Upload & Sell: On
After see the comparison. I agree there are more similarity than difference. But I don't agree RX did anything poorer, or change my view about it.
Color, I slightly prefer RX, for it has more saturation and slightly orange hint. Nikon has yellow/warmer hint, which I find latest G always have. I don't like that personally. But here the censors are also different, so I don't think we can draw any conclusion on color.
Bokeh, I also slightly prefer RX. I don't feel this comparison change my view about this little camera on Bokeh: beautiful. Here is the reason, For WA lens, I am not seeking blur, or more DOF in Bokeh, but mainly how the bokeh can keep relative shape of background without jittery and harsh representation. Here, the difference is again small but RX1 did better. Usually, fast glass will perform very good once stop down 1 stop on this department, but RX1 seems still smoother which really surprise me. For Bokeh highlight, RX has cat eye, I believe that is come from smaller physical size, mechanic vignette. But Nikon didn't do better, actually, worse to my eye, wired highlight shape close to corner suggesting its poor coma performance. My 35cron R has the same problem. I feel it is ugly.
As for blur, I find fast glass always has more blur at the same aperture compare to f2 lens. from personal experience: 35lux R vs 35cron R. Zeiss 35f2 vs 35f1.4, Zeiss P50 vs MP50, Leica 50lux MASPH vs 50cron rigid. So, I am not surprised to see that, though I don't really know the reason for this.