>>4493298Avoid the R100. It is a dressed up rebel DSLR just as some other anon mentioned with tech from 2015. The R50 is like a whopping extra $100 and at least uses current gen AF, JPEG engine, controls etc.
Even then I wouldn't get the R50 unless you really wanted to keep things as small as possible. I'd get the R10.
Even then I wouldn't get the R10 unless you really wanted to stay using APS-C. I'd get a used RP for $400-500 as
>>4493302 said.
Even then... I wouldn't get the RP unless you were dead set on mirrorless. Which you might be. Mirrorless is nice. My R6 is like 60% of the weight and bulk of my older 5D MkIII, and focus peaking is TOP MINT.
I'd get a full frame DSLR instead since the RP has the same sensor as a 6DII but you could just buy a 6D MkII if money is tight (or a 6D MkI or 5D MkII/MkII) and now look: you've saved a couple hundred dollars and can now buy a better lens because used EF lenses are cheap and cheerful. RF Lenses are ungodly expensive. Mirrorless cameras are nice for a slueth of reasons but if you're pinching pennies on the body I would recommend against it.
OR, get a used APS-C DSLR for $50-150 if you're on the fence and if you think photography isnt for you, you sell it for 80% of what you bought it and for what is basically a rental fee you get to know what you're in for. I don't necessarily recommend this if you can afford better but it's a decent route.
>t. Tried R100. Owned R50. Owns R6II 
