MILC as compact ? 01 February 2020

The level of interest which camera makers appear to be showing in compacts has declined markedly in the last few years.

We see fewer compact updates each year from fewer manufacturers.

The compacts remaining each present the enthusiast camera user with a range of frustrations, mainly with regard to the user experience and ergonomics.

I suspect this may be creating a vicious spiral.  Compact cameras offer little benefit for most users over any recent smartphone so compact sales decline so camera makers lose interest and put their dwindling R&D budgets into ventures which they hope will bring higher return on investment. Increasingly this means higher priced items and interchangeable lens (ILC) models with the hope that buyers will opt to buy more than just the kit lens.

At the same time we have seen the emergence of some very small mirrorless ILCs some of which are not much larger than a compact.

This trend to very small digital mirrorless ILCs  (MILC) was started by Panasonic and Olympus with their joint introduction of the Micro Four Thirds (MFT) system in 2008.

Most makers soon responded with their own version of the MILC theme.

In 2010  Samsung released their first NX models which showed considerable promise. But Samsung soon saw which way the wind was blowing and exited the camera market in favour of their smartphones.

2010 also saw Sony release their original NEX models which were so small their body height was less than the diameter of the lens mount.

The NEX series morphed into the A6xxx series with the A6000 from 2014.

Nikon released the 1 Series in 2011 and subsequently abandoned this line.

Pentax introduced the Q in 2011 with even smaller body, tiny lenses, a very small sensor and 256 color combinations !! or some such nonsense. This concept did not stay the distance.

The problem for the Nikon1 and Pentax Q models was that their small sensors were more effectively contained in a bridge style body which could span the entire focal length range with just one built in zoom lens.

2012 saw the arrival of Fujifilm’s first X mount APS-C MILCs in the form of the X-Pro1 and X-E1.  Fuji has stuck to the X mount and the APSC sensor size which continue in current models.

Also in 2012 Canon released the EOS-M, its first MILC. Like the Sony NEX, the EOS-M concept sought to provide a very small compact-like package within the MILC realm.

Leica introduced the TL in 2016 and the CL in 2017, both with an APSC sensor and both with a decently compact body size.

Last but not least entrant into the compact MILC category has been the Nikon Z50 which arrived towards the end of 2019.

I have been looking at the possibility of using a small MILC as an alternative to a compact camera for several years. What follows is my personal analysis of current MFT and APSC MILC offerings specifically with regard to their effectiveness as alternatives to a compact fixed lens model.

I am not talking about “pocketable” cameras here but rather ones which will be carried in a small shoulder or belt bag.

Having been in place the longest the MFT system is able to offer several very compact bodies and a huge range of lenses including many compact zooms and primes. This is a mature system with considerable appeal to enthusiast photographers.

The thoughtful buyer will have no trouble putting together a very effective, compact, high performance kit with any of the entry level to mid range Lumix or Olympus bodies and any one or more of the very good compact small zooms and primes available.

Pretty much all tastes are catered for from flat top rangefinder style bodies to hump tops with over the lens axis EVF and handle and comprehensive controls.

Any of these kits can deliver very good performance and image quality in a compact package at a reasonably affordable price.

I have been using MFT cameras for ten years and find they are now very good and easy to recommend.

These cameras have apparently sold very well particularly to buyers looking for a very small MILC kit with the expectation of better results than might be had from a smaller sensor fixed lens compact.

But there are many issues with the A6xxx series which might well frustrate an enthusiast user.

The two main ones are:

The bodies which present the user with a range of ergonomic and user interface frustrations which Sony has intransigently allowed to remain in place through the entire sequence from A6000 to 

A6600.

The lenses. The standard compact kit lens and the one which would most likely  be chosen if one were seeking to craft a small kit is the E 16-50mm PZ f3.5-5.6 from 2012.

This lens has a frequently reported reputation for poor and inconsistent optical quality and poor reliability and is not a lens I want on any camera of mine.  

Sony does make better lenses but they are much larger and more expensive somewhat defeating the compact theme.

I bought an A6500 a while back and hated it. The compromised user interface and controls made comparable MFT models  look very good by comparison. In addition the A6500 had serious focussing problems with the 20mm pancake prime and the 18-135mm zoom was soft on one side.

So no more Sony A6xxx cameras for me.

Fuji elected early on to run with the APSC sensor size and X mount. Presumably this means any X mount lens will work on any of the numerous bodies, which is a good thing for consumers. In addition Fuji had no legacy of DSLRs to impede it from going forward with MILC development.  

Unfortunately Fuji has over the years made some decisions which have resulted in their product catalogue being considerably less coherent than it could have been.

Some models have  X-Trans sensors and some Bayer sensors, some models have “traditional” controls with several variants and others have several different variants of modern controls but with no unifying theme. Some lenses have an aperture ring, others do not.

Fuji keeps fiddling and experimenting with the control layout of their cameras in apparently capricious fashion. They put control modules and dials in odd places and change them around from one model to the next.

As I look through the Fujifilm catalogue I cannot with confidence identify a camera body and one or two compact lenses which might fit my requirements.

So although the Fuji MILC catalogue is interesting and varied, some might say confusing, none of it has found a place in my camera drawer.

I did at one stage give serious consideration to the Leica CL with the 18-56mm kit zoom and the 18mm pancake prime. But the outrageous prices, lack of lens or body stabiliser and  idiosyncratic control layout put me off.

In my view Canon has made a complete mess of the EOS-M system. The EF-M is now an orphan lens mount with no upgrade path to or compatibility with the RF mount. They have at last produced a good APSC sensor but only one or two of the available EF-M lenses are sharp enough to do it justice.

I did buy an EOS M50 a while ago with the kit EF-M 15-45mm collapsing lens.  I found the camera to be a half baked, mediocre thing only suitable for a user with low expectations of image quality and performance. The lens was decentered and unsharp at some focal lengths.

The top current EOS-M model is the M6.2 with no built in viewfinder and no option for electronic first curtain shutter which is a prime defence against shutter shock in MILCs.

Canon is going backwards with EF-M.

I think Canon needs to abandon the EF-M system and copy Sony, Leica and Nikon in using a single (in Canon’s case RF) mount for full frame and APS-C models. Canon also needs to stop deleting features from upgrade models.

Is it best to be first in like MFT or last in like the Nikon Z50 ?

When I measure width x height x depth of my Lumix G95 with one of the smallest available MFT kit lenses, the 12-32mm,  alongside the Z50 with its 16-50mm kit lens I find the Z50 is actually just slightly smaller even though it has a larger APSC sensor.

Both cameras are very nice to use with good performance and ergonomics but the Nikon with its larger sensor has an edge in image quality.

The Nikkor Z 16-50mm collapsing lens is quite a surprise. The housing and mount are all plastic giving an initially downmarket feel. But the lens is optically excellent with very good sharpness right across the frame at all focal lengths, minimal distortion, minimal color fringing and a high resistance to flare. Autofocus is very quick and reliable.

It’s a winner and probably the best kit lens I have seen on any camera smaller than full frame.

The Z50 twin lens kit is excellent value and the 50-250mm lens is just as good as the 16-50mm or maybe even better. I am currently running tests which show the Z50-250mm to be very good indeed right across the focal length range.

So there you have it.

I am enjoying the Z50  and am increasingly using it when I might previously have selected a fixed lens compact.