EOS Ms with a handful of EFM lenses.

I am always wondering what if I went to other brands instead of Canon.

Fullframe cameras are not my first options. Yes, I want a more shallow depth of field and a better image quality. However, fullframe options also show me a bigger money and more importantly a bigger volume and weight. So, they cannot be not my choice.

Then, a micro four third realm. They provide many many lenses and bodies. But, although they have smaller image sensor, they are not cheap significantly.

Next, APS-C systems from Sony and Fuji can be my options. They also provide many lenses. I always feel sorry about Canon's lack in this regard. If I could spend a big money for my hobby, I would go for Fujifilm, who has a plenty of good-looking lenses and cool-looking bodies.

However, my thought practically come back again and again to be satisfied with my EOS M5 and a couple of EFM lenses. I wish that the AF point of M5 would be more accurate and smaller and its viewfinder would be bigger and so on. But essentially, M5 is quite good for my most cases.

When it comes to lenses, I love my 11-22mm. Its compactness makes me wow all the time. Today, I climbed a mountain for a day-long hike. Because of my terrible stamina, I would have carried M5 +11-22 even if I had had EOS R+16-35. IMO, EFM 11-22 is a perfect hiking lens that even Fuji and Sony does not offer at the size and price. Leica's TL 11-23mm looks the same. I do not know its performance, but certainly it is super expensive as you know.

My proud son carried my bag because I was so exhausted.

Mt. Baldy, Calif. 10,064 ft (3,068 m); Elevation gain from parking lot to the top, 3,900 ft.

.
For my uses, the shallow depth of field is not important for wide angle lenses. If I really wanted to get a smooth bokeh, I would go for full-frame cameras and lenses. In the same line of thought, another gem for EOS M system is EFM 22mm.  Along with its convenient angle of view, it makes users to stay in a compact package although it still demands a bag for it. I do not have 32mm, but it is a well-known treasure in the eos m realm.

Therefore, for those whose priority is compactness and affordability, a combination of EOSMs with EFM 11-22,22, and 32 would be one of the compelling options in the market now. As for me, there is no reason to throw away EOS Ms in order to get others.

I have the same opinion about MFT/APSC/FF format for hobbiest as you. I end up at APSC Sony, but I check both mirrorless rivals Fuji and Canon, if something significant will change.

I wish you enough stamina for nice climbing and photos

Martin_99 wrote:

I have the same opinion about MFT/APSC/FF format for hobbiest as you. I end up at APSC Sony, but I check both mirrorless rivals Fuji and Canon, if something significant will change.

I wish you enough stamina for nice climbing and photos

Needless to say that Fuji covers a wide spectrum of prime lenses, It is good for Sony to have Sigma as its third party. Sigma's F/1.4-prime trio of 16mm, 30mm and 56mm look awesome and affordable.

Although being jealous of them above, I am satisfied that my EOS M5 with a few EFM lenses can meet both my wallet and my need. The main issue of my photography is the lack of my passion and stamina, not of my gears.

I think your statements in the first post nailed it by including "affordability." If money was no object, I'd be on a A6400. The Sony isn't perfect either - for the extra money I'd like to have IBIS... and the touchscreen on Canons are much better. But for $450 for a new M6 with 15-45mm, and $350 for a new 11-22mm, you've got a full kit for less than the cost of the A6400 body alone. Or a more specifically $800 for the full Canon rig vs $1850 for the Sony body and 10-18mm (and no kit lens).