APSC mirrorless system options 28 June 2020

I recently sold all my Panasonic Micro Four Thirds  gear believing the future of the MFT system is uncertain.

But I still like to have a compact mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (MILC) kit so I looked at what APSC format options are available.

The APSC sensor size (Sony, 28mm diagonal: Canon 27mm diagonal) has been the most popular for interchangeable lens cameras since the beginning of digital photography due to the appealing size/weight/price/performance balance obtainable from this sensor size.

There are currently five main players in this market space. I have owned and used APSC cameras from each of them except Leica.

Let’s see what each has on offer in reverse alphabetical order:

Bodies: Sony’s current APSC bodies are variants on the A6xxx series which derives from the original NEX series. They are compact with operating systems which are in some ways very advanced but in other ways quite frustrating particularly with regard to the user interface and controls. In addition the more recent models are expensive, in fact close to the price of full frame models.

APSC enthusiasts have been asking Sony for years to make a more enthusiast/prosumer style body but it has not eventuated.

Lenses: There are plenty of E lenses but some, like the kit 16-50mm are junk, others are relics from the NEX days. There are a few good ones but they are expensive.

Overall Sony’s APSC strategy seems to me designed to prompt buyers into getting a full frame kit. I have read transcripts of interviews with Sony execs essentially confirming this.

Bodies: Nikon is the most recent entrant into the APSC MILC arena with just one body available as I write, the Z50. This is actually a very good camera with excellent image quality and performance and a good user experience at a moderate price. . I bought one and enjoyed using it for a while.

Lenses: So far Nikon offers only two Z DX lenses. Although inexpensive both deliver excellent image quality  and represent very good value for money.

But when I look at Nikon’s published lens roadmap I see only one other Z DX lens,  also a general purpose zoom.

Unfortunately Nikon appears to be repeating the strategy which it used with APSC DSLRs, which is to offer DX bodies but render them unappealing to enthusiast photographers by failing to build out the DX lens catalogue.

Bodies: Leica offers the CL, a small APSC  L mount  MILC with an unusual control layout which some users like and others hate,  no stabiliser and a very high price.

Lenses: A selection of good quality lenses is available for the CL but they are very expensive and none has a stabiliser.

Bodies: Fujifilm is the only manufacturer fully committed to the APSC format with no full frame option available.

As a result Fuji has the largest selection of APSC bodies spanning the price range from very low cost to very expensive.

Fuji’s cameras appeal by their appearance, which some people really like, their hommage to film cameras of yesteryear and some unique technology at the sensor level which might or might not deliver any actual imaging benefit.

Having used some and owned some of Fuji’s cameras I have to say I find them to be an ergonomic kludge (an ill assorted collection of parts) with very little in the way of a consistent approach to the design of controls from one model series to the next.

In addition the higher specified models are as large and expensive as many full frame models from other makers.

Lenses: Fuji offers more APSC lenses than any other maker. There is something there for just about anybody and any purpose. But the better lenses are large, heavy and expensive making full frame options look attractive by comparison.

Bodies: Canon introduced the original EOS M in 2012 presumably to counter Sony’s success with its NEX series of models which started in 2010.

Like the NEX the EOS M was designed to be compact camera small, with no EVF and simplified controls. It used a completely new lens mount called EF-M with an inner diameter of 47mm compared to that of the EF and RF mounts which is 54mm.

The M3 and M10 came in 2015. More numbers in Canon world usually means a lower specification level.

The M5 arrived in 2016. This was the first M model with a built in EVF and a set of controls designed to appeal to a more enthusiast photographer.

In 2017 we got the M6 with no EVF and the M100,  a very low spec model.

The M50 arrived in 2018. Although initially pitched  below the M5 in the model hierarchy the M50 became more popular as it has the DIGIC8 processor, can do 4K video, has DPAF, is faster and more responsive overall and has a fully articulated screen.

In 2019 the M6.2 arrived. This is the first M model with the new 32Mpx sensor, providing very good imaging and very high performance. Unfortunately this model has no built in EVF, and does not have a fully articulated screen. In addition for some reason as yet unrevealed by Canon the M6.2 is the first M model not to have electronic first curtain shutter. As a result evidence of shutter shock has been reported by several sources with some lenses particularly the zooms with IS.

Also in 2019 came the M200, an update to the budget M100.

Lenses: In the 8 year history of EF-M, Canon has released only 8 lenses one of which, the 18-55mm has been superseded by the 15-45mm of 2015. So now there are 7 EF-M lenses bearing the Canon brand.

Although these are small and relatively inexpensive they are of mostly very good quality, able to deliver excellent images. They cover ultrawide through normal to medium telephoto with macro, zooms and primes available. The only thing missing is a long telezoom for sport/birds/wildlife.

There are also many third party options for the EF-M mount from Sigma and others. Several of these are manual focus only.

EOS-M bodies can use EF lenses via an adapter, reportedly with good autofocus capability but EOS-M cameras cannot use RF lenses, no adapter being physically possible.

It seems clear that the initial function of the EOS-M series was to provide very compact, user friendly budget models. One blogger said these were aimed at “Japanese-teenage-facebook-girl”.  But I am pretty sure that JTFG  is no longer interested in cameras as  sharing photos with a smartphone is much easier.

So it seems to me that either

a) Canon decides to get a bit more serious about the EOS-M project with a more  enthusiast oriented body and lenses or

b) Canon abandons APSC and offers more compact full frame bodies and lenses at lower prices to its customers as an inducement to step up to the full frame world or

c) Both.

As a mere consumer I have no idea how this will play out so I have taken an each way bet for the moment by investing in an M50 and several EF-M lenses plus an EOS R and an even smaller selection of RF lenses.

The thing which appeals to me about the Canon EOS-M system is that it has stuck to the “small is beautiful” theme throughout with compact, moderately priced bodies and lenses of good quality and imaging capability.

As I get older and find myself recovering from yet another surgical procedure the appeal of smaller 

and lighter gear becomes greater.

Although Canon’s intentions with its M series cameras have not been and are still not altogether clear and the system has deficits in both bodies and lenses it is for the moment the APSC MILC system which I currently find most appealing.