mm fixed.

[Eyewanders]

Or heck, even k-mount I would enjoy. Slap a pancake or old M 50mm on it and go to town. And, of course, a viewfinder.
I guess I just want a TRUE digital MX.

[Caat]

I am extremely tempted by the MX-1 as a companion to my K-3 - a camera that I can basically carry around with me wherever I go. It's a toss up between the MX-1 and the Q10, both of which can be got for ~£180 in the UK.

What I'd like to see in an MX-2 would be:

- a slightly slimmed down body - maybe achieved through finenessing the vari-angle LCD.

- manual zoom ring might be nice - along with trying to incorporate the aesthetic design of the lens with the body a bit more

- an EVF might be nice but I'd struggle to see where one could be incorporated into the body

I think the body would form a good basis for a large 1inch or APS-C based camera but then that would necessitate a lens redesign and the camera wouldn't really be what the MX-1 is - a good value compact.

[JPT]

I wonder whether Pentax will come out with a compact using the 28-300 f2.8 lens of the Olympus Stylus 1. I say this because the MX-1 appears to share a lens and sensor with the Olympus XZ2 and the Casio EX-10. These cameras were followed up by the Stylus 1 and EX-100, which both use the same 28-300 lens, so I have a feeling that Pentax will follow suit. This would not be a bad thing, because it looks like that lens performs very well.

The Casio cameras are Japan only and share exactly the same large but ergonomic body. It makes me think that it might be fairly trivial to produce this camera as a variant of the MX-1. Here's a review (in Japanese) of the EX-100 with a number of samples.
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/newproduct/20140319_640181.html

[Uluru]

I think we may see the Stylus 1 copy in the Ricoh's style, and I base this assumption upon vague statements of the RI's marketing chief. Ricoh already had its GX200 long time ago, of which the Stylus 1 reminds of, including the automatic lens cap. Again, the GX200 had that before Stylus 1, yet many reviewers don't know that because Ricoh's cameras are utter tabula rasa in the west.

Stylus 1 itself is not a totally novel concept as reviewers claim, only its good new lens makes it very interesting. I'd love to see Ricoh coming out first before Olympus, or others, but that is too much to ask, it seems. They are so conservative and almost agoraphobic.

Thus the problem with any camera they release in those or any category is that both Pentax and Ricoh brands come too late to exploit that niche; they come when there is practically nothing to gain. Say the MX-1, will never be as popular as LX or XZ cameras, etc., because it came out too late and did not have any chance to evolve.