MX-1 or original Q???

Hello all,

Wasn't sure if I should post this here or the mirrorless section but here goes...

I have been missing my Q (with the 01 standard lens) ever since I sold it. I used to carry it with me all the time but now I only carry a panasonic superzoom compact which is not a patch on the Q's image quality. I've been following the "Happy camera" thread and it made me realise the Q might have been THAT camera. Even though it isn't the best in image quality but looking back at some of the snaps I took, the pictures it produced were pretty dang good for the sensor size. Plus it is solidly built with great control and ergonomics, has a quiet shutter with the direct user knob on the front but still small enough to be carry all the time in a jacket pocket. I am considering re-purchasing the Q with the 01 lens and I am not fussed about the 02 Zoom due to its bigger size and lesser image quality than the 01.

So, the dilemma starts here - If the MX-1 didn't exist, I would just get the Q w/01 lens again straight away. I understand the MX-1 is bigger, heavier and more expensive than the Q but it has the convenience of a fast zoom lens and a tilting screen. If we were to ignore these factors, which camera is the better one in terms of pure image quality? This is probably subjective but does the MX-1 feel as good to shoot as the Q? I've only handled the MX-1 briefly in the shop, it felt solid but I wouldn't know what it's like to shoot with one extensively. I personally think the Q has the best handling/control on a compact/small size camera.
BTW, I am not interested in the Q10 or Q7 due to the less substantial feel to the Q.

I would be grateful for any input especially for those of you who have used both. Thanks folks!

D

Hi,
If you've been following my happy thread then you will know my feelings on both theses cameras

But what I have found and I think I put it down to being my newer purchase is I am using my MX-1 twice as much as my Q at the moment.

If I had to stick my neck out, the MX-1 is the one to go for, if picture quality is your main concern especially when the light starts to fade. It doesn't trounce the Q but it is there to see that the MX-1 is the better of the two.

At the moment my travel light kit is a Think Tank Mirrorless mover bag with the MX-1 and two original Q body's, one fitted with the 01 standard prime the other fitted with the 03 fisheye.but when dipping into the bag it's the MX-1 I go to.

MattyH is correct in that the MX-1 has better image quality than the original Q.

However, you can achieve the same by using the Q7 body, which has the same size sensor as the MX-1. Then the image quality of both cameras may well be the same, or at least very similar.

The decision then becomes whether or not a very good fast zoom lens on the MX-1, f/1.8, or interchangeable lenses on the Q7 are the way to go.

If the idea of a fixed lens like the 01 Prime lens is your choice, then on quality grounds maybe you should be including the Ricoh GR as well. Then you will have DSLR quality in your compact camera.

Not having used the Q, how does the image quality of its lenses stack up against the MX-1? I think the MX-1 lens is a major contributor to its very good image quality, so wondering if there is much advantage to using the Q unless you need focal lengths not offered by the MX-1?

Personally I haven't done any sort of objective test Jon, so I wouldn't like to say.

What I can say is that in both cases, when the Q images or the MX-1 images are right they can both be very good indeed.

Thanks for the info fellas and apologies for the delayed reply. It's been a bit hectic and I didn't get a chance to think or look at cameras!

So I managed to pop into Jessops to have another look at the MX-1 in person last night and it feels like a really well crafted machine and it is such a pleasure to hold in the hand. However, looking at it side-by-side with the Sony RX100/II and the Panasonic GM1, the MX-1 does seem quite bulky and heavy especially given the much bigger sensor sizes on the other two cameras. Having said that, the MX-1 does seem like the most well-built out of the three and it is significantly cheaper. Choices eh!?

On a different note, I had a quick play with the K3 and it felt SO GOOD in the hand!! It just felt like it was tailored made for my hand and I must admit it is the nicest camera I've ever held - period! Now if only Ricoh would roll out a Full Frame K-3 equivalent....

I haven't compared the MX-1 to the larger sensor alternatives, and, all else being equal I would prefer a larger sensor, but that goes without saying. What I can say is that I've been very pleasantly surprised by the quality and capabilities of the MX-1, even with the frustratingly slow write speeds. Through ISO 400 it is very clean and even ISO 800 isn't bad and easy to clean up in post. The fast lens though means that you don't have to go up to ISO 800 as often as you might otherwise have to. For me, the fast lens is a real winner.

Regards from the other side of the pond.

I have the RX100 and while I like the image quality, I wish it had the 'character' and form factor of the MX1 (and the flippy screen!) The RX100 is a pocket rocket but the MX1 feels a much more engaging camera to play around with (and is cheaper)...

I have taken advantage of the recent dip in MX-1 prices and just ordered one for my Christmas present! It's 34 years since I got my first MX, Christmas 1979. I had saved up my weekend job money and matched 1/2 the cost that my parents had promised to match. After reading all the positive comments about the MX-1 it should live up to its predecessor

I haven't used either, but if I were to try one I'd go for the Q, simply due to the flash hotshoe, which the MX-1 sorely lacks.

The Q becomes terribly unwieldy with even the smallest flash, the instructions actually recommend using flash off camera

I have used the Q with studio flash, mounting an IR trigger in the hotshoe, but the real limitation is the minimum aperture of f/8.

The Q with a regular flash (AF360 or AF540) is just silly
With a wireless trigger it's ok.

The Q + 8.5 standard lens is teeny tiny and very light.

The MX-1 is much heavier, but initial impressions are very positive! Images are very detailed and extremely pleasing. ISO1600 is surprisingly good too!
The flippy screen is great - will be excellent for street and candid (and I see John has just posted such on epz) - and the lens is lovely. Very nice range and useful 1cm Macro mode.
Was initially worried about the response of the levered-zoom control (compared to 'hands-on' zoom of the Q 5-15). But it works very well indeed. Dual axis spirit levels are also helpful.

The MX-1 and Q are quite different beasts, but it does look like the IQ of the MX-1 is better

Matt

Clearly when people ask for a hotshoe on these little cameras, it's for adding a radio trigger. The sync speed of these little cameras is much higher than DSLRs, which makes them interesting to strobists.

It's possible to use optical triggers though, as this guy demonstrates http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZY3lYIBtZ4

If you want MX-1 quality but the Q form, then perhaps the new Q7 would be suitable. It has the same sized (same?) sensor as the MX-1.