In the relatively short time I've spent as a "photography enthusiast" three cameras have seemed like game-changers to me: Fuji X100; Olympus E-M5; and Sony RX100. Lots of other great cameras, but these three seemed to re-establish the bar. I bring that up because the LX100, prematurely, I realize, looks like it might be the fourth entry on that list. When I compare the LX100 to the G1XMKII I wonder how the Panny can be received with this level of anticipation while the Canon, after a bit of early excitement, hardly seemed to move the needle at all. From Panny to Canon we've got 4K video vs sub-par video; 24-75/1.7 - 2.8 vs 24-120/2 - 3.9; integrated EVF and fixed LCD vs tilt & touch LCD and add-on EVF; clip on flash vs integrated; newer smaller sensor vs older and slightly larger. Panny is smaller with longer battery life, and better/faster AF (I think) with double the FPS. Panny costs $100 more I'd argue that the Panny is more compelling, unless the longer reach or some of the features of the Canon are critical for you. But I certainly can't argue that the LX100 just blows the G1XMKII away, and it really seems like it should given the tepid reception the Canon received vs the coronation of the Panasonic. I'm curious what people think about this. Is Canon simply a bit doomed because they have not pushed the envelope much lately, while Panny gets all sorts of bonus points for doing just that? Or are these two cameras actually further apart than the specs seem to tell us? It might be a tough convo, as so few people around here seemed to have tried the G1XMKII. Even in Canon-land on POTN it only seems like a handful of folks have embraced it, and they mostly post the same sort of outdoor semi-landscape shot over and over again, so it is tough to gauge what the camera can really do.