[Eyewanders]

I love my MX-1...
But let's be a little objective. When it first was released, it was $300 more expensive than it is now. It was also released much later to the market than other compacts in its class such as the LX7, XZ-2 and Fuji X20.

There was a delay sourcing all that brass. Not their fault.

[jon404]

MX-1 and XZ-2 identical? What? The MX-1 has solid brass top-and-base plates, a rear infrared sensor for remote operation... AND TAv. Take that, CanikonSonylympus! And something else. I like very small, shirt-pocket size cameras, so the MX-1 isn't for me. But compared to the Sony RX100, the MX-1 gives you f/2.5 at 112mm, while the Sony loses big at f/4.9... the price you pay for that larger sensor. Again, as per my post above, the MX-1 would be a very easy sell if Pentax would give it a decent marketing budget.

[Steve.Ledger]

I like very small, shirt-pocket size cameras, so the MX-1 isn't for me.

It actually does fit in shirt pocket. Heavy'ish, but certainly fits. Fits nicely in cargo pants pockets, fits well into jacket pockets. It's not as small as some get, but then my hands never change size

[j2photos]

I like the image quality I see from the MX-1. For a P&S it is fantastic.

[tlong423]

I'm quite willing to accept the internals and lens were all made by the same company, but I'm not ready to accept forum hearsay which is based largely on repeated hearsay which basically has gone a little viral. Both cameras might be quite similar due to current technology and pricing/competitive reasons but I shy away from saying is an identical camera - that's way too absolute without supporting evidence.

I agree. All I ever read is conjecture and the like with regard to the alleged similarity between those two cameras. It's silly, and it reminds me of the "Captain Tuttle" episode of M*A*S*H.

[DDWD10]

Really, the only component shared is the lens. The MX-1 is much better at higher ISOs, better DR and more natural colors SOOC. My mom uses an XZ-1 and it really has to rely on that fast lens to keep the ISOs down.

[Giklab]

My mom uses an XZ-1 and it really has to rely on that fast lens to keep the ISOs down.

That I can understand, but this is the XZ-2 we're talking about. Or was this just additional info?

[DaveInPA]

I agree. All I ever read is conjecture and the like with regard to the alleged similarity between those two cameras. It's silly, and it reminds me of the "Captain Tuttle" episode of M*A*S*H.

I think the similarities that people cite is that the two cameras share the same sensor and the same lens.

Otherwise, the way those two are packaged by the two companies have created two different cameras...which should have similar image quality.

[mikemike]

I was very tempted to pick up one of these when they were on fire sale. I passed because in reviews it sounds like they have sluggish performance although everything else looked pretty awesome.

[tlong423]

the two cameras share the same sensor and the same lens

Share the same sensor = acknowledged.
Share the same lens = says whom?

[cali92rs]

I was very tempted to pick up one of these when they were on fire sale. I passed because in reviews it sounds like they have sluggish performance although everything else looked pretty awesome.

I would not expect DSLR response...but for $199 i say its well worth it. I personally have not felt the sluggishness, but I have not taxed it too much. For me, this is a casual camera where I don't need high performance.

[Steve.Ledger]

I was very tempted to pick up one of these when they were on fire sale. I passed because in reviews it sounds like they have sluggish performance although everything else looked pretty awesome.

What your tolerance levels for camera performance is I have no way of knowing of course, but there's been a lot of talk about slow RAW writes? I don't find it annoying slow at all, not as quick as the K-01 but no slower than the Q. It doesn't stop you shooting, only from accessing the menu while it writes (maybe 2 seconds or less). Photos are excellent quality though, so I'm not irritated at all. Everything else is on a parr.
Although there's no manual control over movies, the results are very good imho, better in many ways than the K-01 - you just have to set the picture style to suit video (cont/sharp OFF - saturation down a notch or two).
There's only one minor irritation for me, and that is the camera get's rather warm around the battery/card area with continuous use. Doesn't seem to matter which class of card you use, still get's warmer than I like to feel.

[cali92rs]

I think my biggest annoyance so far is the fact that you have to remove the lens cap to do anything. Sometimes you just are lazing around and you want to delete some pics or play with the settings but it still makes you remove the cap. It's not a big deal...but it is annoying.

[DaveInPA]

Share the same sensor = acknowledged.
Share the same lens = says whom?

I've actually read this in several places. One example is the DPReview review of the MX-1. First sentence of the third paragraph. Actually, the first two sentences of that paragraph sums things up nicely:

The MX-1 shares a lens (and probably sensor) with the Olympus XZ-2: a 28-112mm equivalent zoom with a relatively bright F1.8-2.5 aperture across the zoom range. Physically though, they're very different cameras.

Its also referenced in the first sentence of the second paragraph in this review.

[Steve.Ledger]

Be that as it may, but where is the original source (manufacturers) of this information? Do Ricoh send this proprietary/in-house information to review sites to let everyone on the web know they have a 90% clone of another brand?? Or do reviewers just read what someone has guessed at then repeat it in their own reviews? I mean, review sites like DPR are always 100% right, right?
No, of course they are not always right, they are written by humans just like the rest of us and often reviews of a product has errors, sometimes they haven't actually held the product at all, they just needed to be first to the post to attract hits to their site. (Cynic, me?! )
The internet is a wonderful place and a great source of information, but it's also full of rubbish, fools, liars, armchair experts and monumental ultracrepidarianism.. Personally I never accept anything which doesn't have some verifiable supporting evidence, especially from casual posts on forums. But that's just me.

Back to the merits of the MX-1.
Aside from excellent stills, I like the video mode. It's simple and gives great results (IMAO). I like it much more than the K-01 video for casual shots. I plan to try it tripod mounted at the first bitumen sprint event of 2014 in March.
This example was shot without SR turned on, so is a little shaky. (I also notice it's jerkier than on my PC, I think YT have changed the framerate?)
This was unplanned, I was shooting some stills of unusual flowers when this Brown Honey Eater came along so I flicked to movie mode. These birds are about the size of your thumb, so he was quite close. (Yes, the vid was cropped in post)

You Tube

You Tube

I paid AUD$399 for my MX-1 and happy to as well. So $199 inc freight in the US is a bloody bargain! (As Blunty would say)