photoguy622: I had the XZ-1 for about a year, and while I loved the lens' sharpness and wide aperture I was never pleased with photo quality above ISO 400, it looked more like a watercolor painting than a photo at 100%. Unfortunately, it looks like XZ-2 suffers the same fate.
I won't take your enthusiast card away, I promise ;) I didn't mean to be bossy in my comment, I just think that when you buy a 600$ compact, you're not a P&S photography amateur. You're more someone who wants to get DSLR image quality everyday in his bag. And DSLR quality comes with the RAW format, JPG samples are a bit useless.
Please consider that these images must be JPG out of camera... I don't see the point of judging these pictures, this is definitely an enthusiast camera, and enthusiast photographer use RAW (if you don't, then buy a cheap compact camera). I'm sure you can get better details and less watercolor painting artifacts shooting in RAW and post processing your files on your PC. That's what Robin Wong has been doing in his review and that's why he gets pretty decent quality up to 1600 iso (and he only uses Olympus Viewer, not even Lightroom or Aftershot which might have better noise reduction tools).
chj: Nice pics, but doesn't look like an RX100 killer. Of course there's a big price difference as well.
RX100: 650 euros, XZ-2: 550 euros. The price difference is bigger here in Europe.