MILFs are great!

*Anyone who's landed up here after googling for MILF - leave now, this blog will be of no interest to you whatsoever*

The new breed of digital camera typified by the Sony NEX (above), the Olympus Pen range, the Samsung NX10, and the Panasonic GF-1 has spawned a whole range of new acronyms of which MILF (Mirror-less Interchangeable Lens Format) is the least serious but definitely the funniest! Popular choices are EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) and MSC (Micro System Camera) and I've seen a few more besides. Almost every photography publication and website seems to have concocted their own name for a concept which really doesn't need a new name. I even noted an Apple user magazine we get monthly calling them Mirrorless DSLRs. What nonsense. By definition, an SLR has to have a mirror! This mag's actual camera reviews are just as suspect, in my opinion. Incidentally, have you noticed how just about every computer mag has become a camera reviewing expert these days? I reckon what some of them know about cameras could fit on a postage stamp.

Whatever you want to call it, this new format is what a lot of photographers have been waiting a long time for - basically a very compact but high quality camera. Putting a large imaging sensor in a small camera is something I've personally been banging on about for years, almost since the start of digital photography. That, and the possibility of swapping the lens, is all the new fangled breed amounts to. Why would you want a large sensor in the first place? Because large sensors have large pixels, and the larger the pixels, the less light that is necessary to produce a clean image. In other words, you can take quality pictures indoors without flash. Anyone who has tried to do this with a normal compact will appreciate the speckly smudgy mess that normally results. There are other advantages to large sensors too, such as taking pictures with a limited depth of field (subject sharp, background blurred) and being able to use very small apertures, because lens diffraction is less of an issue. But, to most users, it'll be the increase in sensitivity (higher useable ISO rating) which will be most appreciated.

The diagram above shows we're not talking small differences in sensor size either.

Red: Typical compact camera
Yellow: Enthusiast compact camera
Green: "Four Thirds" - Olympus and Panasonic DSLRs and MSCs
Blue: "APS-C" - Sony NEX and most DSLRs
Mauve: 35mm film and some very expensive "full frame" DSLRs

It's quite an eye-opener to learn just how small the sensor in most cheap digital cameras is, and a miracle of modern low cost lens design that they produce reasonable pictures.

There are, of course, limitations to putting a large, grown-up, sensor in a compact camera - there's no such thing as "a free lunch", as it were. I'm talking about the lens. A large sensor requires a large lens, pretty much the same size of lens you see on big DSLRs, and these lenses need a reasonable distance from the sensor in order to form a focussed image. Bang goes the idea of a large sensor compact camera.

However, advances in lens design have enabled both Sony and Olympus/Panasonic to specify a much shorter distance between the back of the lens and the sensor, and they call this new standard "E-Mount" and "Micro Four Thirds" respectively. The lenses are similar in size to their normal counterparts, but they sit much nearer the sensor, reducing the thickness of the camera. Even with modern computer design, this isn't without drawbacks, and the image quality isn't quite as good as with normal lenses, but it's not far off.

The actual length of the lens also needs to be reduced as much as possible to make these cameras genuinely small, and this is where the wide-angle "pancake" lens comes in. So called "pancake" lenses aren't new, but with modern design they are affordable and flatter than ever without too much compromise in image quality. You are, of course, limited to fixed wide-angle. The moment you put a telephoto or zoom lens on any of these new cameras, the size advantage disappears!

The Sony 16mm F2.8 pancake (above) is the choice for the NEX to make it a "pocket" camera (in fact, at the time of writing, there is only one other lens for the NEX). It's not bad for a cheap "kit" lens. Very wide angle lenses have their problems, pancake lenses more so, and "reduced lens to sensor distance" lenses even more so. If you use it "wide open", at maximum aperture, it's plainly sub-standard, but go to F8 or F11 and the problems largely disappear.

As to the NEX itself. Yes, I have purchased one, the NEX-3. I knew I was going to the moment I first saw a pre-release picture of it. It screamed "You want me" and I answered "Yes I do". I chose the cheaper NEX-3 because I didn't need the 1080i video mode or the remote control of the better known NEX-5, and preferred the handling and appearance of the NEX-3 as well. The NEX-5 is, in my opinion, an expensive trinket for the fashion conscious photographer. Don't get angry, I'm only joking. Ha ha.

The super cool NEX-5 with pancake lens, left, and right with the 18-55 kit zoom, nicely illustrating how anything other than the pancake lens is folly if you want to pocket your camera!

So, what do I really think of the NEX? I think it took all of Sony's well known balls imagination and resources to produce the smallest and most desirable of this new class of camera. Sony are like Apple, they don't do things by halves, they go for the kill, and I think they succeeded with the NEX. I also own the recent Olympus Pen E-PL1, and although it's compact, it's nowhere near as small and desirable as the NEX, and, it has to be said, nowhere near as as much fun, or as fast, to use either. The NEX can be whipped out of the pocket, in any light, indoors or out, and instantly take (mostly) stunning pictures. It's capability at high ISOs is amazing, better than most DSLRs. It has Sony's own "backlit" EXMOR sensor inside, a newer version even than most of their own DSLRs, and it shows. Pictures taken even at ISO3200 are great. It is the compact for indoor events without flash.

Downsides? The user interface is OK, but try doing anything other than "point and shoot" and you find yourself struggling with the simplistic amateur-orientated menu system. It's a powerful camera with lots of options, but actually changing even basic options like ISO and white balance can be problematic. Making the pancake lens available as a "kit" lens (sold as a package with the body) was an inspiration on Sony's part, but the lens needs improving, or alternatives made available from independent lens manufacturers. I think Sony aimed the NEX at novices, but at the price it sells for and given its performance, it's attracted mainly seasoned enthusiasts, who are prone to nit-pick!

The NEX-3 (centre) vs Olympus E-PL1 (right) and Samsung NX10 (left)
Image courtesy of dpreview.com, my favourite photographic site.

The alternatives? The Olympus E-PL1 is bulkier and has a smaller last-generation sensor, a less versatile LCD screen, and can't match the stellar high ISO performance of the NEX, but it is more of a flexible photographer's tool, with a greater number of better performing lenses. In reality, 90% of the time it can keep up with and sometimes better the tiny NEX. I don't know the Panasonics well enough, but I'm sure the same applies to them too, from what I gather from the forums. And the Sigma DP1 and 2? In good light, for landscapes, they more than match up. But they are seriously slow cameras to use and don't have the sensor sensitivity, despite the sensor's size, of any of the other cameras here, so no good for use indoors.

The NEX is the first of a breed of very small system cameras. It's a remarkable and brave product, both in concept and performance. There's undoubtably room for operational improvements when Sony realise exactly who's buying it. I'm convinced it will come to be regarded as a classic, the first of its kind.