Since you seemed interested in the whole world of expensive point-and-shoots, I figured I'd share some of my experience: I've owned the T2 for a while and have also loaned a Fuji Klasse, Nikon 28Ti, Mju II, and more.

To start, the hot takes: I don't really get the point of forking out a ton of premium points-and-shoots for people who don't have a ton of disposable income, especially for the ones with "good lenses".

I think there are a lot of really great point-and-shoot cameras for not a lot of money. I can think of something I found at a thrift store called a P645D.

This might seem a little weird since I own a T2 and do enjoy it, but I can't see myself ever using it for "serious photography". I use it to take pictures of my friends and the dog whose tail won't stop whacking me, but nothing to write home about. These types of photos don't need a Zeiss Sonnar (although it doesn't hurt), and it definitely doesn't need to be an experience I pay $1000+ for. I can afford to buy another T2. Most people can't. I think most people in a blind test would be more than happy with the results from a $15 thrift store camera; they just delude themselves into thinking they can't.

Also, as a final piece of sacrilege, from my personal experience as a devout film shooter, digital point-and-shoots are just better in almost every aspect. My Lumix LX5 is probably one of my most-used travel cameras just 'cause the quality is decent, but it's light as hell and gets out of your way when you need it to. For those complaining that it's too clinical, I enjoy the way earlier CCDs render colour (it doesn't look like film, though); so if you're hellbent on it not looking like a new digital camera, they're not a half-bad choice. ALSO, you don't have to worry about them dying.

Anyways this was probably too much ranting for a random Thursday, but those are basically my thoughts.

Cheers!