Because:
a) the RX100 and RX100 two are $700 and $800 cameras. Variety of price points is what makes the camera industry work.
b) with cameras smaller doesn’t mean better, as to get the RX100 so small, Sony had to cripple it with a dog slow f/4.9 max aperture at 100mm. Which means the MX-1 actually has more shallow DOF than the RX100 at full tele, meaning for subject/background isolation, the MX-1 is actually more useful.
c) the RX100 gets less than 1 EV better high ISO performance. The number of people who need their P&S to produce clean ISO 3200 images is much less than you think.
d) at base ISO, the difference in IQ is not as dramatic is you think and for many the IQ produced by a 1/1.7″ sensor is more than adequate.
e) one RX100 fanboy’s “piece of crap” is another man’s gem.
f) DPR gave it the same Silver award as the RX100.
g) m43 or APS-C cameras can be had for $800
h) if sensor size were the most important feature of a camera, we’d all be shooting FF.
Started out doing photography at the age of 6 using an uncle's old 1940 kodak brownie box camera. At 15 years of age, I decided to buy my very own 1975 Praktica SLR camera. I now shoot with a Nikon D850. I do unpaid TFP and commercial paid work.