A580 vs A55 resolution

[OneGuyKs]

A korean site tested A55 with and without mirror. They also tested A580. A55 scores slightly higher for resolution without mirror, but the score with mirror was identical to A580. I think the mirror does some AA function or something. And A55 has sharper photos than K-5 at base ISO too.

A55 no Mirror



A55 Mirror



A580

[bakubo]

Now this is what I call pixel peeping and measurebating to the max!

[OneGuyKs]

Now this is what I call pixel peeping and measurebating to the max!

Yeah, but there are posters here proclaiming great cost to resolution and contrast by the mirror, but they can't seem to demonstrate where that is. A55 has sharper photos than K-5 and identical resolution to A580. The only con to IQ that I have seen is at ISO 1600 and up.

[bfitzgerald]

As both models are using the same sensor it would be impossible for the A580 to score the same as the A55 with the mirror. Unless there are differences to the sensor or AA filter.

You could try a reputable site for some tests rather than some unknown one. But even so the differences in resolution with 10mp + models are almost irrelevant for real world use.

[OneGuyKs]

As both models are using the same sensor it would be impossible for the A580 to score the same as the A55 with the mirror. Unless there are differences to the sensor or AA filter.

You could try a reputable site for some tests rather than some unknown one. But even so the differences in resolution with 10mp + models are almost irrelevant for real world use.

SLRClub is reputable site. There is visible difference between 10 MP and 16 MP. There seems to be none between SLT and SLR though.

[bfitzgerald]

SLRClub is reputable site. There is visible difference between 10 MP and 16 MP. There seems to be none between SLT and SLR though.

Going from 10mp to 16mp is not a huge leap it's incremental as are most things. It's even less obvious than going from 6mp to 10mp was (and I know as I have both 6mp and 10mp models) It most def was not like going from 35mm to MF film..more like going from ISO 200 to ISO 100 film. More resolution yes, welcomed yes but not as mind blowing as some would make out.

Back to the A55 that site has shots of the mirror down and up and you can clearly see more details in the crop shot of the SLT with the mirror up. So it really depends on how much pixel peeping you want to do or what you think of the said site. It also shows some light loss (as expected and predicted)

How the A55 competes on res numbers v it's rivals is probably only adjusted by a weaker AA filter to compensate for the translucent mirror (that is the only logical explanation for getting the same res numbers as the A580) If only all buying choices were about res charts and tests we'd have a much easier life. Unfortunately there are many factors involved, handling, design, layout and usability are also important. No test can really hep here.

[UrsaMajor]

As both models are using the same sensor it would be impossible for the A580 to score the same as the A55 with the mirror.

I disagree. If the designers were clever, they could have taken into account the characteristics of the semi-transparent mirror (I refuse to use Sony's erroneous terminology) and compensated for it in the anti-aliasing filter or the sensor shield - possibly in conjunction with the contour of the back of the mirror.

To use an analogy, your statement is equivalent to saying that a multi-element lens cannot be as sharp as a single-element lens because there is more glass in the optical path.

Frankly, I question whether Sony even attempted to do this, but I do not consider it "impossible" for it to be done.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

[OneGuyKs]

Going from 10mp to 16mp is not a huge leap it's incremental as are most things. .

From 10MP to 16 MP is a small but visible jump up. SLT vs DSLR isn't a visible jump (at least at lower ISOs). That contradics your constant harping about the cost to IQ by SLT mirror that you have been doing for a week.

Unfortunately there are many factors involved, handling, design, layout and usability are also important. No test can really hep here.

Yes, and that's why A55 and A33 are best in class.

[bfitzgerald]

From 10MP to 16 MP is a small but visible jump up. SLT vs DSLR isn't a visible jump (at least at lower ISOs). That contradics your constant harping about the cost to IQ by SLT mirror that you have been doing for a week.
Yes, and that's why A55 and A33 are best in class.

A cost is a cost you can argue it's "small" or "not that much" but clearly it is beyond debate that the translucent mirror does impact IQ. It's does take some light away and it does reduce resolution/sharpness. I'd agree it's not huge but it is there. Can't change that however you dress it up.

As above the only logical explanation is a lighter AA filter..that's if the test is accurate.

Having handled an A55 I would not describe it as best in class handling wise. We can debate the pros and cons of models and even spec sheets. I'd suggest anyone who wants fast fps on a budget, and who likes EVF's, and wants AF with video do check it out. But it's time to stop pretending the A55 is a flawless gem.

[OneGuyKs]

Another site confirms SLRClub finding

http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... 24425.html

"Because not all light on the 16-megapixel image sensor meets incident, we have the image quality expected disadvantages. But this is not so: The image resolution is high, even higher than the Alpha 580, Which uses the same sensor and high in the ranking sets the image."

[OneGuyKs]

Having handled an A55 I would not describe it as best in class handling wise..

I do not care what you would describe. Kx has inferior IQ (despite no mirror), color moire, and worse handling. So what? If you don't care about my description, nor do I care about yours. You changed the topic. The topic was that A55 and A580 scored identical on resolution test in SLRClub testing. That contradicts the repeated claims that mirror has huge cost to resolution, contrast, etc.

[bfitzgerald]

I do not care what you would describe. Kx has inferior IQ (despite no mirror), color moire, and worse handling. So what? If you don't care about my description, nor do I care about yours. You changed the topic. The topic was that A55 and A580 scored identical on resolution test in SLRClub testing. That contradicts the repeated claims that mirror has huge cost to resolution, contrast, etc.

You should care because I don't agree with you..and unlike some folks I'm absolutely staggered you feel the need to run a whole scale marketing campaign for Sony on this and other forums.

My needs are not yours I want good jpegs with NR control out of camera, the ability to customise a camera to the way I want it, a full feature set that is geared to my stills shooting in preference to video shooting (which is a nice but non essential add on) Frankly I couldn't care less if you bash the K-x because I think it's a better camera than anything Sony have out there right now (it's far from perfect granted) at that price point (they have nothing to compete with it really bang per buck)
Again your idea of handling might not be mine.

Now we reach another interesting point..if Sony are using a lighter AA filter or rather a heavier one on the A580 then clearly they are favouring the SLT range by their use of the sensor/AA filter. So Sony are deliberately crippling the A580 sensor wise (albeit in a minor way)..that makes for an interesting debate on it's own. I'll repeat again you would be misleading people by suggesting there is "no IQ hit at all" to translucent. There is and it's been shown..it's minor but you cannot deny there is absolutely no impact on IQ.

[mike2008]

Baz why not go off to the pentax forums to wax lyrical.

[Greg Beetham]

So far it's not making much sense to me, if the additional optical membrane was perpendicular to the light from the lens I could possibly understand the results, but as it's at an angle I don't get yet how it could deliver an improved image over a camera without one at all, ostensibly using the same sensor.
Greg

[pakodominguez]

But it's time to stop pretending the A55 is a flawless gem.

Flawless gem? probably not. But Times magazine name the A55 on of the best invention of 2010 (REF: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packa ... 99,00.html) actually, it is the only camera in the selection.

It has flaws? as any other camera. But I think Sony is doing more goods than odds, and I can feel enthusiasm in the industry thanks to the NEX and the SLT cameras. And I fear disappointment if the A700 successor is not that innovative.