Alpha 580 at 1000, night scene

[David Kilpatrick]

This is one of the last week's shots (as ever, you'll realise that I am aiming for stock editorial use - a scene like this would be improved by postman in shot, but there were so few gaps in the traffic that was not possible). Alpha 580, 50mm f/1.4 original 1985 Minolta AF, autofocused, programmed exposure and auto ISO and auto WB. Result 1/80th at f/2 at ISO 1000, though I have to say the previous nearly identical shot was at 1600 and I can see no material difference in the results (it's just not as well framed as this one, a bit too tight). The focus point was on the front wing of the van but there is sufficient depth of field to see plenty of detail in the logo, the windscreen tax etc discs.

Process - ACR 3.3 after running the A55/A580 Windows bat file to change the camera identity of the raw files. Some degree of tone and contrast adjustment, plus a calibration shift in the camera profile to make the red yellower than it was (the street lights made it rather magenta-pink which is not right). Sharpness 25, radius 0.5 (minimum) detail and masking 0; NR 25, Luminance Detail 50, Chroma NR 25, Chrome detail 50.

Full pic small, 100% section full size.

[David Kilpatrick]

Just to follow up here is a 100% clip from the in-camera JPEG (default out of the box settings) of the 1600 shot. I think this is focused more on the Royal Mail crest and logo. I know some have criticised Sony for JPEG quality and for NR, but this is pretty remarkable for a 1600 ISO night shot (and you'll just have to believe me what I say it betters the Canon 7D/550D/60D by a long way). I think the sharpening is quite aggressive, and looks more like detail sharpening than USM. The NR is simply very effective with neutral shadows showing almost zero noise.

[bossel]

The new Sony sensors and software are really good! Though I have to do some more tests concerning détail, sometimes I feel the NEX JPG isn't that perfect ...

[bfitzgerald]

NR is down to taste. Sony do seem to have improved it quite a bit over previous offerings (not hard really my A200 sucks for jpegs over ISO 200)
Personally I prefer some noise and more details. I'd still like to see a NR "off" or a very low level on Alpha cameras.

I can't comment much on the Canon 7d as my time was brief with one..but some of the comparison low light jpeg shots I have seen do leave this one very much open to debate.

[alphaomega]

Rumour would have it that the Police were waiting to fine drivers with a "snow top" like the one carried by the postal van. £60 + three points in the license. Maybe the driver had an excuse, could not reach up and parcels had to be delivered. Apart from that it is encouraging to see that the A580 performs. Surely at some stage Adobe will incorporate A560/580 RAW conversion into LR and ACR.
Having to

Process - ACR 3.3 after running the A55/A580 Windows bat file to change the camera identity of the raw files.

is beyond me and then at every new RAW folder created.

[David Kilpatrick]

Ref the conversion thing - I have a small netbook with an SD slot. I just stick the card in the slot, copy the two files required into the shooting folder on the card, run the bat file and come back a while later to get the card and copy it as normal on to my Mac.

It is possible that when 'real' Alpha 580 conversion arrives it will be better, and unlikely it will be worse. But I don't mind altering these files, what I'm getting is good enough for me.

David

[bakubo]

Process - ACR 3.3 after running the A55/A580 Windows bat file to change the camera identity of the raw files.

Did you mean ACR 6.3 RC?

[David Kilpatrick]

Yes, sorry, getting my LR and ACR numbers mixed. I just think of them as x.3

David

[Dr. Harout]

Any direct comparison with a55 ?

[David Kilpatrick]

Very similar, I think that apart from a slight difference in ISO speeds, it's hard to tell the cameras apart from the raw file when both are treated identically. I had a feeling the A580 was a bit softer in detail sharpness, and it does look as if the JPEG is rather over-sharpened to compensate for a possible softness.

My only issue in choosing between the two cameras is the very different feature set - all they have in common is the sensor and the primary formats (RAW and movie). Mirrorless operation with GPS, EVF and a fully swivelling rear screen makes for a very different camera compared to conventional SLR, no GPS, tilt only rear screen.

I will be using the A55 because I can interpret the viewfinder well enough and I am comfortable with it. Shirley will use the A580 because she prefers the OVF and is used to working that way. It does outperform her A700 in many ways, it's not as good in others but she likes to shoot things like animals and candids, and for this the extra resolution and high ISO freedom count in a big way.

David

[bfitzgerald]

Looking over the reviews I've read most of the jpeg weaker points seem to appear at around ISO 1600 and above. So at ISO 1000 it seems it's decent enough (on this sample shot). Going higher up may be more revealing.

[stevecim]

How does the A580 compare to the A550?

[David Kilpatrick]

The A550 is comparable, like the NEX-5, it's just a lower resolution. I think the 16 megapixel file is a slight improvement relative to its pixel pitch, but it would be very hard to know which camera any of our recent shots from A550, A580, A55, NEX-5 had come from unless told. I certainly would not have spent the roughly £300 involved in upgrading from A550 to A580 unless I needed to keep up with the camera models.

David

[OneGuyKs]

Both A55 and A580 address the ISO 100 issue with A550. A55//A580's ISO 100 should be cleaner than A550's ISO 200 for sky noise. Apart from that, video, MLU, DOF preview, are added to newer models.

Are you planning to post A580/A55 review on the site?

[David Kilpatrick]

Yes, a review is in the making.

David