[baro-nite]

you should look at the RX100 then probably buy it

Maybe so. I'd say it depends on the relative importance of physical size vs. sensor size. From the original criteria:

"smallish almost pocketable camera"

and

"I think 1" would be the smallest I would consider"

so I'd say (having never actually handled either camera) that the LX100 remains a contender.

[UncleVanya]

Panasonic ZS100 (20MP, 1" sensor, 25-250 f/2.8-f/5.9 lens equivalent, Size: 111 x 65 x 44 mm / 4.37 x 2.56 x 1.73″)
Panasonic LX100 (16 - 12.7mp useable, M4/3 sensor, 24-70 f/1.7-f/2.8 lens equivalent, Size: 115 x 66 x 55 mm / 4.53 x 2.6 x 2.17″)
Sony RX100 mk iii / mk iv (20MP 1" sensor, 24-70 f/1.8-f/2.8 lens equivalent, Size: 102 x 58 x 41 mm / 4.02 x 2.28 x 1.61″)

I would suggest that the new ZS100 and the RX100 are the most likely candidates. The RX100 is slightly smaller and has a faster lens but a shorter zoom range.

[audiobomber]

And with what lens can you put it in your pocket? What size pocket? LOL

The a6000 fits in a jacket pocket. I don't even like carrying a phone in my pants pocket, let alone a camera. I have several cases and bags to carry it on my hip or shoulder. There are several cameras being suggested here that are the same size as the a6000. IQ is comparable or better than the others suggested. Compact Camera Meter
With lenses: Compact Camera Meter

The RX100 III is smaller, but pricier than the a6000 kit. IQ is superior for the APS-C kit according to my research. Of course adding a prime to the a6000 gives superior performance to all the fixed lens bodies.

I've got the 16-50 pancake in E mount but it's terrible.

Mine is pretty decent for a kit lens. I like it better than the Pentax 18-55's I've owned. Of course the E 16-50 needs lens corrections in-camera, or one click in Lightroom. Here's a review that describes it pretty well:

"The Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 PZ OSS is a compact and inexpensive kit zoom lens that produces decent results, although it suffers from heavy barrel distortion at wide angles and produces images that are only super-sharp at the center. That said, it does better than most kit lenses, to the point that you may not feel the need to immediately rip it off and replace it with something better. It’s a very serviceable shooter. The big selling points here are its compactness as well as the powerzoom and image stabilization features, both of which come in handy for video shooting."
Sony Lens: Zooms - Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 PZ OSS SELP1650 (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

[UncleVanya]

I think the point is that the op is the one who set the criteria. many people pushed beyond the size that fits in a pocket.

[audiobomber]

I think the point is that the op is the one who set the criteria. many people pushed beyond the size that fits in a pocket.

OTOH, many times I've seen a thread starter ask for advice, then end up going in a different direction due to a suggestion outside the original parameters.

Aside from that, I wanted to clarify that an a6000 is similar in size to most of the suggestions in this thread, despite the fact that it was singled out as being too large.

[clackers]

"The Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 PZ OSS ... you *may* not feel the need to immediately rip it off and replace it with something better."

Your quotation, emphasis mine.

It's lousy. 😀

[audiobomber]

Your quotation, emphasis mine.

It's lousy. ��

OK, then so are other kit lenses. The RX100 models have better lenses, but due to their small sensors can't resolve any more than the E 16-50 and have worse aberrations. Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II Lens on Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 II vs Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 on Sony A6000

[clackers]

OK, then so are other kit lenses.

The Pentax 18-55 craps all over it, Audiobomber! 😀

The A6000 isn't jeans pocket size in any case.

Jacket, perhaps. Even then, I'd put the lens separately in the other pocket.

[jatrax]

I think the point is that the op is the one who set the criteria. many people pushed beyond the size that fits in a pocket.

Yep. But I am certainly interested in the other suggestions. The Sony a6000 is very interesting as is the Nikon 1 system. And both are very tempting. But I think if I go with either of those I'll just end up with an LBA excuse an another whole system.

I am leaning toward the Sony RX100 either iii or iv or the Panasonic LX100. The LX100 has only 12.7MP though and that might be an issue. The new ZS100 sounds interesting but I am concerned about a 10x zoom range.

[UncleVanya]

Yep. But I am certainly interested in the other suggestions. The Sony a6000 is very interesting as is the Nikon 1 system. And both are very tempting. But I think if I go with either of those I'll just end up with an LBA excuse an another whole system.

I am leaning toward the Sony RX100 either iii or iv or the Panasonic LX100. The LX100 has only 12.7MP though and that might be an issue. The new ZS100 sounds interesting but I am concerned about a 10x zoom range.

I will see if I can find the comparison review that made me lean towards the lx100. Of course someone else pointed out the thickness of the lens on lx100 isn't great for pockets. The 12.7mp is due to the multi aspect ratio overlay on a 16mp m4/3 sensor.

[clackers]

The LX100 has only 12.7MP though and that might be an issue.

Well, the Canons have 20Mp 1".

[jatrax]

Well, the Canons have 20Mp 1".

I got confused with the Canon naming. G3, 5, 7, 9.... I should go back and look at those. I got confused and just quit looking at them.

[bertwert]

I got confused with the Canon naming. G3, 5, 7, 9.... I should go back and look at those. I got confused and just quit looking at them.

It's not any worse than Pentax DSLR naming...

[audiobomber]

The Pentax 18-55 craps all over it, Audiobomber! .

No, it doesn't. The E 16-50 is ugly in its raw form, because it was designed to be used with lens corrections. The corrections resolve the distortion, vignetting and CA and bring it into line with other kit lenses.
Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 on Sony A6000 vs Pentax smc PENTAX DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL II on Pentax K-3

[clackers]

The E 16-50 is ugly in its raw form, because it was designed to be used with lens corrections. The corrections resolve the distortion, vignetting and CA and bring it into line with other kit lenses.

Exactly. But with other kit lenses you have the latitude to do what you like in PP, and be selective about it.

The RAW files from this thing are in essence 16 bit Jpegs!

Not for me, thank you.

I use the Sigma DN primes or K-mount glass with my NEX-3N and NEX-7 for PQ.