So, I've found out that one of my favourite events to shoot at has unified their camera policy for non-media accredited photographers (like me). While this eliminates a lot of historic confusion about what kind of camera was allowed (for some years it was the amount of zoom, for others it was total focal length, for some it was size of camera, etc...) the new policy is absolutely inane: "no removable lens".

I've not even begun to look at cameras without a removable lens to figure out which ones are any good. The ones I'm currently aware of that might quality for "still moderately decent" are the LX10/100, the RX10MkXX (unsure which models are any good), RX100mkXX (same), and a whole bunch of 1/3" cameras like the G9X and such, which I'm not really interested in since their still photo quality is IMO pretty crap.

So, for those of you who have actually USED these cameras for anything, which stand out as worthy of consideration as a great value for an excellent image? I'm not as concerned with having a superzoom as I am with the following:

1. Great photo and video image quality (e.g. RAW, 422 8-bit 4k or even better for 1080p only cameras, good codecs, good colour science).
2. A very fast aperture, f/2.8 for an APS-C sensor or f/2 for anything smaller.
3. An intuitive UI including button location, body feel in hand, etc.
4. VERY fast power-on-to-shoot time.
5. Good manual focusing, or failing that, stunning in-body AF with touchscreen tracking.
6. The ability to take filters.

I'm not as concerned with:

A. Battery life. B. Weight or size, although something enjoyable to shoot is important. C. An EVF (so long as it has a tilt-screen at the very least). D. An ultra-ultra wide end (wider than 24mm full-frame) or a super-telephoto (greater than 100mm full-frame equivalent) is not necessary for me, although it would be a plus. E. Total megapixels, so long as it's equal to or greater than 12.

Can any of you geniuses point me in the right direction?