I actually think the G16 might compete well with my RX100II.
In favor of the G16:
1) Built in viewfinder2) No buffer at 9 fps!3) IQ will be pretty close at the tele focal lengths because the lens is almost 2 stops faster at the tele end.4)Better ergonomics ( I always prefer a smaller lens to body ratio)5)A second custom setting on the dial6)longer telephoto reach7)A remote cable switch
In favor of the RX100II:
1) Better IQ at wide focal lengths and lower light2) Pocketable3) 20MP4) tilting LCD
mmcfine: Honestly, I find most cameras this days produce more or less the same image quality. The glass makes the art not the chip or sensor.It's amazing how much money and time we spend on comparing nonsense.
For most people, cameras today with a similar number of megapixels do produce more or less the same image quality in good light
But the images from a full frame sensor will always blow away images from an APS-C or smaller sensor at 1600,3200,6400 ISO.
Also, newer cameras tend to have improved electronics that provide faster and more accurate autofocus, faster frames per second and larger buffers.
This can mean getting or losing the "shot" with active subjects.
Oh, and don't forget that newer cameras with similar or improved specs to older ones are getting smaller/lighter, which is always appreciated when walking around all day with camera around your neck.
After shooting the RX-100, I believe the RX-1 will live up to the hype!