I have just returned a g7x ii that I got as a Xmas present.
The idea was for it to replace my battered old RX100i.
If quality of image is your main concern then it's not as good. The lens is too soft at wide with too much distortion at the edges, the white balance is a bit hit and miss and the auto ISO implementation is awful.
I'll be getting a RX100 iii

Just the other day I took my wife's Sony RX100 to the park, took some shots of my dog and the files look like crap, worst greens ever, blown highlights... And yes, Sony prices of new cameras (and lenses) are getting absurd. That is why my trusty Canon 5D 12.8 still one of my favorite cams!.

People keep playing specs game and trying to say that the RX100 is the clear winner between the two. There is no way in hell that camera is better than the G9X. It's dog slow and the image stabilization is garbage on that original model.

tired of this bull
where is the 28-84 F2-4.9 lens in phone

and where is the dual IS and Raw burst 8.2 fps

and most important where is the 1 inch sensor that is many times larger (5 times?)

u don't care, I am sure there are people care to use instead of phone especially at 200 gram

I will use for sure

Wholly unreasonable assertion, mobile phones are a niche photography product, great for social media and fun snaps but not much else. They do not have a focussed commercial relationship with professional photographers in the way for example that canon, Nikon or Sony do. Their appeal is broader than photography. Arguably they may have helped kill of the cheap compact camera market. This is not such a great achievement and canon, Panasonic and Sony have responded with fabulous 1 inch sensor based cameras that very comfortably eclipse the IQ and functionality of any smart phone.
Hell my old Nikon 1V1 still takes photographs with better IQ than the pick of the best smart phones. Arguably smart phones will never win the race on equal terms with current and future cameras, at best they will hold a slice of the point and shoot market

"Cellphone cameras are also upfront with their technologies. They do not give it to us in incremental steps"

You have obviously never heard of Apple then - the King of Incremental Improvements.

A modular cam that you're asking for will cost significantly more than $529.

Probably but isn't that common sense.

The G7x was updated shortly after the G5x launch. And it became a fast cheaper alternative to the Sony Rx100.

The G9x is this small affordable easy to use snapshooter with a great sensor. Sure it's slow. But that isn't a problem for it's typical user.

The G3x got smoked at launch by the year old Fz1000. It never stood a chance due to being way too slow for it's target audience.

The G5x was unique but aimed at enthusiasts which demand solid performance with Raw. Which it doesn:t deliver.

So you don't sell them enough.

no smartphone can never have this zoom lens

there must be some who care and if lightweight would use instead of phone

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10 shoots 4K UHD and has a faster F1,4 zoom lens.

If you think a mm is critical perhaps, others do not.

It's more like 3-5mm thicker. And that does matter for pocketability. If the camera doesn't need to be pocketable, the G7X series is better gear.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#124,614

You sure?

never mind the measurements look at the J1 with fixed LCD compared to J5 with tilting LCD - there is bugger all in it. the extra width is largely down to J5 now having a grip whereas J1 had no grip at all.

Check out my link above and look at camera 2 orientation - now tell me. Does the tilty screen add a significant increase to the thickness of the camera? It's 1.7mm thicker and not because of the tilt screen.

I compared 2 cameras I have owned. There is no huge difference! Look at the fixed screen, look at the tilt screen. LOOK MAN! It's 1mm tops. The camera thickness is largely because it is now narrower and has a grip. What's that got to do with anything. Jeez - some people..

http://camerasize.com/compare/#332,467

Why didn'tanyone take the closest possible comparison.
The rx100mk1 vs the mk2

Similar lens same sensor same soapbar body.
Difference 2.4mm

Basically the difference is dependant on the thickness of the frame for the tilt screen and also some allowance for body shielding that is exposed when screen is pulled out. The screen itself is not a consideration if both bodies are using the same screen. Huge difference it is not. Significant? Depends on the size of your pockets I guess. I'd sooner change my clothing and have a tilty screen.

@norman

if a few mm is negligible to you, then the g7 x mark ii exists.

What's wrong with it? It's clearly compromise to keep the camera pocketable, other models have bigger and faster variants.

Had they put a better lens it would've made a larger camera... and thus defeating its purpose.

f4.9 1" is mornic.

What is mornic ?

I have an f/5.8 (at the long end) 1/2.3" in my pocket right now, and it's mostly okay. f/4.9 and 1" is way, way faster than what I have now.

f5.8 1/2.33" is greyscale resolution limited by diffraction at < 3 MP

"5.8 1/2.33" is greyscale resolution limited by diffraction at < 3 MP"

Not true at all. The MTF is still almost 0.3 at 12MP.

The S110 and S120 had a range of 24-120, but a 1/1.7" sensor. To get that range in this sensor size, you need both a bigger lens and a slower f-stop. Frankly, I'd give up f-stop to get range in this camera. If it were 24-120 equivalent and f/2.8-f/5.6 I'd be more interested than I am now. When I really need low-light performance, I take my SLR anyway.

No, the ZS100 is 44mm thick versus 31mm thick for the G9x. That a huge difference when it comes to pocketability.

Do people not know G7 X and G5 X exists?

seems some tend to forget physics here .. derp.

also the RX 100 I through III I believe were 4.9 on the long end .. and they got to f4.9 really really fast as well.

Sony's still selling them from what I gather as well.

rrccad - I have the RX100-I. You can do a lot with f/4.9 ... given the choice between a 28-100/1.8-4.9 and 24-70/1.8-2.8, I'd have a hard time choosing (note that the faster lens is also on more expensive cameras and the III is a small bit bulkier than the II - the III has the faster lens). 24 through wide/normal is great, but I find 50-70 pretty vague and uninteresting - I get a lot of use out of the short tele end of the RX100. I wrote above, in a comment about camera size, that if my RX100 died tomorrow, I'd probably buy another version I because I like its compromises. I'd look at the options, but it's certainly a viable camera without a tilting LCD, without an EVF and with "only" an f/4.9 max aperture at the tele end.