arcane93: I bought the RX100 II when it came out last year, and I've loved it enough that I would have actually considered upgrading to the new model this year with the right set of new features. The improvements in aperture by themselves would have been enough to sell me, but a loss of 30mm at the long end? That's a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned. I use my RX100 II a lot for concert shooting (one of my main reasons for buying it, actually), and I need all of the telephoto range that I can get. If anything, I wanted more, not less. Maybe next time, Sony!
Just got M3, but for concerts (and other wildlife ;-) am considering RX-10.
I'm debating the RX100 M3 over updating my NEX-5N body to an a6000.
The f3.5 kit lens vs the f1.8 lens in the M3 means you can shoot at roughly 1/4th the ISO on the M3 to get equivalent IQ on the a6000. The studio shots bear this out - ISO 1600 on the M3 looks indistinguishable from ISO6400 on the a6000.
Sony has done a great job on their cameras - I just feel like they need to spend more R&D on their lens lineup like Fuji has to make their mirrorless portfolio compelling.
Adrian Harris: I still can't see the point of these cameras. Still far to big to fit in ones pocket. Shame it doesn't have a smaller sensor and hence small light lenses. Thank goodness for M4/3.
For me, getting the biggest possible sensor in the smallest possible package was the priority, and the NEX family fits that bill. I get uncompromising DSLR image quality in a much smaller package. My only complaint thus far has been a lack of lens selection.