The real A550

[Greg Beetham]

Sounds like the EV level isn't overly wonderful there now David, what with the sun most likely lower in the sky. I just did a quick exposure check with the trusty ol KM5D here on some grass out in the back yard and got 160sec f11 @ 200 ISO, (it's 9:00 am here). Maybe the A550 thought it was doing you a 'favour' with it's 1600 ISO AUTO selection.
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

I have the Km5d set to -0.3 EV, which is safe low and high ISO in the majority of situations, bar maybe very contrast scenes which might require more.

A200 is set to +0.3 normal use (it's good bright light, but gets into underexposure for light subjects, the 5d can too, but nowhere near as much) For higher ISO 800 and up, I set it to +0.7, sometimes more (sometimes less). The A200 at times is giving a whole stop less exposure than the MInolta does, which can cause a big drop in IQ and increase in noise at higher ISO levels. Most makers overexpose at high ISO, I think the reasons for that are fairly obvious!

My overall conclusions are that the A200 works better for low ISO metering wise, being more cautious esp highlights, but that it's less consistent overall than the 5d. Some way between the 2 would be just about right

[Greg Beetham]

I know where your coming from with having to watch highlights Barry, here it can be very difficult in summer with the EV range in a town scene (shadows to highlights) of around 7 steps or more.
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

I am going to have to eat my words - I was basing what I said on the view of a conversion of the raw files using Lightroom 3 Beta, which 'supports' the A550. This view was not sharp, and was extremely noisy. However, I converted the last two folders of A550 raws to DNG format using Lightroom 3 (which can do this) and then opened them using Bridge and ACR. The results were SO much better that I think Lightroom is handling the A550 files very badly. While ISO 1600 would not be desirable, ISO 640-800 was really pretty good and ISO 1000-1250 with careful NR and sharpening (I do not use external NR plugins or programs) gave a marketable result. In the case of an overexposed 1600 image (needing -0.95 correction - this exposure was influenced by a dark subject) a very acceptable final processed file was possible:



http://www.pbase.com/davidkilpatrick/image/118912340 for the original full sized.

So I did not lose my fungi - they are not ideal, really a subject like this needs a tripod (not with me) and the minimum ISO and a small aperture.

While I will not use the Auto ISO - it was responding to pretty low light levels, this may be direct sun by it's filtered by trees and is a very close up subject - I will feel able to use ISO settings up to 1600 with correct or generous exposure and secure usable results (for professional/stock library standards).

David

[aster]

Hi David,

I actually liked the way you processed the photo. The original size looks good although the A550 has some missing features still.

Thanks,
Yildiz

[RubberDials]

Here's some more bad news for you - and for me...
David

David can you say something about the a550 AF while we are waiting for your article?

I note in your Photoworld piece about the new cameras you say that the 380 has better autofocus than we are used to. Is the a550 AF also an improvement on what's gone before?

[David Kilpatrick]

The A550 and 500 use a new type of LCD-overlay focusing screen. This means the quick live view has no visible markings from the screen - at all. You can not turn off the central focus point (at a minimum) when using OVF, and when you press the shutter, all the focus points briefly appear. There are very fine lines visible on the screen, like horizontal scratches, wiring up the LCD focus marks (this is something Canon has solved with the 7D - no visible wiring).

Although the AF module is the same layout, the accuracy and response appear to be much improved and so far I have only a slight issue that my 100mm Macro front focuses a bit, but it has always done that on every camera body. The screen seems to be optimised around f/4 and fitting a 50mm f/1.4 looks no different in brightness to using the CZ16-80. The screen is also much brighter than the A380.

I think the ability of the A550 to track AF and exposure at 5fps is remarkable. The shutter sound is unlike any previous Alpha (maybe the A380 would be closer if the body was more substantial and absorbed more sound). And 7fps also does not seem impossible, it works despite the specifications of old lenses.

So far I am concluding that the A550 is pretty good but with one caveat - it's best locked down to ISO 200 for all work where higher ISO is not vital. I am trying to work out, right now, whether the A550 comes with me for a forthcoming trip in place of the A900. It's really difficult to decide.

David

[alphaomega]

So far I am concluding that the A550 is pretty good but with one caveat - it's best locked down to ISO 200 for all work where higher ISO is not vital.

That really surprised me. I thought from all I had read so far that the A550 had the best high ISO performance APS-C sensor Sony have produced so far even beating A700 v.4.

I wonder if David would oblige to elaborate on that statement. I would like to know what Sony DSLR he would then recommend in preference to the A550 for higher ISO work short of FF. I was really relying on purchasing an A550 particularly to increase my chances of getting usable higher ISO images.

[bossel]

I'd say the omission of MLU, DOFpreview, PShift etc on the flagship-APS-C camera means that there is another flagship yet to come.

[David Kilpatrick]

So far I am concluding that the A550 is pretty good but with one caveat - it's best locked down to ISO 200 for all work where higher ISO is not vital.

That really surprised me. I thought from all I had read so far that the A550 had the best high ISO performance APS-C sensor Sony have produced so far even beating A700 v.4.

I wonder if David would oblige to elaborate on that statement. I would like to know what Sony DSLR he would then recommend in preference to the A550 for higher ISO work short of FF. I was really relying on purchasing an A550 particularly to increase my chances of getting usable higher ISO images.

The high ISO is excellent especially from in-camera JPEGs (this is where they really have changed things). It's the medium-low ISO which is disappointing. There is not really all that much difference between 400, 800 and 1600 - certainly not the big steps you see with other cams. The changes are most visible at 3200, 6400, 12800. What is poor is that from ISO 200 (the base level, which is not quite as smooth as ISO 100 on a 350/380) the next step up is 400 and this is honestly not so very much better than 350/380. It's no better than the A700 at 400, and the A700 can be set to ISO 320 which is far better than the fixed step 400 of the A550.

ISO 200 is really pretty good but so is ISO 160 or 200 on an A700. I will try to find time to do some A350/A700/A550 comparisons.

Exactly the same thing can be seen with the Canon 7D. It's very good indeed at 3200, 6400. It is poor at 100, 200, 400.

David

[alphaomega]

David

On Sunday 1 November you wrote above:

While ISO 1600 would not be desirable, ISO 640-800 was really pretty good and ISO 1000-1250 with careful NR and sharpening (I do not use external NR plugins or programs) gave a marketable result.

Not sure how one would get ISO 640 and 1200 when the A550 only seems to offer ISO options of 200-400-800-1600 etc, but the above statement today caused my surprise as seeing your statement last Sunday kind of assured me the A550 was good up to at least ISO 800.

[David Kilpatrick]

Auto ISO - it will give you the intermediate settings, and did. I was able to get decent pix from all the settings, as I said. You have no control and really, you don't want ISO 1000 or 1250 in the situations where it decided to give me those settings.

But - I thought it would be fine to use ISO 400 for some this morning, and I was very disappointed that it looked not so different from these higher speeds.

ISO 200 looks much better. I will be sticking to ISO 200 and nothing else unless low light or action demands it.

David

[stevecim]

Auto ISO - it will give you the intermediate settings, and did. I was able to get decent pix from all the settings, as I said. You have no control and really, you don't want ISO 1000 or 1250 in the situations where it decided to give me those settings.

But - I thought it would be fine to use ISO 400 for some this morning, and I was very disappointed that it looked not so different from these higher speeds.

ISO 200 looks much better. I will be sticking to ISO 200 and nothing else unless low light or action demands it.

David

The A350 is the same, when set to "Auto ISO" the camera will chose intermediate settings between iso 100-400 when needed, but the end user can't!
So many times with the A350, I would have liked to go 1/3 or 2/3 above ISO400/200/100 just to get the slightly faster shutter.

I knew that the A350 limited ISO selections to 100,200,400,800,1600,3200 when I brought it. But I was surprised that the camera, when in Auto ISO mode, was able to select in 1/3 ISO steps when needed. I would have preferred if the camera FW, when in AUTO ISO, only selected 100,200,400.

It's very frustrating, When I try to learn how best to use ISO/A/S by looking at the setting the camera selects in Auto modes, but I can never duplicate the camera's results because I can't select these 1/3 stops. I know they are there, the camera can use them but I can't.

coming from film I had no idea how handy it is to be able to change ISO on the fly, now it's like the camera say " look if you sometimes need a slightly faster shutter speed but you still want keep the F stop you selected you just up the ISO from 100 to 120. But wait, only I can do it for you and only up to ISO 400, The camera can select 1/3 steps but you the end user, need to pay an extra $600.00 for the privilege" When I brought my A350 the A700 was $600 more. In the current line up A850 is the cheapest model with this ability!.

[alphaPDX]

My A200 occasionally chooses iso320, much better than 400 even on that cam! Another reason to like the 700 - it can set those intermediate values can it not?

[RubberDials]

When's the review coming David? My patience for a professional appraisal of this camera stretched to its elastic limit about five weeks ago. The camera was announced and previewed in August. At this rate I'm going to end up buying it blind...