[Brightcolours]

What he wrote is actually correct. The RX100 III has a ~24-70mm f4.8-8.0 135 format "full frame" equivalent lens.

If you want to compare APS-C and/or MFT standard kit zoom lenses, then also look at what it is equivalent to.

Lets take your 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 example as... example  :lol: :

12 x 2 = 24, 50 x 2 = 100, 3.5 x 2 = 7, 6.3 x 2 = 12.6. 

Is a 24-70mmm f4.5-8 lens faster than a 24-100mm f7-12.6 lens? I think so.

 

Another example. Lets take an APS-C kit lens, the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS STM.

18 x 1.6 = 28.8, 55 x 1.6 = 88, 3.5 x 1.6 = 5.6, 5.6 x 1.6 = 9

So, also true. A 24-70mm f4.5-8 lens is faster than a 29-88mm f5.6-9 lens.

You can speak utter crap but that does not make it true. One of the slower u4/3 kit zoom is the 12-50 which is f3.5-6.3 for 24-100 range. Nearly all kit lenses I am famiiliar with for u4/3/aspc are faster than f8 at the long end (in addition to having a much larger sensor). No clue how you can claim this is 'slower' than 4.8-8.0 but I'm sure there is some methodology to your claim. What is valid is that for a 'slow' lens you do get compactness but that doesn't make it any faster. Your graph below is also not relevant as it is not comparing this camera 'effective' speed to APS or u4/3. Rather it is comparison with cameras with similar or much smaller sensors (what pisses me off is that you make this claim; provide a graph that 'seems' to support your claim but it is totally irrelevant.

-

I grant you that this camera is very compact; and a selection of people will find it 'good enough' in some situations (just look at the number of people using 'cell phone' camera but that does not make this a miracle beast with regards to light gathering or sensor ability in low light (low here is relative and with an f8 lens low doesn't have to be 'very' low to be an issue). Conversely this camera should be noticeable improvement on cell phones and given its size the cellphone crowd might find it quite useful.