Well if your looking to buy a camera to shoot solely at 1600, 3200, or 6400, knock yourself out, but don't think that's the norm.
Be sure to check out there review on the G1X II. "With a larger sensor and faster lens than the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II - which is the Mark II's closest competitor - one would expect vastly superior image quality. As it turns out, that's not the case. The G1 X II's sensor has a high 'noise floor', which is to say that there's a lot of noise and not much detail in the shadows.
Thus, if you try to brighten dark areas of a photo, you'll end up with more color noise than you will detail. While using either of the DR Correction tools on the camera do work as advertised, the trade-off is a lot more noise. The point here is that while the G1 X II's sensor is much larger than that of the RX100 II, Sony's much more modern sensor performs much better than the Canon's, to the point where it cancels out that disparity
Noticed they also gave the G1X II only a Silver rating while the RX100 III received a Gold...interesting.
Guess it all depends what you want, as the article in the link mentions, want the best IQ, then it's the RX100 III.But if you look at their example images in RAW, particularly at higher iso, that isn't what they actually show. You can lead a horse to water.........
To each their own....
" if .......... you don't mind losing zoom power and shallow depth-of-field,"
Er, what if you do? And what if you don't want or need 20MP from a P&S?
Not saying the RX100III isn't an excellent camera, just that comparison images don't actually agree with the comment. But what do I care, I wouldn't buy either.