billnikon wrote:
So you are saying the Sony RX100iii is inexpensive(relatively). Relative to what, for another $200.00 you can get a brand new Nikon D500 camera. Relatively a Canon 7D MarkII is currently $300 less than the RX100iii and has steel in it instead of plastic gearing like in the lens of the RX100iii. And the RX100iii is NOT full frame, not even close. So, again, what would be the advantage of buying the RX100iii instead of a full frame?
Hey Bill,
LOL. Maybe you should re-read my reply. I think your comprehension may be as challenged as the OP's ability to form a coherent question. (Early morning... more coffee?)
Also, please send me the link where you can buy a D500 for $200 more than the Sony RX100iii that currently sells for $700. I will buy them by the crate load and resell them on Amazon. I'd make a freakin' fortune.
Oh, and to your requested advantages. The OP doesn't seem to know a lot about photography so why try to sell him an expensive digital FF camera before he can figure out the basics?
My Sony has a lot of advantages over my D800. (I own and use both.)
1. It's lighter.
2. It is not a crew served weapon system, i.e. .. you don't have to lug around a bunch of heavy lenses, a flash, etc. and bring along grunts to carry your gear. You can slip the whole system into your front pocket.
3. It has one, permanently-attached lens that provides a normal focal range that is good enough for most photographers.
4. It is less than half the price of a D500 without lenses. That, my friend, is relatively cheap. If you don't agree, then you don't like my relatives. I'll live with that.
5. It produces very nice IQ, even with all of the above listed advantages. Even in low light. And I think that might be acceptable for someone who is going to ask such a simple question as the OP.
6. It has a very usable auto mode which again, might be nice for someone who is asking such a simple question.
That's my opinion. Take it or leave it. Nyah.
TTFN,
SteveTog