Pentax Q10 or Pentax MX-1 - $199 ea at Woot!

I thought about a Q for kicks, but I just got the MX-1 a couple weeks ago and have barely busted it out yet. But I'm keeping the MX-1 and this guy doesn't like small sensor cams if that helps anyone make up their mind.
 
Ha, I paid 255$ :) I'm not fussed about it though, got some really nice shots from it by now...

At 199$ it has to be the best bang for the buck if you're interested in a quality compact with really good macro abilities.
 
I think it's remarkable how the RX100 has succeeded in pushing all the former $500-$600 premium compacts down to sub $200. Yet nothing has risen up to challenge it.

You can get the Q10 for $199 at Target as well. Much better return policy and cheaper if you have a red card.
 
I think it's remarkable how the RX100 has succeeded in pushing all the former $500-$600 premium compacts down to sub $200. Yet nothing has risen up to challenge it.

You're absolutely right. These smaller-sensored enthusiast compacts really are having a hard time holding their prices. That's why I expect we'll see one-inch sensors or better in many of these cameras before long. If Sony won't sell them those sensors, camera makers will have to either source them from somewhere else (Truesense? Fuji? Toshiba? Samsung? Panasonic?) or perhaps do them one better. A micro four-thirds, fixed lens, enthusiast compact anyone? It would seem to me that many companies could produce such a fixed-lens camera like this without jumping into micro four-thirds completely. Sony already sells micro four-thirds sensors to both Olympus and even Panasonic. Or perhaps Panasonic could sell a sensor that wasn't their very latest but still very good. Would you buy an enthusiast compact with the sensor from the Panasonic G5/G6?
 
That's why I expect we'll see one-inch sensors or better in many of these cameras before long. If Sony won't sell them sell them those sensors, camera makers will have to either source them from somewhere else (Truesense? Fuji? Toshiba? Samsung? Panasonic?) or perhaps do them one better.

I don't think Sony would have any problems selling anyone their sensors. They've shown this time and time again all across it's product range. They've sold APS-C sensors to their competitors as well as small P&S sensors. Their sensor sales tend to be brand agnostic. There is another 1" sensor maker, Aptina. They make the 1" sensor for the Nikon 1s. Since Aptina and Sony share each others patents, there's no reason that Aptina couldn't clone the RX100 sensor. So I don't think it's a sensor shortage that's holding the other companies up. Either it's still disbelief that Sony has had such a large impact on the market or it's actually harder than sourcing a sensor to build a camera that small with such a large sensor.

Back to the MX-1. I've been browsing the studio shots on DPR and IR. The MX-1 looks really good. Kind of like a lower resolution RX100 up to about ISO 1600.
 
I don't think Sony would have any problems selling anyone their sensors. They've shown this time and time again all across it's product range. They've sold APS-C sensors to their competitors as well as small P&S sensors. Their sensor sales tend to be brand agnostic. There is another 1" sensor maker, Aptina. They make the 1" sensor for the Nikon 1s. Since Aptina and Sony share each others patents, there's no reason that Aptina couldn't clone the RX100 sensor. So I don't think it's a sensor shortage that's holding the other companies up. Either it's still disbelief that Sony has had such a large impact on the market or it's actually harder than sourcing a sensor to build a camera that small with such a large sensor.

Back to the MX-1. I've been browsing the studio shots on DPR and IR. The MX-1 looks really good. Kind of like a lower resolution RX100 up to about ISO 1600.

I forgot about Aptina. Good point. Your remarks about the MX-1 make me regret (at least to some extent) selling my copy. A really nice camera. But I had too many.
 
for me the MX-1 is a really nice "take everywhere" camera. Not so much because of the size (it's not tiny) but because of it's versatility and quality.

I like shooting macros. It's fantastic for that.
It has an excellent lens and a useful zoom-range (and the lens is pretty good throughout that range).
The sensor and image processing are surprisingly good for such a "tiny sensor". (When I post-process these, I use the jpegs a lot, rather than RAW)

And... at these prices I actually feel comfortable enough to take it everywhere. Throw it in a bag. Put in in the pocket. Take a photo when you see something. Or don't :)

small MX-1 set on flickr:
Pentax MX-1
 
And... at these prices I actually feel comfortable enough to take it everywhere. Throw it in a bag. Put in in the pocket. Take a photo when you see something. Or don't :)

That's the way I treat my RX100. At first I was babying it because it's so expensive. Then I concluded what was the point of having it if I don't use it the way it was intended. Now I'm not gentle at all with it. The paint has worn off in spots but it still works like a champ.
 
two reasons why I decided against the RX100:
-macro isn't quite as good on the RX100 due to the bigger sensor
-I'm not using this kind of camera enough to justify spending ~600$ (my EM-5 is my main camera)

But I agree that the RX100 is more convenient to take everywhere thanks to it's smaller size. Which reminds me of a third reason why I didn't go for it, it's small size (didn't like the handling). :)

All personal decisions. Stuff like that is different for everyone :)
 
Biro;165062Would you buy an enthusiast compact with the sensor from the Panasonic G5/G6?[/QUOTE said:
Great question. It would have to offer a combination of features that's not out there, I.e.,...

- same size as Ricoh GR but with faster prime (at least 1 stop faster)
- same size as GR but with fast 3x-5x zoom
- same size as RX100 but ???
 
Great question. It would have to offer a combination of features that's not out there, I.e.,...

- same size as Ricoh GR but with faster prime (at least 1 stop faster)
- same size as GR but with fast 3x-5x zoom
- same size as RX100 but ???

That's pretty much what I'm thinking. I'm not asking for the moon, but perhaps a 24-70mm zoom that starts at f/1.8 and goes to f/2.8? Is that asking for too much in a camera about the size of the Ricoh GR (I'll allow for some lens protrusion if a zoom is used) with a micro four-thirds sensor? We can look at the Panasonic GM1 for some guidance. The body can be a bit larger than the GM1 in order to accomodate some external controls (mode dial, control ring, etc.). While I'd really like an built-in EVF, that might be asking for too much. But a high-resolution rear LCD employing "White Magic" technology would help.

Sorry, I don't mean to hijack this thread. But the Woot sale is over anyway. :)
 
That's pretty much what I'm thinking. I'm not asking for the moon, but perhaps a 24-70mm zoom that starts at f/1.8 and goes to f/2.8? Is that asking for too much in a camera about the size of the Ricoh GR (I'll allow for some lens protrusion if a zoom is used) with a micro four-thirds sensor? We can look at the Panasonic GM1 for some guidance. The body can be a bit larger than the GM1 in order to accomodate some external controls (mode dial, control ring, etc.). While I'd really like an built-in EVF, that might be asking for too much. But a high-resolution rear LCD employing "White Magic" technology would help.

Sorry, I don't mean to hijack this thread. But the Woot sale is over anyway. :)

I'd imagine that if Sony can't put a zoom that's fast on both ends with the RX100, there's less a chance of that happening with a bigger M43 sensor.

After time with the Nikon 1 V1, I really think that the 1" sensor is the Goldilocks of sensor sizes, big enough for low light, small enough for small zooms.
 
Steve..... you're asking for the moon.

Just look at the Panasonic 12-35mm lens......and that is an f2.8 constant aperture......faster equals bigger.....even if you can shave some size down by eliminating the mount.
 
Back
Top