Sony Alpha 550 Review: highs and lows
The Mirror Lock omission
I had hoped that with MFC LV implemented, and the mirror already conveniently locked up, taking a picture would then operate the shutter alone. This would have compensated for the omission of Mirror Lock Up, or a delay timer mode with mirror pre-lift. The MFC LV is exceptional for macro as the gain applied has little apparent effect on noise. I was able to fit a 25mm f/2.5 Minolta Rokkor micro bellows lens to 140mm of extension, stop it down to f/8 in normal room lighting, and focus on subjects (in Manual exposure mode, required to use the bellows). As Quick LV shows real exposure effects in Manual mode, it only sees a black screen in this situation. MFC LV shows a clear, bright focusable view when even the optical finder would be too dark to use.
But I was unable to get a sharp picture with this rig because of the lack of mirror lock-up unless either flash or a very long exposure was used. Speeds like 1/13th, 1/25th, 1/50th consistently produced shake from the mirror vibration which ruined all such shots regardless of how firmly the tripod was locked up, and whether or not SS was enabled or disabled.
If you want shake-free pictures, there’s no mirror lock but there is a remote socket. However, a little Jianisi infrared remote (seen here on top of the Sony fully featured version, not supplied with the 550) adds wireless triggering for around £6/$10 shipped from Hong Kong. Find them on eBay!
The shutter-mirror assembly seems to be interlocked so that cocking the shutter requires the mirror to fall. When you take a picture in MFC LV mode, the mirror falls and the shutter closes first – then the mirror rises and the shutter fires. Finally the mirror falls again, returning the camera to either Quick LV or OVF mode depending on which you had set before pressing the MF Check LV button.
I made many hand-held tests around the critical speeds for mirror shock shake – times like 1/6th to 1/60th, with the worst effects normally arriving around 1/15th to 1/30th. I was unable to use a 100mm macro on my Gitzo tripod with Giottos ball and socket head at times round 1/20th-1/60th; the mirror slap was transmitted consistently and visible, resulting in a double image blur every time despite using the 2s self-timer option. Hand-held the combination worked far better but of course there was no self-timer, just a careful regular exposure.
The only way I could get sharp images without flash was to work in light low enough for exposures between 2 and 10 seconds. Here is an example, 3.2 seconds at f/10, ISO 200, with the 100 Minolta AF macro working between 1:1 and 1:2:
Click the picture or visit http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/119500830 to view the full size in-camera JPEG. This will also give you another chance to see ISO 200 noise levels, or grain structure, and judge whether you think ISO 100 should have been provided.
Practical results tell me the MLU omission is not a disaster for the average user who won’t use a tripod or try 1:1 macro using natural light – but it makes the camera almost useless for those who want to. This in turn spoils the value of the MF Check LV, which is valuable for macro work. Common sense tells me it would have been easy to include it, along with the AF/MF switching, as part of the MFC LV mode. But the same goes or all the models from the 200 onwards which have omitted the 2 second mirror-pre-lift function. This also limits photomicrography, telephotography, astrophotography and top quality natural light work of any kind.
These macro tests also showed up a lot of dirt provided ex-factory on the sensor. The Alpha 550 has had the dirtiest sensor of any new Alpha I have been lent, or bought, to date. I have not attempted to wet clean it and some dust seems to remain after air blowing, but to move around, indicating that there is more dust generally in the darkchamber. Perhaps MF Check LV, with the sensor exposed, is attracting aerial dust.
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