Q10 or MX1?

The title says it all really.

Looking for a camera I can take everywhere, I have a K5 but there are lots of times its at home and I would have liked to have taken a snap.

I realise they are different beasts, but which would you go for when keeping them to their basic spec?

Take both..one in either pocket.
And I'd get a Q7 rather than Q10.
But that's just me... greedy.
In all seriousness I'd take a two lens Q7 kit before an MX 1 for versatility, but the MX 1 is a smashing compact..so we're back where I started...get both!!

I had the original Q and sold it.

I now have the MX-1 and love it to bits... MX-1 all the way

The MX-1 is more of an all purpose camera, being able to deal with everything from 1cm macro through to a good zoom range, plus a wide aperture.

The Q7 has the same spec of sensor, but you will need extra lenses to make the most of it.

There's a place for both, depending on what you want to achieve.

The thought of introducing even a small speck onto the Q7's little sensor fills me with horror. I know fixed lens cameras cab suck in dust via the zoom lens but it's less prevalent.

I love my MX-1. It's not perfect but so versatile and, providing you keep the ISO below 400, produces richly detailed, clean images. The ability to shoot RAW is a real plus as you can recover a surprising amount of highlight detail.

The Q series looks very sweet but if you already have a DLR for more "serious" stuff you'll need the convenience of a compact for more leisured times.

You may need to act quickly as I believe the MX-1 is discontinued with no replacement in prospect. I can't imagine why.

The picture below is a straight JPEG with no processing or sharpening. See how well the camera has coped with difficult mixed lighting. There's even a hint of some decent bokeh.

From my experience, it's the MX-1 lens that makes it shine.

The Q is tinier, feels extremely nice, and the Q7 sensor is probably the same as the MX-1's (i.e. bigger than the Q or Q10).

The Q02 5-15mm lens just doesn't cut it compared to the MX-1. The Q01 8.5mm prime handles well, but isn't as versatile.

There are times when the MX-1 would be nicer if it was 24mm, rather than 28mm. But at f/1.8, with a delicious bokeh, I feel it outperforms the Q in almost every way as a general walkabout.

Yes, there's no flash socket, and there isn't any wireless triggering (you'll need a flash cube that can ignore the preflash to work at all). But I've found I use the K5iis for flash/studio & low-light work, and the MX-1 for fun and family.

It's interesting to use the "Compare" feature of DPreview



Matt

Where the Q really shines is with the new 15-45mm zoom, which is superb. In every other respect, totally agree with Matt.

Thanks!

I think Ill go for the MX-1, it should slot in right along with my K5.

Then, when my wife uses it Ill just have to get a Q7 as well

MX-1 all the way too. It feels like a real camera. Not a pocketable cam, but neither is the Q with the 02 or 06 lens on it.
The only thing that bothers me about the MX-1 is the SD card placement when using it on a tripod.
Even the video footage is excellent from the MX-1.

The MX-1 punches above it weight with the images it produces I am realy pleased with mine. This image was taken in the dark at Disney Land Paris and processed to B&W in the camera. It was a long exposure just held against a post!

I like the MX-1 apart from it's lack of any viewfinder.

Actually, the LCD is technically a 'viewfinder'

But it's not much use in sunlight

None of them are really, but by cupping a hand round the screen it can be dimly seen, just enough to actually take a shot.

Not ideal, but as soon as the light dims then it gets much better.

That's why I went for the Fuji X20. I don't understand why the manufactures are leaving viewfinders out of supposed enthusiasts cameras. Run of the mill point and shoot, it's a cost saving, fair enough.