Photoclub Alpha

Before the launch of the NEX models, the last camera we reviewed here was the Alpha 550. The final review pages dealt with the high ISO performance.

Following the release of Adobe Camera Raw 6.1 and 6.2, the new ’2010 Process’ has replaced the ’2003 Process’ in conversions (you can select either option). The 2010 Process used with manual adjustment of the Noise Reduction controls can produce really exceptional ISO 6400 results.

This changes any previous conclusions about the usefulness of Alpha 550 high ISO settings, and indeed brings them into line with the results we have seen from NEX – which of course defaults to the 2010 process, and can not be processed using earlier Adobe Camera Raw versions.

Here is the old process, top, seen at a reduced scale of a 100% view at ISO 6400:

Click the Process 2003 image above to open the original 100% size screen shot.

Below is the new 2010 process, which is more than just a minor tweak – it’s an entirely different way of getting the data out of the raw file.

Click this image to see the Adobe Process 2010 result full size. All the settings were identical for these two conversions. The improvement is on such a level that ANY test reports on the Alpha 550 produced in 2009 using CS4 and Adobe Camera Raw 5.x are invalid.

The NR can be moderated to produce more detail on the 2010 process midtones at the expense of more visible grain (but it’s nothing like the 2003 pattern – it remains mainly a fine luminance pattern). I have used a setting which produced a clear comparison. Entirely different NR settings are actually better, with the two processes, but no matter how you adjust the ’2003′ version it never looks anything like as fine as the 2010 one.

Should dPreview and others update their RAW sample images because the old process was so badly matched to the .ARW format? Nothing like the same difference is made for example to Nikon raw files, 2010 is better, but 2003 didn’t mess up the higher ISOs in the way it always did for Minolta/Sony raws.

Please note that if you don’t want to get CS5, you can still get the benefit of this new conversion with Adobe Photoshop Elements 8.

- David Kilpatrick

Adobe has announced the Lightroom 3.2 and Camera Raw 6.2 Release Candidates, available for immediate download on Adobe Labs. The updates extend raw file support to 12 new popular camera models including the Sony NEX-3 and NEX-5, Alpha 290 and 390; improve on several of the lens correction profiles introduced as part of the Lightroom 3 and Camera Raw 6.1 releases; and add over 50 new lens profiles to help photographers automatically correct for undesirable distortion and aberration effects.

But they let Sony down in a big way by only including the 18-55mm OSS lens for NEX, omitting the 16mm which must be very simple to profile (after all folks, there are only TWO officially available lenses for NEX right now – you found time to profile no fewer than 15 lenses for the Pentax AF645, for the benefit of all two dozen worldwide users of this outstandingly popular digital option…)

For ACR 3.2 Release Candidate download – http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Camera_Raw_6.2

For LR 3.2 Release Candidate download – http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Lightroom_3.2

In addition, the Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate now allows Lightroom 3 customers the ability to publish their photos directly to Facebook from within the application, and addresses issues reported by customers on the Lightroom 3.0 release. Adobe continues to encourage the community to provide feedback on the updates so it can ensure the highest quality experience for customers working on a variety of hardware and software configurations.

Pricing and Availability
The Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate is available as a free download for Lightroom 3 customers, and the Photoshop Camera Raw 6.2 Release Candidate is available as a free download for Photoshop CS5 customers. For more information and to test out the updates visit http://labs.adobe.com. Feedback can be provided on the Adobe User to User forum at http://forums.adobe.com.

*Please visit the Lightroom Journal for more information on these Release Candidates and a full list of the improved and newly added lens profiles: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal

Newly Supported Camera Models
Panasonic DMC-FZ100, Panasonic DMC-FZ40 (FZ45), Panasonic DMC-LX5, Pentax 645D, Samsung NX10, Samsung TL500 (EX1), Sony A290, Sony A390, Sony Alpha NEX-3, Sony Alpha NEX-5

Also, this update improves the colour and noise profiles for the following cameras that utilise the DNG raw file format already supported in previous versions of Lightroom and Camera Raw: Casio EXILIM EX-FH100 (DNG) and Leica S2 (DNG).

Sony is expanding its line-up of over 30 A-mount lenses with new models that will appeal to seasoned photographers and those new to DSLR cameras alike – a 35mm f/1.8 DT (APS-C) SAM, an 85mm f/2.8 full frame SAM, and the long-awaited 24mm f/2 Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 24mm f/2 for full frame with SSM ultrasonic focusing. In the interests of getting this report on line, it’s mainly Sony words, with a few added comments and edits.

I was going to post this on our Forum for NEX originally. It’s not good form to launch into what may be seen as ‘rival’ publications or journalists, so it’s the kind of thing which is often kept to blog pages or forum discussion. But Practical Photography is one the best-selling, and most powerful, photo magazines in the world.

So, I copied my ramblings and moved them here, instead of putting them in a forum post where just a few hundred people would see them. Tens of thousands of visitors see Photoclubalpha’s main site articles, and I want this to be seen, because it matters.

-
The Sony NEX-3 and NEX-5 cameras are ultra-slim interchangeable lens models, referred to as ‘ultracompact’ or ‘compact system camera’ models by Sony. The lens flange to film distance is only 18mm, compared to 44.5mm for the Alpha system and very similar figures for all popular SLR brands.

The Leica M and screw mounts, with under 1mm difference between them, are 10mm greater than this at around 28mm. Screw mount Leica lenses can be adapted to M even though there is only 1mm difference. With 10mm difference, almost any lens ever made for any camera – even the Robot system, original Contax, maybe even the Pentax 110 SLR – can probably be adapted to fit the E-mount. In fact it will accept 16mm and 35mm (half-frame) ciné, C-mount CCTV lenses, and subminiature camera lenses.

You name it, the NEX will be able to do it. Telescopes, microscopes, endoscopes, whatever. And Alpha lenses, and MD lenses. There is even enough ROOM with over 25mm the spare to fit a true retrofocus format reduction converter – that is, a 0.66X optical unit which condenses the image from a full frame lens to fit the APS-C sensor. It is already done in the video and ciné world, and these converters have a wonderful bonus. Your 24-70mm f/2.8 SSM lens becomes, with a 0.66X reducing converter behind it, a 16-46mm f/2. That’s right – the same way a teleconverter loses you a stop or two, a format reduction converter gains you a stop.

SONY has shown itself to be lagging behind the competition as we reach the third bend on the second lap of the development of HD-video capable DSLRs. At PMA 2010, nothing ‘real’ was shown and the closest they came to further launches in the Alpha range was an advanced pre-production prototype of a 24mm f/2 Carl Zeiss T* ZA SSM.

But Sony may prove yet to be the tortoise – or perhaps to be Brer Rabbit. They could make the finishing line, the goal of a truly useful video DSLR, before Nikon/Canon/Pentax/OlySamPanny get there.

The Alpha System celebrates its Silver Jubilee or 25th Anniversary this month – though left uncelebrated by the inheritors of the Minolta AF legacy, Sony. They have no reason to draw fresh attention to the age of the system, as in four years they have taken it the same sort of distance that Minolta took the world’s first AF system in the late 1980s.

It’s not only Alpha’s 25th birthday. This is also the 25th birthday of modern AF SLR systems – all of them!

This is a multi-page article. See the links at the bottom of the page to Continue Reading after each page.

For Photoclubalpha and the historic Minolta Club of Great Britain, the anniversary does matter. A good many of you out there have been members since the launch of the system, often using the earlier SR and X manual focus systems before that. We still have a 1985 Minolta 7000AF and it’s still working just as it did when new.

25 years before the first Minolta SLRs appeared – a folding Minolta Six of 1935

I don’t mind showing my age to make a comparison. I was 11 in 1963 when I took my first pictures with an SLR camera. My father had bought himself a Pentax S3 – and the camera it replaced was 25 years old, a pre-war Zeiss Ikon Kolibri collapsible 16-on-127 model.

When the Kolibri was made, 127 was the ‘vest pocket’ format of choice. 35mm was on the rise, but 35mm SLRs had not yet arrived. They were as much a thing of the future as digital SLRs were when the Minolta 7000AF was launched.

But within that 25 years, there was hardly a single camera system made with interchangeable lenses that did not become obsolete. Only the ‘frozen assets’ of the cold war kept some systems, like the Exakta bayonet and the Praktina, alive. New brands were launched, from the British Wrayflex and Periflex to the Italian Rectaflex and many German oddities. It was not unusual for an entire system to be come and gone within a few years.

Even in the following quarter-century, the high years of the Japanese 35mm SLR, the succession of lens mount changes was bewildering. Independent lens makers like Tamron and Sigma were forced to make systems using interchangeable mounts not just because the public wanted it. A dozen or more mounts were made for every lens and in the 42mm screw thread fit alone there were endless variants – Praktica LLC (Pentacon Electric), Olympus FTL, Pentax ES and more.

It was more or less a 25-year cycle – the SR system was announced in 1958, and really got underway by 1960. It was to be another quarter century before the AF system arrived. We are now a further 25 years on – can we expect a totally new camera system, once again, in 2010?

Minolta’s SR bayonet mount, introduced in 1958/9, actually remained basically unchanged all the way through to 2005 when the last manual focus model, the X-370S, was available. It survives even now as a mount popular in China where the Seagull range from Shanghai Optical includes Minolta fit models. That mount only ever had one major revision, to add a linkage for open aperture TTL metering. The introduction of programmed exposure and shutter priority was cleverly enabled by using the existing design of lens mechanism and improving its accuracy, while adding a simple reference lug to the ƒ-stop setting ring.

Nikon’s 1959 F-mount proved similarly easy to improve without any basic modification. Both these bayonet mounts celebrated half a century of production in 2008/9 – another landmark, which Nikon was able to celebrate but Minolta of course could not.

My review of the Alpha 550 has caused controversy because of the blue sky noise. I might as well say that over the last week, I’ve used the 550 in a wide range of conditions – some very bad conditions included – and its failure to match ISO 100 finesse would not worry me at all. The performance at higher ISO settings is so much improved it’s worth putting up with the minimum of ISO 200, and a touch more noise than the best ISO 100 results from the Sony CCD sensors.

Even so, something was clearly happening during the period of sunnier weather used for my earlier A550 tests. I used Auto ISO initially, because I had not realised how readily the camera will select settings right up to 1600. Auto ISO has thrown up some surprises. Here’s something to consider:

Please note that although ‘process’ symbols are shown with these Adobe Bridge/ACR images, the defaults were restored and then each picture was set back to defaults. They are all shown relative to each other in density, the image preview built by ACR. There is no question of DRO or any other tonal setting interfering with the apparent exposure – DRO does not affect the .ARW file, ACR discards any DRO generated embedded preview in my setup prefs, and DRO was not being used anyway.

It has already been noted by other reviewers that the A550 has considerably more headroom without clipping, even compared to the A350 which was already a top-ranking camera for dynamic range. This is what I meant when I compared its default images to Canon with Highlight Tone Preservation switched on, or KM/Sony older models using the Hi200 setting. This can mean that the A550 is really ISO 100 at its lowest on-sensor gain setting, but the exposure system is programmed to underexpose by a stop and the post-processing (BIONZ) is set up to boost the gain.

Why would Sony do this? Perhaps they read the many posts referring to the Alpha 900 and 700 ISO settings. The on-sensor gain controls the main ISO steps, but a rather cleaner post-process gain adds the 1/3rd step intervals. Experienced Alpha 900 users set ISO 320 manually because the sensor is at its optimum at roughly ISO 160 (DxO tests bear this out). The standard ISO 200 setting can produce more noise than ISO 320 because two different digital stages are used to produce the gain.

In search of superior high ISOs, they may have realised that the early gain stage (on the chip assembly) is inferior to the later BIONZ processor, and you can indeed get better high ISO by underexposing a lower ISO setting, then processing it with clipped blacks. That’s a Nikon technique, which has served them well. It’s also a technique used by experienced DSLR owners.

Now consider the four shots above. They are all taken at ‘ISO 200′ but the camera was set to auto ISO. Other shots in the same set show ISO 250, 500 etc confirming the auto ISO was in operation. They are taken in the afternoon in Scotland, so it is fairly near to the end of the day for sunshine by 14:49hrs, around an hour away. But the two locations at 50 minutes apart, 14:00hrs and 14:49hrs, should not have the extreme variation in exposure shown here.

Just what is going on for an exposure of 1/400th at f/11 to look correct at ISO 200, with the dark sandstone buildings of Jedburgh at the end of October? 1/400th at f/11 is the ISO 200 exposure for full sunshine in midsummer (aka f/16 light). You hardly ever find f/16 light in Britain unless you are on the beach, surrounded by pale concrete, in a field of golden corn or out on a lake.

50 minutes later, exposures range from 1/60th at f/11 to 1/100th at f/11 – that is, more or less, from two to three stops more. In fact these exposures are in line with what I would expect, it’s the 1/400th at f/11 which is the odd one out. I have no evidence to suggest that my CZ 16-80mm has an aperture which fails to stop down consistently.

Now look at some sky samples:

Here is an in-camera JPEG version which shows less noise – the in-camera process is equal to using much stronger NR in raw conversion than I would normally choose for ISO 200:

Now for the same processed from raw – notice that despite the noise, it is slightly more detailed or sharper:

This is a reprocessed second version of the original noisy sky instance. Here, I have used Adobe Camera Raw 5.6r1 defaults, which include some basic sharpening and also 25 on the chroma NR scale. No exposure adjustment is made at all. This view, by the way, looks more or less due north and it is not a case of a brighter sky underexposed; also, the stone and the chimney pots look normally exposed.

This is the 1/100th at f/11 shot, processed exactly the same way. It’s interesting in that I expected to see much lower noise, but in fact it’s much the same. The sky density is similar as well. The view is slightly more towards the east. While my Alpha 380, 200, 100 and even 700 shots are capable of showing blue sky noise at ISO 100 and as much as this as 200 it’s not as obtrusive.

Finally, this is the 1/60th exposure – perhaps more what would be expected at ISO 100 in this light with f/11. Here, I have set -1 EV exposure reduction in Adobe Camera Raw to get much the same final sky tone density. The noise is lower.

Checking other images I’ve taken since, I am now suspicious about the Auto ISO function in the Alpha 550, and whether it reports the gain applied to each shot accurately. It’s hard to reconcile the same ISO 200 setting shown in EXIF with the range of exposures encountered, and the actual exposure of the raw file. Yet ISO 250 was also selected for this shot taken a few minutes before the chimney shot:

This is also included in the main report (click image to view full size on pBase). If I darken the sky as much as the other examples, I get noise similar to the 1/60th ISO 200 clip, or better.

Since making these tests, I’ve started using the Alpha 550 only on fixed ISO settings, with some misgivings as intermediate gain like ISO 250 or 320 might possibly be yielding better results. I just feel something is happening in the BIONZ stage, perhaps involving analysis of the Auto ISO images and compensation for deviations from the reported EXIF Auto ISO setting. This is just a hunch. Fixed settings seem to be equal to the worst case from Auto ISO. Here’s a textbook example, 1/125th at f/16 for a blue sky on November 3rd, facing due north, at 14:19hrs, ISO 200 fixed setting, ACR 5.6 defaults as above:

The answer seems to be to overexpose your manual ISO 200 shots by not simply one stop, but as much as two stops when shooting raw. At least if Adobe Camera Raw is used, recovery of normal tones (not burned out highlights) will fully restore the exposure from 1 or 2 stops over depending on the subject.

Here is an overexposed image, taken at 1/80th at f/10, ISO 200, in mid-day sunshine:

Below is what the sky looks like in a normally exposed image (1/250th at f/10), processed using Adobe Camera Raw defaults (including sharpening at 25/1/25/0 and NR at 0/25), looks like:

And here, finally, is what an adjusted ACR process from the overexposed image looks like with sharpening turned off, NR set to 25/50, exposure and brightness determined by the simple process of using Auto (which can be set as a default in ACR if you want to consistently make generous – over – exposures ‘to the right’):

This is much more how I expect to see a sky looking from the base ISO of a 2009 DSLR release, viewed at 100 per cent. From this stage, different types of sharpening can be applied to suit resized versions for different purposes.

Results with other raw converters, as more become available for the Alpha 550, may be finer in noise structure than ACR or may offer less scope for overexposing – ACR is well known for its ability to recover highlights. I do not intend to go much further into this with tests of converters, but I hope I have shown how the ‘true ISO’ of the A550 is difficult to pin down especially in Auto ISO mode, and how it is possible to benefit from the great high ISO performance of the camera (just use it!) and at the same time secure good low ISO results for travel and landscape shots where a clean blue sky is important.

It’s important to note that in-camera JPEGs will not necessarily show similar noise levels. If they do it’s not so easy to fix without using NR software. I prefer to shoot raw for many reasons.

So, why not be very happy with the Alpha 550 as a choice? Here are two pictures. You can view the full size Alpha image, and the Nikon D3S image resized to match 14 megapixels, by clicking on the smaller size here. Of course the Nikon image is better, though 1/250th at f/5.6 and ISO 400 is more of a step away from 1/250th at f/9 and ISO 200, and I’m not sure the light was SO different on the two occasions:

- DK

My review of the Sony Alpha 550 was supposed to appear at the end of November, allowing one week abroad in good weather with plenty of subject-matter, in Tenerife. Sadly that trip had to be cancelled, and the Nikon D3S arrived for review on the day we were meant to have travelled. So, with far too much work to do on the D3S, I’m “going to press” here with my initial thoughts based on a fairly short time using the Alpha 550.

There are 11 pages in this review, please use the Next Page navigation at the end of each page to continue reading. A sponsor link appears before the end of each page – “Get camera lenses at Shopping.com’s affordable deals.” Our thanks to Shopping.com for spotting and sponsoring this review!

This review has been updated August 2010 – see the second to last page for new Adobe Camera Raw Process 2010 results, a massive improvement with Alpha 550 files.

According to Sony UK, the Alpha 5oo and 550 were shipped to UK dealers starting at the beginning of this week (October 19th) – though calls to WarehouseExpress, and to our local Edinburgh Sony ACE dealer, produced no knowledge of the new cameras. WE said that they expected the camera ‘hopefully within the next month’ and Edinburgh Sony Centre Shandwick Place said ‘we will have it in stock on October 29th’.

Paul Genge of Sony UK confirmed that deliveries had in fact been made by October 22nd to selected dealers and that ‘both cameras have been available since the beginning of the week’.

However, a Google search showed no for sale items except Hong Kong based grey market shippers. WarehouseExpress still showed a pre-order status for the Alpha 550 and its kits. We have been trying to obtain one for the past two weeks, as review samples were not available. The initial report in Photoworld magazine has been completed with the help of our Photoclubalpha subscribers round the world who already have the camera, and will appear in the edition printed next week.

UPDATE: Monday October 26th – WarehouseExpress had bodies, 18-55mm and twin lens kits all in stock this morning.

- DK