Trade 350 for 550?

[mdcromer]

I ran into a small windfall when work decided to pay a bonus this year. It was not expected, but always appreciated!

Anyway, I am thinking about trading in my 350 and picking up a 550. I mostly do landscape photography with the 350, frequently stitching, but I also do family outings and horse events with my daughter.

It looks like the trade up will cost me about $400 or so. I'd welcome the MF liveview (with 100% coverage I assume), faster continuous shooting, and better high-ISO performance. Oh and the incredible screen, of course! Would my base-ISO IQ suffer much?

What I really want is a 30+MP FF alpha with both forms of liveview, but I may be waiting a while on that one. . .

[alphaomega]

I have basically the same question as mdcromer

Would my base-ISO IQ suffer much?

I was actually going to purchase the A550 to replace my A350 (cascaded to my wife). Due to the lack of P shift, ISO100 and David Kilpatrick's views on the shall we say uncertain low ISO performance of the A550, I actually opted to purchase a nearly new A350 on ebay for £300 delivered. It has arrived and for all intents and purposes is is new (purchased on 28/7/09). I basically do photography for sale through Alamy and use the A350 for low ISO photography with my CZ16-80. I use my new A700 for high ISO and fast shooting as well as second camera when it is useful to have my W/A or tele zoom lens handy as well.

I would still be interested in a comparison (preferably RAW) between the A350 and A550 at ISO 200 and 400 as well as A350 at ISO 100 against A550 at ISO 200. I am thinking of resolution, DR and general colour rendering. I do find the A350 most satisfactory at ISO100-400 but useles from ISO1600 and up.

Basically I am giving the A550 a miss and will wait to see if Sony produce a successor to the A700. If they do so and it is a still photographer's camera with APS-C, I may purchase one when the initial launch price has dropped say £300 to compensate me for the purchase of my A350.

[OneGuyKs]

No, looking at several photos, I don't believe base ISO will suffer that much. The difference is not even visible in print and/or normal viewing. However, the high ISO gain for A550 is real and visible, Combine that with LCD, fps, MF live view, A550 is a better camera.

You can also save money and get A500. The high ISO gain is still there, along with fps, MF lv.

[Dr. Harout]

No, looking at several photos, I don't believe base ISO will suffer that much. The difference is not even visible in print and/or normal viewing. However, the high ISO gain for A550 is real and visible, Combine that with LCD, fps, MF live view, A550 is a better camera.

You can also save money and get A500. The high ISO gain is still there, along with fps, MF lv.

A definite response, with which I must agree, specially for horse shots (races probably).
And nice entrance for OneGuyKs. Welcome to the forum.

[stevecim]

just keep in mind with the A500, if you like to use RAW+JPG, it only has a 3 frame buffer, so you can't get 5FPS if it only has a 3 Frame buffer

[David Kilpatrick]

I'm finding the A550 very useful for medium to high ISO shots. Some ISO 200 shots are exceptional, but not all.

However - the thing with the A350 is not just that is has as slightly better ISO 100 than the A550 200, it's to do with colour and tone. I have just been given another 300+ A350 raw files by our daughter+partner including some great shots on 'Rainbow Warrior' (even the Captain's Log, open...) and just on quick viewing, the colour is something entirely different from the A550 (or for that matter the A700 or A900). It is so perfectly neutral but saturated. It's like Ektachrome 100X, where all the other Sony models have a Fuji sort of look. It is closer to the Dynax 7D and 5D, but with extra dynamic range.

So I'm keeping the A350 and A550 - A350 for colour and tone at ISO 100 (and studio flash friendly ISO/DR), A550 for incredibly good ISO 800-1600.

David

[mdcromer]

I'm finding the A550 very useful for medium to high ISO shots. Some ISO 200 shots are exceptional, but not all.

However - the thing with the A350 is not just that is has as slightly better ISO 100 than the A550 200, it's to do with colour and tone. I have just been given another 300+ A350 raw files by our daughter+partner including some great shots on 'Rainbow Warrior' (even the Captain's Log, open...) and just on quick viewing, the colour is something entirely different from the A550 (or for that matter the A700 or A900). It is so perfectly neutral but saturated. It's like Ektachrome 100X, where all the other Sony models have a Fuji sort of look. It is closer to the Dynax 7D and 5D, but with extra dynamic range.

So I'm keeping the A350 and A550 - A350 for colour and tone at ISO 100 (and studio flash friendly ISO/DR), A550 for incredibly good ISO 800-1600.

David

Hmmn.

I really love the color on the Alpha 350 too. I was wondering if the 550 was as good.

[David Kilpatrick]

I really love the color on the Alpha 350 too. I was wondering if the 550 was as good.

Not the same class. I wish I could explain the difference. The A350 just has wonderful colour. Here is a snap by our daughter Ailsa - I just never get the sort of skin tones, plus neutrals, plus whites, plus shadows, plus the accuracy of things like the pink top, from the 700/900. And this is just ACR default conversion no messing.

a350-colour.jpg (135.19 KiB) Viewed 4722 times

David

[RubberDials]

David, I have to say this is getting me down. I have an a350 and I'm very happy with the image quality, but it is deficient in other ways. The rear LCD is not of a high enough resolution for critical focus checking, the camera AF is unreliable and the camera IQ is useless at ISO 1600 +.

I was hoping that the a550 would solve these issues. From what you've said I gather it does but it creates problems where there were none at the lower ISOs... You seem to have settled on a strategy whereby you're keeping both cameras. I'm reluctant to do this as I already have an a100 that I won't sell (gift from my father before he passed away) and I don't want to keep piling up DSLRs because Sony can't manage the seemingly simple task of building on its successes and not going back to the beginning with each DSR.

It's frustrating reading threads where a700 users bang on about how much they love their cameras because I have never loved the a350. I use it because I have no alternative and Sony don't seem to want to offer me one.

[bfitzgerald]

Maybe folks over analyse things!
I see the A5xx models as probably more appealing for low light work, leaving aside my dislike of the design and missing stuff etc, if I were into that, I might get one..maybe.

I would not bother if I mostly used digital for lower ISO stuff, esp not landscapes. As it is, I find the A200 good for low ISO work, and the Km5d good for high ISO work, if I replaced either..it would most likely be with identical models s/h on ebay, also it's a lot cheaper than buying an A5xx

Maybe it was kinda dumb stretching things to ISO 12800, maybe that killed off a real ISO 100. As it is, I think CCD tends to look better for low ISO anyway.

[OneGuyKs]

It's frustrating reading threads where a700 users bang on about how much they love their cameras because I have never loved the a350. I use it because I have no alternative and Sony don't seem to want to offer me one.

If you over analyze that much, you will never be happy with any camera. Look at $1700 Canon 7D. Some people are complaining about soft images, including DK's less than stellar review.

A700/A900 don't have lv, not the best jpegs, and DK claims that low ISO colors are not as good as A350. But despite that, I am sure most A700/A900 owners still love it. Regardless of what camera you get, Dpreview will have a “con” list for it in the review (always)

If you really need good ISO 1600 and better LCD, get A550. No need to sweat that much.

[mdcromer]

It's frustrating reading threads where a700 users bang on about how much they love their cameras because I have never loved the a350. I use it because I have no alternative and Sony don't seem to want to offer me one.

If you over analyze that much, you will never be happy with any camera. Look at $1700 Canon 7D. Some people are complaining about soft images, including DK's less than stellar review.

A700/A900 don't have lv, not the best jpegs, and DK claims that low ISO colors are not as good as A350. But despite that, I am sure most A700/A900 owners still love it. Regardless of what camera you get, Dpreview will have a “con” list for it in the review (always)

If you really need good ISO 1600 and better LCD, get A550. No need to sweat that much.

Well the thing is -- I don't really "need" good ISO 1600+ as I just shoot family gatherings and my daughter's horse stuff and can get by with my beercan + fast primes + ISO 800. I'd love to have higher ISO but that is just for fun.

I'd love the better LCD. I don't have a huge problem with the AF on the 350 -- just remember the center AF "point" is the size of Kansas and will tend to focus on the background if any of the background is within the enormous AF area, so I use other points if my AF zone isn't enormous. OK yeah I'm not thrilled with the AF design of the 350 but I can live with it (after tweaking the screws for nasty frontfocus, that is).

On the other hand, the 350 sharpness, color, tonality, and usable DR is SO GOOD I would be hard-pressed to give them up -- certainly not for a camera that delivers no more resolution. So I'll probably just stick with the 350 for now, since I can't justify keeping 2 pieces of kit. The 850 is mightily tempting, but the lack of liveview is a show-stopper. So maybe I'll pick up a used Minnie 85/1.4 for the $500.

Thanks everyone for your feedback!