Originally posted by jpzk Ringo says: "What's that in your hands?"
If it actually happens, I hope it's not APS-C, or even micro 4/3. Picking up a used GX100, very cheaply, is actually what convinced me I'd rather work with a Q7 than a K-3 ii. Sure, the modern APS-C sensors are amazing, but I don't need them, and neither do a lot of users. Something you can put in your pocket and always have with you is more useful in the end, which is why smartphones get used for a lot of picture-taking, but that's not to say they're a meaningful replacement, and here's why. The lens on the GX100 is fantastic edge-to-edge wide open, and together with uncooked RAW even from that small, old CCD sensor the results from careful use at base ISO are nothing short of excellent, including macro, and the interface is an ideal balance of simplicity and function. I am never going to get that out of a smartphone.
I have one of the better smartphones for photography, I can shoot RAW with it, I like to use the sweep panorama function, it possibly has less noise in low light than the GX100, but it still doesn't match the 10-year-old compact camera for actually making photographs.
If you put even the sensor from the Q7 in the old GX100 body/lens and updated the electronics to keep up on speed, that would be a worthwhile camera. I still use the GX200 alongside the Qs, since for whatever reason there is no Q lens that does decent macro. The GX series lens does great macro. I'd rather use the GX100 for it but the camera doesn't quite respond fast enough to keep up with living insects and whatnot, it makes much nicer base ISO RAWs than the 12mp GX200 sensor. Put a modern sensor in it and the point is moot.
All this arguing over how much of the market smartphones have eaten is kind of pointless. Ricoh/Pentax make niche cameras, big and small, that sell sufficiently to a specific customer base. Other manufacturers are selling their quality-focused smallish-sensor compacts successfully. Why not Ricoh?