Sony Alpha 550 Review: highs and lows
In-camera processing
The buffer, and the JPEG engine, are intimately linked to two functions which can tame extreme contrasts – the familiar DRO+ (Dynamic Range Optimiser) and a new HDR mode (High Dynamic Range).
Much better than DRO Auto or Standard, Advanced (+) with manual settings can transform images. Left, the actual scene (unadjusted default conversion of the DNG file for this shot; right, the DRO+3 JPEG.
DRO+ in the Alpha 550 is implemented to Alpha 700 level. It includes the Advanced Manual settings from 1 to 5 which can auto-correct underexposed flash shots, something that DRO Auto and DRO Standard (no longer even bothered with in the 500 and 550) are unable to do.
If I had to characterise the way Sony has used sensor gain (ISO sensitivity) and the exposure system, I’d compare the Alpha 550 to using an Alpha 700 set to Hi200 permanently – or to a Canon with Highlight Tone reservation enabled. Maybe one reason they have omitted ISO 100, always a saturated-exposure setting with Sony sensors even going back to the Dynax 7D, is to make DRO and HDR easier to get right.
DRO+ pulls in highlights better on the Alpha 550 than I’ve noticed happening on the Alpha 700, where its great strength is to open up shadows. But HDR is even better at controlling contrast when you can afford to allow two exposures in rapid succession.
Top: a straight JPEG shot. Middle: HDR +3 EV setting (note the double image of the moving car). Bottom: DRO+5, the most extreme setting, shows how DRO+ can cause strange shifts in colour saturation – look at how the red van is recorded in HDR, and in DRO.
HDR is on the same Function Menu as DRO. You can select from Auto, and five half-stop steps between 1 and 3 EV. DRO can be used with any file format including RAW+JPEG and plain RAW (it only affects the embedded preview, but includes some commands that can be used by Sony Image Data Converter to emulate the in-camera effect). HDR can only be used with JPEG and is disabled as a choice if you select RAW or RAW+JPEG.
To ensure a short time between the two shots and avoid strange shifts of depth of field or focus, HDR uses a two-shot version of the 7fps mode where the aperture and AF are locked down at the first shot, and the aperture does not re-open. The shutter speed alone is varied to create two exposures, which are never saved in their own right.
In the processor, the two images are automatically aligned with identification of matching edges, then blended to produce an HDR image. You can shoot hand-held, and use SS although this may move the sensor position. As long as you are not panning the camera on purpose, and have a sharply focused scene, the alignment will be perfect. Moving subjects within the scene are double imaged; you either have to avoid them, or retouch later.
HDR retains accurate tones and colours. DRO does not, and can produce some very strange effects. HDR also tends to reduce noise levels, because it combines two exposures, where DRO increases them (sometimes to an unacceptable degree). HDR can be used in its weakest 1EV form to create a superior quality JPEG at higher ISO settings, and will work with long exposures and night scenes. DRO is not recommended for either.
I found HDR surprisingly effective and the JPEGs were often good enough to substitute for raw conversions. I would love to have seen this function on the Alpha 900!
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