Going retro: MX-1

<p>Thought some here might be interested in this:<br>

http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/pentax-mx-1-enthusiast-compact-announced.html</p>

<p>Nice. If it really does have the same lens as the Olympus XZ-2, that's definitely a good thing! The XZ-2 (and the XZ-1 before it) have possibly the best lenses of any compact zoom cameras on the market.</p>

<p>how would an Olympus lens end up on a Pentax camera?</p>

<p>No idea, but the folks at DPReview noticed it too:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentax-mx-1/</p>

<p>Funny how many of the early announcements have said it looks like the old Pentax ME. I don't think it resembles the ME at all, except maybe for the black and silver colors.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Funny how many of the early announcements have said it looks like the old Pentax ME. I don't think it resembles the ME at all, except maybe for the black and silver colors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps, this is how they remember the ME ;)</p>

These little cameras are designed by third party studios and built on a generic platform of modern cost-efficient internals

and materials. Perhaps Olympus contributes the lens for a lower cost to themselves.  The baseline design allows some

fru-fru trimmings to accommodate branding.

 

ME

<p>I think we've seen that the spec for the lens appears to be much like what Olympus offers, though I haven't seen the optical formula for each mentioned yet. Do we even know that Olympus actually designed the XZ-1 or -2 lens or were all of these purchased a la carte from third parties, as many compact cameras are today.</p>

<p>To me it looks *OK* but should have been out two years ago and should have included a hotshoe. I will be interested to see what firmware differences exist between this, the K-01, and the Q. There will be at least a few due to the dedicated EV comp dial.</p>

<p>The variable rear LCD (uncommon for Pentax) does sort of wreck the otherwise attractive lines from an aesthetic standpoint, plus it actually has the word 'BRASS' engraved on the top panel cover for the retractable flash -- can't they just let it BE brass without engraving it? I kind of wonder if any of these cameras have sufficient lifespan/durability to actually develop much of a 'brassed' patina from use before they're obsolete or break.</p>

<p>As ME said, most of these compact digicams are not built by whichever name is stuck on the front of the camera. So most Nikons and Canons that you see at your local Wal-Mart, Target, and Best Buy are not actually made by them; they just have the say on what features to include and what design to make the camera. My current Pentax point and shoot, as with pretty much every Pentax point and shoot that I'm aware of, is actually a Sanyo camera in a Pentax shell. So, it seems that whoever makes the XZ-2 didn't give Olympus exclusive rights to the camera. Heck, maybe it's even Olympus themselves that are contracting the camera to Pentax!</p>

<p>Overall, it's nice to see Pentax releasing a good camera. My current pocket camera is an Optio I-10, which doesn't have very respectable image quality.</p>

<p>There is a lot to like about the MX-1 but there are a few things that banish the thought of ownership. I like the styling but I have to say I like the styling in Optio I-10 or the original Q more so than the MX-1. Though the tilt-able LCD is more useful, I am with Andrew as the LCD seems to add bulk and wreck the aesthetic of the retro style. The overall size and weight is a concern. And I am with Andrew again that the timing is way off on this camera as there are so many other competent compact cameras to choose from with similar sensor size and likely similar if not better performance. As a potential buyer with Pentax bias, I don't see how it stands out against <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/877078-REG/Samsung_EC_EX2FZZBPBUS_EX2_Digital_Camera_Black.html">Samsung EX-2</a> which has a hot shoe, a faster lens in f/1.4, and a more reasonable price tag. And there are lot others to choose from Panasonic, Sony and Olympus alike. If the price tag in $500 is true and if history repeats itself for the Pentax Q, K-01, it will be a bargain by 2013 Christmas. </p>

<p>I'm not going to go into a long diatribe about this, I'll only say one thing: It's a sacrilege that this camera was called MX-1. Pentax should not have tarnished the hallowed name by giving it to a P&S. Having owned a real MX in the past, I am personally offended.</p>

<p>Miserere,<br>

I feel your pain. The MX was a jewel. Probably the smallest professional SLR ever made. I hope they don't pull the same thing with the name LX.</p>

Mis, I'm inclined to agree. I'd go so far as to say that there would be no greater honor in Pentax-land for a new model to

be called MX (even more so than LX, methinks). Should have been saved for a good K-mount camera at least.

 

I guess I can see why they didn't go with "Program Plus-1" though.

<p>Well, the price is down to $279, so I ordered one to replace my ailing 4-year-old Panasonic point-and-shoot. I'm really looking forward to receiving the MX-1. It has gotten a lot of excellent reviews, and the pictures look very good.</p>

<p>Unfortunately I ended up returning my MX-1. I'm not sure if it was defective or what, but the focus was consistently soft, and it seemed to have an inordinate amount of trouble acquiring focus in the first place. The highlights also seemed to burn out very easily (worse than my other point-and-shoots), even when using the highlight protection mode.<br>

<br />I was particularly surprised by the size and weight of the camera. It's quite a bit bigger than it looks in the online photos, and heavier than I thought it would be. I have to say that it feels VERY nice in the hands, has great controls, and looks beautiful. The tilting LCD screen is a great feature and Pentax really ought to incorporate that into their other cameras! Alas, those traits were not enough for me to keep the MX-1. </p>

<p>"it seemed to have an inordinate amount of trouble acquiring focus in the first place. "<br>

Welcome to the Pentax Club.</p>