I'm just going to drop some thoughts in here. I am testing out an LX100 mark II for a week or so, having used it for a couple days I have some observations.
Positive first: the step zoom is a fantastic feature! When I handled an original LX100 a few years ago, I was reminded of how much I dislike toggling a zoom button, and the control ring around the lens felt numb and frustrating as well. Keep in mind I have no idea whether the original LX100 offered step zoom or not, I simply didn't know about it till now. But using step zoom effectively removes all frustration. Yes, it takes a second for the lens to move between stepped focal lengths, and it can take longer if you want to move several steps, as you have to sort of time your nudges to the toggle. But regardless, the frustration isn't there because there's no longer a delayed, electronic input that you have to try and time perfectly with the movement of the lens zoom. The focal lengths are useful and I like that they are marked in 35mm-equiv terms, unlike they usually are on an ILC zoom lens with a standard zoom ring.
Fast, responsive, everything I'd expect from a modern Panasonic.
Now, not so positive: Handling could be much improved if the grip were designed a little better for a small size camera. Ricoh's GR cameras have this figured out. The grip has some more depth and extends further into the palm, while still being small. As is, it feels like Panasonic just took a decent larger grip and shrunk it down. You'd need to have kid hands to make it truly fit comfortably. It's not terrible, just awkward. A half-case would definitely improve it.
IQ, that's the sticking point with me. The lens is good but it has a gentle sharpness. I've realized that M4/3 sensors really respond best to bitingly sharp lenses, the sensor processing handles detail the best when this is the case, whereas any lens which is acceptably sharp but doesn't have the same level produces slight mushiness, more due to the way sensor processing handles vague detail than any actual optical shortcomings. However, there seems to be some evidence of sample variation with the lens, so maybe that theory is wrong and this just isn't an ideal copy. At any rate, IQ doesn't "feel" great, and I have to continue using and analyzing photos to really figure out why. I should print some as well.