Sony Alpha 550 Review: highs and lows
Conclusion
I think the Alpha 550 definitely has a place in my system, but may not be used very much. It would make a neat, lightweight travel camera with the CZ 16-80mm if only the ISO 200 results were just that little bit better. Ideally, ISO 100 with a corresponding improvement over 200 would fix the issue.
It would make a better low light camera at 1600-6400 than the 700 or even the 900, but it doesn’t have the bright viewfinders or ability to use faster and more accurate focus with f/2.8 and wider lenses, which both these models offer.
The features I am most likely to use include MF Check LV for macro work or studio shots with continuous light. I’ve been looking at LED light sources and wondering whether the Sony ring light is the terrible idea most people who have not used it think it must be. Daylight quality LED sources could replace flash for many types of studio work soon, certainly for most macro/micro and close-ups. But without mirror lockup, I guess the typical exposure times given by that Sony ring-light will be a recipe for guaranteed blur.
The HDR JPEGs could also be something explored further, and the 7fps fixed settings burst. A possible application for the 380 could be extended to the 550 – highpod, remote or aerial mast photography with viewing via the HDMI connection on a mini HDTV monitor. The Quick LV CCD camera in the prism unit appears to be improved to use the higher resolution rear screen; sadly, there is no way of triggering the MF Check LV remotely, so the very high resolution HDMI video feed offered by this could not be used.
I think there is no doubt this is the best £600 (at launch) camera body Sony has ever introduced – the Alpha 380 was the same price with its SAM 18-55mm kit lens as the Alpha 550 body only, and you really can’t compare them. It is also the best camera in its class for higher ISOs, for live view functions (both of them, especially MF Check LV), for rear LCD quality and size, for motordrive speed, dual card slot provision, control of tonal range via DRO and HDR, and of course for Face Recognition and Smile Shutter.
As an upgrade from KM 7D or 5D, Alpha 100, 200, 300, 230, 380 and even 350 at a pinch it has many more pros than cons. I don’t think it compares in any way with the build quality or semi-pro functionality of the Alpha 700 while that remains on sale at a similar price, and any potential buyer should consider carefully before opting for the 550 (or 500) instead of the 700.
When a 700 replacement arrives using the improved high ISO and fast burst technology from the 550, with enhanced off-sensor live view, articulated screen, HD video recording and no loss of advanced features… it will be twice this price and the decision will be easier.
- David Kilpatrick FBIPP HonFMPA
TallPaul:
Interesting review, regarding the random noise covered on page 2, did you have DR set to Auto by any chance?
I find I have to leave DR off to avoid some noise issues on occasion on my A900, my experience was as yours that it was random until I moved to DR off at all times unless explicitly needed.
18 November 2009, 6:17 pmadmin:
DRO was not used in any of the samples shown except where DRO is mentioned. Please be assured, I have revisited this several times and been extremely careful to check settings, check in-camera JPEGs and use four different raw conversion methods (LR3 direct, LR3 to DNG then ACR, RawDeveloper and Sony IDC). I see some comments on dPreview which doubt the mirror lock/macro issue; let me say that I was going to write that it was not an issue, that the mirror action had solved the problem. That was based on hand-held SS enabled macro pix like the toadstools (I did some at speeds which were marginal). Then I decided to test with a tripod, initially leaving SS on to see what happened. Those shots were all ‘jerked’- clear visible movement with two outlines. So I followed up without SS – less blur, actually, but still exactly the same type and direction of blur. Finally, I made tests at longer exposures where mirror jar could not account for a significant component of the image, in order to ensure no other problem was caused the blur.
When making these tests I may not use test charts and stuff like that, but I work to as high a degree of consistency and elimination of variables as I can with genuine shooting situations. For the record, I also checked the noise issue with different colour profiles/picture styles. sRGB Standard showed least and therefore was used for all tests subsequently.
David
18 November 2009, 10:09 pmadmin:
I should comment that sky noise can be affected by Auto White Balance, or by WB adjustments generally. Again this is not the issue. I’ll see if I can add an image showing optimum performance.
David
18 November 2009, 10:17 pmadmin:
OK, I’ve found something. It’s not DRO of any kind because that has not been used, and it’s not WB (reporting 5300 +3 or +2 on nearly all sunny day shots). You can get a similar shade of blue sky, or grey, from a wide range of exposure values at ISO 200 depending on the sky brightness. Where the sky should have been a deep blue but the exposure for the scene is generous (like 1/80th at f/11) noise is less than when the sky was a pale blue which has been deepened by a minimal exposure (like 1/400th at f/11). I’m quoting these settings because they are two cases I have found.
The answer may be that it’s nearly winter, the sun is low, and the skies here in Scotland have a great range in blueness and brightness through 360 degrees of possible views. Combined with different foregrounds, a wide range of exposures ends up being used to take very similar looking pictures.
Here I’m referring to images which don’t get any raw processing adjustment. If I look at other examples of known under or over exposure, which do get raw adjustment, the difference is even greater – as it is with all DSLRs. By picking a seriously overexposed A550 image and setting -1EV in the raw conversion, I can get an ‘ISO 100′ result with the expected finer noise and smoother tones.
The underlying issue, that ISO 200 is fairly noisy, does not go away – but ISO 200 is also noisy with the Canon 50D, 500D and 7D. As dPreview comment, sky blue noise can be an issue even with the D300S. I’m maybe being too harsh on the camera, but you can be fairly sure others like dPreview will be even harsher.
David
18 November 2009, 10:57 pmadmin:
I’ll also make a point about some irrelevant comments appearing on dPreview about macro shots and mirror lockup, mainly as a vehicle for someone to post some nice macro insect pix. I just happen to have tested macro; long tele, photomicrography or astrophotography have exactly the same problem. Anything where a shutter speed of around 1/30th (give or take a bit) is likely at the optimum working aperture in typical ambient light conditions. This has nothing whatsoever to do with macro field shots of insects taken hand-held, where MLU is irrelevant and optimum shutter speeds are in the region of 1/125 minimum to an ideal 1/500th-1/1000th, or with flash.
What I have found is that within the ‘danger zone’ of shutter speeds (well enough known to anyone who has had to photograph resolution test charts, which I did for a couple of decades) MLU makes a critical difference. In fact it’s almost impossible to conduct a lens test without it no matter how good you think your tripod is. For that reason many lens tests are shot using flash; it eliminates the camera vibration variable.
As commented in the report, for hand-held work SS does such a good job that I would have been better off shooting some macro tests at 1/30th hand-held with SS, rather than on a tripod without SS (and tripod+SS=disaster – that was clear).
David
19 November 2009, 3:10 amPhotorer:
David – another great real life review. I am rather perturbed over the veriability in the noise outputs… it would be better to be able to have a predictable result, but the high ISO results are very promising.
You have highlighted the good and the bad points for everyone to consider – thanks for putting this review together!
19 November 2009, 10:24 amadmin:
I don’t think that what I have observed with ISO 200 quality perhaps deserved to be made the first point in the review, but in a way it was deserved because it would have put me off taking the 550 as a sole camera. Also, I have not really identified a cause. Just to throw in another variable, I realise that some of my ISO 200 samples have been manually set ISO 200 while others have been ISO 200 generated by the Auto ISO function. This could make a difference.
David
19 November 2009, 6:28 pmplevyadophy:
WOW!!!!
I have ZERO interest in purchasing this camera, but what an absolutely GREAT read.
As usual, your reviews (here and in the BJP) are not only an education in the technical aspects of photography but also something of a broader historical look (whether recent or distant past)at photography/products too.
You seem to suggest that this review was something of a rush job. Well, if this is a rush job, I would dearly love to see your output when you have as much time as you would like with a product.
Great stuff, keep up the good work.
Regards,
plevyadophy
19 November 2009, 9:10 pmOneGuyKS:
I hope you get the A500 soon. There is a minor debate whether IQ on A500 is better than A550. Even if the IQ is better on A500, is the difference significant enough that it’s worth getting A500 instead despite inferior LCD and smaller buffer (on the positive side, cheaper price and better battery life).
Hopefully you will answer that question in unbiased rational way
By the way, I am having trouble joining your forum.
20 November 2009, 11:08 amOneGuyKS:
You wrote: “Manual Focus Check LV was of course dead accurate, but almost useless without a tripod.”
But after checking the focus with Manual Focus Check LV, couldn’t you switch back to Quick AF before pressing the shutter button? That way you would get the stabilization back. Using Manual Focus Check LV that way won’t need the tripod! Just switch back to Quick AF before pressing the shutter!
21 November 2009, 8:03 ampaulstone:
Thanks for this great review! I sold my 300 and bought the 550 a couple of days ago and I’m still trying to find out what the best camerasetting are. What settings do you advise for daily use (landscape, family etc.). The factory settings or perhaps a bit more sharpness or Vivid saturation?
22 November 2009, 7:50 pmPaul
TallPaul:
Hi David, thanks for all additional details, I assumed your usual scientific approach applied, I just mentioned it as I found that auto-iso and DRO had some strange noise for me (when I first got my A900) but as you note it could also be auto-ISO related. I find auto-ISO to behave strangely at times myself, just reading your new article on sky noise now…
24 November 2009, 6:39 pmxenakis:
In Octobre 2005 I bought a Konica Minolta 5D with the following :
Sigma 18/50 F2.8 DC EX Minolta D
Konica Minolta Flash 5600 HSD
( I had still from my Minolta 7000i a Sigma 100/300 Apo Macro )
My 5D is now broken ( Stabiliser is dead )
Now I’ve got 2 solutions :
buy a Sony Alpha
buy another brand and sell all my equipment
What would you do ?
I had a look at the Sony Alpha 550 … can you recommend it ?
thanks for your help …….
7 January 2010, 10:06 pmadmin:
Yes, I can recommend the A550. You’ll see a big jump in high ISO quality, which will be very useful with the 100-300mm.
David
14 January 2010, 3:54 pm