This new camera is a dead ringer for Canon's G5X... except they swapped out the one-inch sensor for an APS-C chip and reduced the lens aperture and focal length to make it all fit. I'm sure that it works well but is it that much smaller than, say, a Nikon D3400 with kit lens?
Considerably so - in fact, it's smaller than even most
cameras with kit lenses. You can look here:
Compact Camera Meter
(I put the 22mm f/2 on the M5 because Camerasize.com doesn't list the 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 - that lens is considerably bigger than the Sony 16-50mm, though, yet optically no better ...)
The EVF adds bulk to the G1X III, but the camera as a whole is impressively compact - about comparable with the LX100, but the "DSLR" gestalt makes it look bigger. I find the comparison with the Sony A6000 most interesting; that's a much cheaper camera and has a very nice sensor and interchangable lenses - but the 16-50mm pancake zoom really is nothing to write home about, so if I'd go for that camera (or the A6300 - price-wise, it'd come closer to the G1 X III), I'd end up with a lens that'd make me regret my choice, and I'd end up adding more lenses, nixing the size advantage; besides, I'd lose weather-resistance with the 16-50mm at least. As pancake zooms go, the Panasonic 12-32mm is a lot better than the Sony EZ, and even the less-than-perfect Olympus 14-42mm EZ looks about competitive; the Panasonic 14-42mm PZ is a bit better ... But none of the lenses gets me a 24MP APS-C sensor with Dual Pixel AF in a weather-resistant body. So, if the built-in 15-45mm is very good at 15mm f/2.8, it'll already be an interesting alternative, maybe even to the GR, right out of the box; even more so if the optics perform well at 45mm f/5.6; yes, it's a bit of a pity that it's not brighter, but it has Canon's impressive I.S., so if the lens is a solid performer, I'll take compactness over lens speed in this case.
Anecdotally, I've shot a lot recently with an old Leica AF-C1 film camera - 40mm f/2.8 and 80mm f/5.6 (by tele-converter!); very usable when out and about, less so indoors, but still feasible at 40mm. ISO fixed (at 100, 200, 400, usually), of course ... After reading this thread, I think that sometimes, we simply worry too much. It's an interesting camera at the very least. If it turns out to be less than stellar, so be it - and in that case, its price will kill it as a product. But I'll watch for reviews on trusted sites with great anticipation.
M.