Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 vs Pentax MX-1

Winner
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

49

Pentax MX-1

46

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

Wide aperture
Aperture
f/1.4
Wide angle lens
Wide angle
24 mm
High speed movies
High-speed framerate
120 fps
In-camera panoramas
Panorama
Stitches together multiple photos into a panorama
 

Reasons to buy the Pentax MX-1

Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Fastest shutter speed
Fast shutter speed
1/8000 of a second
Aperture
Wide aperture
f/1.8
Macro focus
Great macro
1.0 cm

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7.
Explore our gallery of 12 sample photos taken by the Pentax MX-1.

competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Competitors

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100

Boutique

$609 - $798

Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Dynamic range More dynamic range
Built-in flash No built-in flash
Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Pro digicam

$498

Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Dynamic range More dynamic range
Wide angle Much worse wide angle
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS50

Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS50

Travel zoom

$307 - $398

Zoom More zoom
Screen resolution Higher resolution screen
Dynamic range Less dynamic range

Pentax MX-1 Competitors

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Sony Cybershot DSC-RX100

Pro digicam

$498

Dynamic range More dynamic range
Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Screen flips out Screen does not flip out
Fujifilm FinePix x20

Fujifilm FinePix x20

Pro digicam

$903

Autofocus Faster autofocus
Image stabilization Better image stabilization
Screen size Significantly smaller screen
Pentax Q-S1

Pentax Q-S1

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$223 - $247 body only

$347 - $359 with 5-15mm lens

Supports 24p Supports 24p
Interchangeable lenses Has interchangeable lenses
Screen resolution Significantly lower resolution screen

discussion

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7
Lumix DMC-LX7
Panasonic

Report a correction
Pentax MX-1
MX-1
Pentax

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments