Chris62: In test scene we can see right down corner of the picture completely unsharp and on the left side is much better.It means poor quality.Right mounted lens on camera should give the same sharpness in all 4 corners.
I tend to spot a lot of "equally sized" sentences and I'm always interested but always also let down. So the short answer to GM1 vs RX100 is: not really. See eg. http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gm1/images/SidebySideTd_RX-001.jpg
There are no micro-4/3 cameras that come even close to having the same pocketability, since the thickness with the zoom lenses seem to be at minimum twice of RX100.
Then the zoom lens always also tend to have poor ability to capture light, like starting with F3.5. With a nice 80% larger sensor in 4/3 cameras than RX100, you'd still need at least F2.5 lens or so to match low-light capability of RX100, assuming other sensor aspects remain the same.
A >35% percent shrinkage in sensor area makes it a mere good phone cam. With RX100 there is no chance against pocket cams anymore, unlike when the 808 came out. It won't hurt if this becomes more popular, but now the mobile phones went back to the megapixel race.
Digital Suicide: Cmon, panasonic? Where is your LX6/LX7? Canon is ahead in the market with S100.
Yeah right. 4/3:s tend to have about 2 stops better image quality than S95/LX5 etc., but then again their F value with ok zoom range destroys that advantage for any low light shooting. At the same time they don't fit anymore into pockets unlike the compact cameras.
And when it comes to mobile phones, yes Nokia N8 comes close to normal compact cameras, but that's really The only mobile phone with largish sensor area, and it really doesn't match anyway with S95/LX5/XZ1 (S100 review pending, so not mentioning that).