Comments on: Sony Alpha 550 Review: highs and lows

By: admin

admin — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:54:35 +0000

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

By: xenakis

xenakis — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:06:25 +0000

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 …….

By: TallPaul

TallPaul — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:39:57 +0000

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…

By: paulstone

paulstone — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:50:57 +0000

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?
Paul

By: OneGuyKS

OneGuyKS — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:03:51 +0000

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!

By: OneGuyKS

OneGuyKS — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:08:57 +0000

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.

By: plevyadophy

plevyadophy — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:10:58 +0000

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

By: admin

admin — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:28:04 +0000

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

By: Photorer

Photorer — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:24:02 +0000

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!

By: admin

admin — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:10:30 +0000

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