The real A550

[bfitzgerald]

I think the interesting thing is DK said it's the kind of "worst" of the bunch at low ISO, but others offer a good performance at high ISO as well. So what gives? What's different for Sony that isn't for Canon or Nikon etc??

I noticed the colours seem rather neutral too, though that's not always a bad thing..depending on how you think.

As for softness. AA filter? Did anyone else note the new A380 scored lower in the res depth on a well known review site v the older A350? Maybe a change of filter is part to blame.

[David Kilpatrick]

I think what is different is that the sensor seems extremely robust for the MF live view. I have been looking at on HDTV connected to the camera in MF Check LV mode and it's amazingly good even in low light. This sensor was clearly made to provide video, but they didn't go for it.

Also, to get 7fps out of a 14.2 megapixel sensor for a 14-frame raw burst may call for compromises. It's better than any other make at a similar price point.

David

[pakodominguez]

I think what is different is that the sensor seems extremely robust for the MF live view. I have been looking at on HDTV connected to the camera in MF Check LV mode and it's amazingly good even in low light. This sensor was clearly made to provide video, but they didn't go for it.

Apparently, Sony's problems about "doing it right", vDSRL wise, is not the sensor, but the AF and metering system.
if they can afford a second sensor for live view, why they don't do a double AF system for the next camera? afterwise, the customer always pay for it...

Regards

[agorabasta]

I did some quick checks between my a700 and an a500 at a shop (not the a550). At the same scene brightness, the same WB, the same raw processing, no NR, with comparable lenses - a500 appears to be at least not worse than a700 at ISO200. All a550 raw samples I had around (I don't have the cam) seem to be considerably worse at ISO200...
The LCD of a500 seems brighter and less view-angle-dependent that that of a700 - it really compensates for lower res, IMO. But I couldn't check if it's transflective at all.

[bfitzgerald]

Just been reading a post by an A550 user, who suggests even if you press the ISO button, you get no ISO in the VF displayed.

I obviously don't have this camera (ho ho), to check, but if so..yet again..I have to question the logic of the people who are paid to design the devices..we seem to be making some serious backward movements..ok not a big deal to all, but add it all up. This is really basic stuff, and I don't understand why a company wants to make it's products "worse" than previous ones.

I am not impressed..not one bit!

[Vidgamer]

I think the interesting thing is DK said it's the kind of "worst" of the bunch at low ISO, but others offer a good performance at high ISO as well. So what gives? What's different for Sony that isn't for Canon or Nikon etc??

Didn't Sony come out with an A500 as well?

Seriously, everyone jumps over the A500 as if it doesn't exist and then buys the A550, complains about the A550, etc. If I were to buy a new camera today, I'd be leaning more towards the A500, I think.

The comparison photos I saw v. the A700 looked good, though. As far as high-ISO is concerned, I would think either camera would be a step up from my A100! I could probably live with the loss of DOF preview and MLU.

[Birma]

Didn't Sony come out with an A500 as well?

Seriously, everyone jumps over the A500 as if it doesn't exist and then buys the A550, complains about the A550, etc. If I were to buy a new camera today, I'd be leaning more towards the A500, I think.

The comparison photos I saw v. the A700 looked good, though. As far as high-ISO is concerned, I would think either camera would be a step up from my A100! I could probably live with the loss of DOF preview and MLU.

I think the A500 and A550 are very close in price (Warehouse Express £579 and £539) and I would think a lot of people would be willing to find the little extra for the extra features on the 550. I am in a similar position to you in considering an upgrade from the A100. Currently, I think the A500/550 are nice, the plus has to be the live view and tiltable LCD, but the A700 has a lot of features it seems that we will not get on a similarly priced (Sony) camera for some time. The A700s are starting to become difficult to find, so forcing a decision soon .

[David Kilpatrick]

I started trying to write something about the 550 tonight. I have a problem. The low ISO quality I have criticised is not consistent; sky noise, the most visible issue, can vary from shot to shot without any apparent reason. At the best, it's superior to A100/200/350 at ISO 100 and at the worst it is inferior. When auto ISO gives settings like 250 or 320, these can be better than manually set 200 shots (or not).

Raw files in all cases. Something is happening here, like adaptive NR. It's not connected with motordrive sequences or MFC LV (sensor heating). It explains why some DPR posters are unhappy with the A550 and others are confused by this unhappiness. If sample cameras also vary, it could be a camera where single test example shots are misleading.

David

[stevecim]

I started trying to write something about the 550 tonight. I have a problem. The low ISO quality I have criticised is not consistent; sky noise, the most visible issue, can vary from shot to shot without any apparent reason. At the best, it's superior to A100/200/350 at ISO 100 and at the worst it is inferior. When auto ISO gives settings like 250 or 320, these can be better than manually set 200 shots (or not).

Raw files in all cases. Something is happening here, like adaptive NR. It's not connected with motordrive sequences or MFC LV (sensor heating). It explains why some DPR posters are unhappy with the A550 and others are confused by this unhappiness. If sample cameras also vary, it could be a camera where single test example shots are misleading.

David

David , could it have something to do with the RAW converters? does the noise clean up very well?

Hmmm maybe this explains why DPR have not posted a review and sample shots, maybe they a copy that produces great images that match the 7D

[David Kilpatrick]

This is not the sort of noise which 'cleans up' at all - it is red channel sky noise. To get rid of that, you have to use very strong processing which may also destroy a lot of other detail. It responds reasonably well to ACR controls, but that's not the point. The same kind of sky noise can be seen in many photos from many cameras, sometimes you need to remove it, other times it is not a problem.

What's odd is that it varies, and not with different converters or the raw being messed up by DRO set in the background and doing nothing (etc). I've just been preparing a shot taken at ISO 800 on the camera for a magazine, and it's good enough to pass as am ISO 200 shot from an A100/200 generation sensor with nothing more than sensible ACR conversion parameters. But I have also been looking at ISO 200 images from the 550 which look worse.

Whatever the case, I need to shoot more pictures and not in the present terrible conditions.

David

[alphaomega]

David Kilpatrick wrote:

What's odd is that it varies, and not with different converters or the raw being messed up by DRO set in the background and doing nothing (etc). I've just been preparing a shot taken at ISO 800 on the camera for a magazine, and it's good enough to pass as am ISO 200 shot from an A100/200 generation sensor with nothing more than sensible ACR conversion parameters. But I have also been looking at ISO 200 images from the 550 which look worse.

Looks to me as if Sony are requiring to issue a firmware update to address this inconsistent noise issue - i.e. remove the low ISO noise. I would not mind if at the same time they added Program Shift. Thanks in advance.