Sony Alpha 550 Review: highs and lows
Focus accuracy
This is not the whole story with the camera. I will deal with high ISO settings later, as they show similar variability and the in-camera JPEGs offer something which is hard to get by raw conversion.
The focus system of the 550 is apparently similar to the earlier models with a nine-zone array of f/7.1 type sensors. In practice it is not. It’s much better than the A350, A200 and light years away from the A100. There is no hint of back or front focus on my body, and the accuracy of focusing improves the level of detail.
Focus with the 18-11mm Sony SAL zoom – often very difficult to get right with previous 100-300 series bodies – was excellent. Click image for a larger version. This is a shot using Quick Live View and the articulated finder in the position shown below. ISO 200, DNG conversion and ACR 5.5 processing with the graduated exposure filter used to lighten the foreground, and a circular adjustment brush to darken the top right corner and most prominent gravestone.
When there is plenty of sharply focused detail, the noise level (regardless of ISO setting) is less obvious. The AA filter does appear to be fairly strong, and without sharpening for print or web use, the images are detailed but with a soft patina.
Here is an example at ISO 400 using the 28mm f/2 lens stopped down to f/8. This was taken using Manual Focus Check Live view. It’s actually very similar in quality to ISO 200.
This is an ISO 400 in-camera JPEG example – most of my shots here have been processed using Adobe Camera Raw 5.5 after conversion of the raw file to DNG using Lightoom 3 Beta version, which includes support for the Alpha 550. The right hand clip is a 100% detail of the shot.
I was testing the A550 alongside the Canon 7D. The A550 consistently focused more accurately than the 7D on almost all subjects. Even using wide area focus mode, the focused zone actually corresponded with the active sensors shown in the finder. With spot focus, the chosen subject was always perfectly sharp, using a wide range of lenses.
The Alpha 550 comes out matching my Alpha 900 for autofocus accuracy, slightly better than our Alpha 700 (even though that has a superior centre f/2.8 with double cross hair sensor).
The button for MF Check LV is clearly indicated. All the dedicated buttons on the Alpha 550 are well-placed, and the redundant Smart Teleconverter function has been moved over to place more useful controls in better locations.
Manual Focus Check LV was of course dead accurate, but almost useless without a tripod. With stabilised optics like the Sigma 18-250mm OS, it could be used hand-held. Other DSLRs with live view and stabilised lenses can use contrast detect AF off the sensor in a limited way, hand held. Because the Sony Steady Shot is only active during the period of exposure, and the sensor does not move at all during MFC LV, the LV image is not stabilised and a tripod is needed. Otherwise at 14X magnification you just see how bad your camera shake can be, with little chance of adjusting focus.
To use MFC LV you must move the MF/AF switch on the lens throat side to MF. The Alpha 550/500 lack DMF (Direct Manual Focus) and with most lenses it is impossible to over-ride the AF by turning the focusing ring. Sony should have built in a function where pressing the MFC LV button also sets the camera to MF mode, restoring AF after you return to OVF or Quick LV.
One of my favourite early shots from the Alpha 550 with 16-80mm CZ. You can view an unretouched (and also not adjusted for contrast or colour) full size version at http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/118808131
I am amused every time I read threads on dPreview forums where people are puzzling over the erratic AF performance of the Canon EOS 7D and blame almost anything except the camera. Even £100 B+W filters (basically Zeiss) become scapegoats. Here are a couple of links – I won’t post the images – to Canon 7D 15-85mm images taken in similar conditions at the same location. I ended up with none sharp in the expected plane, relying on the displayed AF points illuminated at the time of shooting. Canon DPP revealed these when processing the images, to confirm the focus errors. On other subjects the same body/lens combination focused correctly. Example picture: http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/119498276. Example of focus points active: http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/119498280. The focus error may seem slight (the foreground grass is where the true plane of focus lies, depth of field pulls in the background a bit) but with high resolution cameras – whether 14 megapixels or 18 megapixels – you want absolutely reliable focusing.
Because I had had this problem with the 7D using wide area focus, I visited the same subject a week later with the 550 and also used wide area focus and studied the way the various zones confirmed focus. In this respect the camera seemed similar – but the actual results were always better focused. I also tested my preferred setting of centre single point focus on both cameras.
This is another of the 550 shots, this time at 80mm – and at ISO 800 again. The full size original can be seen at http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/118808241.
Every Alpha DSLR I’ve acquired later than the 350 – including the 380 – has been reliable, predictable and usable out of the box from the AF point of view. Whatever other faults Sony may have, they’ve addressed the FF/BF issues successfully. They work well in low light, backlight, with smooth subjects, patterned subjects, small subjects, big targets – you name it. And fitting a UV filter has not managed to screw up the accuracy of any Alpha body in my hands!
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