(cont'd from above)
I don't think the GKZ has considerably better DR either (I think the situation is the exact opposite, the DR being worse than that of the 808.) After all, the 808 still has much larger pixels.

I myself surely won't get the new GKZ as:

- the phone part is considerably worse than that of the S5, that is, the current high-end Samsung offering. This (the “Zoom” model heavily lagging behind the flagship model of the time) has always been the Achilles' heel of Samsung's dedicated cameraphone Zoom / K series. Now, with the internals of the S5, even without being waterproof (which is understandably impossible to achieve with a sliding lens mechanism), it'd be a far more appealing offer... even if I, personally, wouldn't really use it as the jailbroken iPhone 5 with several tweaks I've developed myself & the Nokia 808 & the Retina iPad Mini combo pretty much fulfills all my “mobile” needs, and I prefer JB'n iOS to Android WRT communication via phone / Skype

(cont'd below)

It would need to either be an inch thick, or the the lens would have to pop out significantly more than it does now (and would be much thicker and heavier). The best you'll ever see is MAYBE a 1/1.7" sensor, like the Canon S120.

Physics can't be overcome.

Personally, I'd rather then keep the phone slim and use dual smaller sensors with software noise reduction to help overcome the low-light problem. I don't expect that to happen, though.

I think the same thing every time I read about these hybrids. Give me a phone with essentially an s120 or similar crammed in, and you will have my money.

The s120 is eminently pocketable, and its still over 50% thicker than this Samsung, so there's room to grow and still be pocketable. I don't need a huge 5" screen, scaling down a little could help there.

Still, I give Samsung credit- this is a step in the right direction for sure.

By far the fastest growth in photography in recent years has been camera phones, with their tiny sensors (which are fine for many people). So really, the average sensor is getting smaller, not bigger. And as sensor tech improves, small sensors will give better results, so the need for big sensors (again for most people) will be even less.

RX100 was released quite some time ago.

It's not like this phone is slim anyway, at 15mm on the edges and 20mm on the lens it's nearly like carrying two modern phones... Or a brick. Bad compromise all around.

It'd fit into most pockets, sure, question is whether you'd wanna carry it EVERY DAY. I've carried a phone that thick in the past (1st and 2nd HTC EVO), and I still carry something that thick on occasion when I either A) slip a slim battery pack inside the same pocket as my phone while it charges (each have nearly identical dimensions) OR B) carry my P&S (with an f2-5.6 28-200mm lens and 1/1.7" sensor mind you).

It's manageable, but not pleasant as a daily occurrence. Phones didn't get thinner based on sheer vanity and one-up-manship, their current form factor is just a lot more pleasant for most people. Never mind that you're trading the brighter lens you'd typically get with a slimmer phone (close to 30mm f2 on something like the S5 or most flagships) for a slower optical zoom and an inferior phone.

If zoom is that important for you then go for it, just be aware of the very substantial tradeoffs. It's kind of like the classic primes vs zooms debates, except you're stuck with it in this case...

Who needs 10x optical zoom?

@ Lee jay
DR is the room between saturation level (clipped highlights) and acceptable noise level in low light. Small pixels catch less photons than big pixels, thus DR is narrower on the low-light side. If small pixels can create about the same DR as big pixels why is the Sony Alpha 7s, 102400 ISO FF camera, equipped with a 12 megapixel only sensor ?

Uh huh.

Why do the enormous pixels of the 1Dx produce 11.3 stops of DR: http://sensorgen.info/CanonEOS-1D_X.html

While the itty bitty pixels of the G15 produce 11.5 stops?
http://sensorgen.info/CanonPowershot_G15.html

Simple - when the well capacity goes down as pixels get smaller, the noise floor goes down about the same amount.

Sensor technology improves quickly, 1Dx was released in 2011, G15 in 2012 and the amount of photons that hit a pixel also depends of how the light is gathered by what is put in front of the photosites (microlens array, Bayer filter, etc...). Everything being equals (same technology), a bigger pixel has a better S/N ratio than a small one. Doubling the photosite size, doubles the amount of photons it can collect, but the noise level increases less than a 2x factor, because noise is random by nature. So your statement "the noise floor goes down about the same amount" is wrong. Pixel binning is also a trick to increase S/N ratio ( at the expense of resolution, of course) and simulates bigger pixels...

Sources:
http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/camera-sensor-noise/

http://www.photometrics.com/resources/learningzone/binning.php

http://lifeinmegapixels.com/blog/2012/01/pixel-binning-does-it-work/

www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/healey/csc563/notes/ch-05.pdf

According to people that design these sensors, the noise floor and the full-well capacity are proportionally linked. I provided evidence of this.

The G12 has 11.2 stops of DR, and it was announced in 2010. And it's pixels are 11.6 times smaller than those of the 1DX. Obviously, pixel size doesn't drive DR.

If you read carefully the data I provided the links to, you will see that the read noise depends on many factors, including read frequency/speed, sensor layout, etc...and not just the pixel size.
So saying that small pixel can have a lower read noise than big pixel by just comparing the overall read noise of two sensors is just a wrong conclusion...
In other words, a "clean" big pixel with a not so clean electronics to read it may lead to a higher read noise level than a small pixel with a cleaner electronics... Don't forget that DSLRs often feature faster burst rate (thus faster pixel read speed) than P&S. In other words, when the same electronics is used (when possible) to read a small or big pixel, the sensor with the bigger pixel has a lower read noise level. There are laws of physics you know...

The bottom line is that rather than there simply being a push for smaller pixels, there is a push for smaller BETTER pixels. Some people would essentially have us believe that some manufacturers are actually pushing things backwards with respect to IQ but this is nonsense. Here is a small window into the process, and the thinking: http://www.imagesensors.org/Past%20Workshops/2013%20Workshop/2013%20Papers/01-4_080-Tian-paper.pdf

So once again I say this: people need to stop worrying about high pixel counts as if it's somehow all very tragic, because it's not.

@cainn24,
Thank you for the link, as it is grist to my mill... ;-)
I was replying to Lee Jay, and the discution with him is not if it is tragic or not but if bigger pixel means better DR and SNR or not, EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL The key elements in the document you mention (paragraph 2. 0.9um pixel development) are the following sentence "Without new technology, the reduction of pixel size leads to pixel performance degradation " and figure #3. The writing's on the wall...

But even in that worst-case scenario where pixel size is decreased without new technology, we're still only talking about _pixel-level_ performance degradation, and not the degradation of IQ at the aggregate image level when display/print sizes are equalized.

@cainn24
"we're still only talking about _pixel-level_ performance degradation, and not the degradation of IQ at the aggregate image level when display/print sizes are equalized"
If you mean comparing small prints or small displays, then what is the benefit of a high-pixel -count/small-pixel-size sensor ? High pixel count is useful for cropping/digital zooming, that is to say enlarging at about pixel-level. And then you will see the IQ difference at high ISO...Also, if your sensor lacks dynamic range because of too small pixels and you get burnt highlights or dark shadows you can see it at any enlargement ratio...For sure, there are software tricks to correct noise and narrow DR by stacking pictures. But it is not a panacea as it does not work with moving subjects.

1) I'm not saying that there is necessarily always a benefit to cramming more megapixels into a small sensor. I am saying that given equivalent technology and display/print sizes, doing so is basically NEVER to the detriment of IQ, at ANY ISO.

2) Smaller pixels (again, given equivalent technology and print/display sizes) DO NOT EQUAL less dynamic range. It's important to understand the difference between what goes on at the per-pixel level and what goes on at the aggregate image level when print/display sizes are normalized.

Here's a good reference for you: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=706255

You don't need to just take some random forum posters word for it of course. There is a wealth of reference material there that you can peruse for yourself.

@cainn24,
Sorry, but you brought grist to my mill again. I followed your link and felt on this document :
http://www.imagesensors.org/Past%20Workshops/2007%20Workshop/2007%20Papers/079%20Agranov%20et%20al.pdf
The author, G. Agranov, concludes a 1.75um pixel sensor shows same performance in low light than a 5.6um pixel sensor, given the same technology. But, when I look at the three pictures taken at 3 lux, at the bottom of the document, my eyes can clearly see at normal display size that the picture taken with the 1.75um pixel sensor is noisier than the one taken with the 2.2um pixel sensor. It is even more noticable when zooming in a little bit. And comparing with the 5.6 um pixel sensor is difficult, IMHO, because of the too much different resolution. They should have taken the picture closer to the subject with the 5.6um pixel sensor so that a given area of the subject is covered by the same number of pixels...

@cainn24
Comparing the 5.6um pixel sensor using a picture that obviously looks enlarged at more than 100% is a joke... And you want to ignore that the 1.75um is worse than the 2.2um apparently...
You wrote : "No. You keep trying to make your case based on per-pixel performance. But do you really not understand how normalizing the display/print resolution is important for evaluating the IQ equation as it relates to real-world usage scenarios?"

I definitely not agree with you comparison scenario, because, as I already said it, it cancels the benefit of using a sensor with more - and thus smaller - pixels. Having more pixels on a sensor allows for more details and thus more enlargement. Push to the limit the enlargement you can make with, let's say a 12MP and a 24MP APS-C sensors, and then you are on a per-pixel performance comparison. I do not care comparing these two sensors with two prints of the same size.

"Comparing the 5.6um pixel sensor using a picture that obviously looks enlarged at more than 100% is a joke... And you want to ignore that the 1.75um is worse than the 2.2um apparently..."

1) you obviously didn't understand the paper
2) you are, for whatever reason, neglecting to examine the wealth of additional evidence that I just put at your feet

With respect to #2 in particular, why?

This is an opportunity for you to grow your technical knowledge of photography. Really. It's not really your fault that you became attached to a pervasive myth because, well, its pervasive. But what you do with the remedial information and perspective is indeed YOUR choice.

"I do not care comparing these two sensors with two prints of the same size."

In other words, you don't care to remain within the context of the comment of mine that you initially responded to (which specified normalized print/display sizes) or the overarching point of this discussion. So why bother?

Your definition of real-word usage is not a universal standard that can be applied to everyone. You have your own usage of cameras, prints and displays. I have mine. Let me give you an example in my real world. Suppose I own a 10MP APS-C (big pixel) body and 300mm lens. I feel the need to push magnification 1.4x further to shoot wildlife. I have the choice to buy a 420mm lens or get a 20MP APS-C (small pixel) body to use with the 300mm lens. To compare what I can get at highest magnification with the 10MP body and 420mm lens on one side to the 20MP body and 300 lens on the other side, I have no choice than comparing two enlargements at 100% to get my subject the same size on both prints. So, it is definitely a per-pixel comparison needed for my real-life usage. And if I discover, in this test, that the 20MP sensor is noisier than the 10MP one, I may consider going with the 10MP body and 420mm lens rather than travelling with a lighter gear. Is it difficult to understand ?