The real A550

[alphaPDX]

I went downtown to visit one today.. and just missed it by five minutes. CameraWorld in Portland has three of the a500 and a550s coming again soon, and keeps selling off their a850 before I can touch one (probably a good thing, with my current budget ). I wish they would grit their teeth and order five of each.. but I guess that isn't their (sony)style.

[David Kilpatrick]

I have to complete two magazine reviews of the A550 by the end of the coming week. It was not my plan to do an on-line review before taking the camera for a week abroad, where I would be shooting hundreds of subjects in excellent (and low as well) light including Loro Parque in Tenerife with some fast action dolphin shows - etc. But the trip is now cancelled as Shirley will not be able to travel, and I'm spending five hours each day on hospital visits.

At the moment I am shooting only with the A550. I will be struggling to find the subjects I need at home, with restraint on travelling round. I'll see what can be done.

David

[RubberDials]

Well, any comments you can make are very valuable. Best wishes to your wife.

[David Kilpatrick]

I have now had a chance to study the A550 files and compare them with A350, K20D, 500D and many other files.

It's the noisiest camera at ISO 200 of the lot, at least judging by sky blue and neutral tones noise.

High ISO seems good - but low ISO is no match for the A350. A350 better at 100 and 200, A550 becomes better at 400 and FAR better as you go up.

David

[Dusty]

I have now had a chance to study the A550 files and compare them with A350, K20D, 500D and many other files.

It's the noisiest camera at ISO 200 of the lot, at least judging by sky blue and neutral tones noise.

High ISO seems good - but low ISO is no match for the A350. A350 better at 100 and 200, A550 becomes better at 400 and FAR better as you go up.

David

How much difference is there? I was looking at a 550 as a second camera, since I don't like to do weddings with just one. Maybe I should just get another 350 before they're all gone?

I'm assuming, of course, that you were comparing RAW files.

Dusty

[David Kilpatrick]

You won't like these.

a550-200-dng-acr.jpg (216.78 KiB) Viewed 4302 times

a550-200-rawdeveloper.jpg (239.18 KiB) Viewed 4302 times

a350-100-acr.jpg (311.21 KiB) Viewed 4302 times

More follow - the file names should make the content clear enough.
David

[David Kilpatrick]

And more:

a550-dng-200-acr.jpg (252.81 KiB) Viewed 4302 times

k20d-200-acr.jpg (249.04 KiB) Viewed 4302 times

eos7D-100-acr.jpg (271.56 KiB) Viewed 4302 times

I have checked many, many pix than these. The A550 simply is not very clean at 200 and had a 'large' noise structure - even when developed with RawDeveloper, which is pretty good at refining this. The pictures are also not stunning high in visual sharpness, and have fairly desaturated colours from raw with existing profiles.

David

[Dusty]

Well, it looks like now I have to decide on another 350 of if I should grab a 700 while their so cheap.

Dusty

[KevinBarrett]

Well, it looks like now I have to decide on another 350 of if I should grab a 700 while their so cheap.

Dusty

Go for the a700 all the way! $750 for the most comprehensive level of control and features in the whole Alpha line-up is a no-brainer. Sony will NOT be making another deal this sweet any time soon. If I had any kind of liquidity of funds, I'd buy another right now.

[aster]

Since Gustav raised our hopes of an imminent A750, my only hope is that it will not be below our expectations of proper-featuring...

I really wish for Sony to take this seriously and go for the better to introduce to the market or I either will buy the A900 or yet an other Alpha full-frame that is yet to be introduced; with on-camera flash; good frame rate per second; a good variety of lenses on the shelves; micro lens-adjustment feature; in-camera stabilization; good weather-proofing; distinct high-ISO performance because I like shooting in the dark; etc. etc.

Basicly I want all the best that I know Sony can only do so in breath-taking speed and with precision.

Yildiz

[RubberDials]

...
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

On reflection I guess this must be primarily a lens issue. 18mp on an Aps-c sensor is going to need exceptionally good lenses - a sight better than most on offer, as the majority of Canon's lenses are old film designs - especially their monofocals - or low quality zooms.

[bossel]

You won't like these...

Isn't this like the A700? It can also show noise in skys at low ISO and is not as sharp like the A100. Or is it worse? For me A700 quality is ok and it seems the A550 blows it away at high ISO.

[alphaomega]

Reference David Kilpatrick's comments above regarding the low ISO performance of A550 I am beginning to think that perhaps Sony should have taken a different strategic approach to their new Alpha cameras starting with the A230/330 & 380. Maybe they should simply have stated that it is not possible to make an exceptional sensor that can excel both at lower and higher ISO and launched a line more like:
A230 more or less at it is for beginners - good performance at a competitive price.
A300 series 12Mp maximised for speed and higher ISO performance starting at ISO 200 to ISO12,800 with decent OVF and no LV and a 14Mp with LV starting at ISO 100 to max 6,400 and maximising image quality between ISO 100 and 400. A third model with video could be introduced when Sony have surmounted video problems.
The same approach with A500 series but higher spec. than the A300 series including some of Barry Fitzgerald's goodies.
The A900 should have had a "make over" with improved IQ but still focusing on lower ISO and instead of the A850 there should have been another 24Mp sensor camera starting at ISO 200 and majoring on frame speed with class leading focus speed and high ISO performance and APS-C lens usage at 11Mp for super speed.
Just looking at the 7D issues it would appear that it is not actually possible to make a decent DSLR that can maximise low and high ISO performance in the same body unless Mp kept below current expectations.

[Dusty]

It shows that we're not yet where some want to be on sensors. Some would like sensors that can do ISO 100 - 102400 all at the same quality. Probably not this decade!

It may just be that we have to settle for specialized high ISO cameras that start off at 400 or 800 base ISO and go up from there, and then have standard cameras that are ISO 25, 50 or 100 and up to 1600 or 3200. I used to carry multiple bodies in film cameras all loaded with different ISO speed films. ISO 100 or 200 for normal use, 400 for faster action and either 800 or 1600 for indoors events without flash.

Hey, it's great to switch from 100 to 3200 in a couple of seconds, but if I really need faster speeds I should be willing to put out the funds for the specialized extra body.

Dusty

[Birma]

It shows that we're not yet where some want to be on sensors. Some would like sensors that can do ISO 100 - 102400 all at the same quality. Probably not this decade!

It does sound, as Dusty has said, that we ideally need two approaches to camera bodies, one for low and one for high ISO - I just can't see that happening while high ISO performance is seen as the major benchmark. I would be willing to bet that not a single review of the A550 (except DK's) will mention low ISO performance. If this is the case then who can blame Sony for following the trend. It looks like I will need to keep my A100 for low ISO work, whatever decision I make on the next body I buy. If I'm going A700 rather than A550 I need to be quick as "out of stock" is appearing on a lot of web sites for the 700, and the replacement will be too much for my budget, and probably another high ISO monster.