Camera Labs

Hi guys,

I was browsing the Internet for anything I can find on the A550 and I ve come across this:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/a500/

http://thepicturedesk.blogspot.com/2009 ... -last.html

From the look at these 4 pics and specially the one that uses ISO 1600, looks really good. If that is the case, then Sony has done a great job.

_________________
Sony, Nikon & Fuji

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fproduction/

The size of those photos have been reduced quite significantly. The largest is 1024x709, which is 1/16th of a 14 MP sensor. Such size reductions tend to reduce noise since 16 pixels are being averaged to form 1 pixel.

I'd wait for the full size images before coming to any conclusions.

_________________
PhilipGoh.com

Found these today,

An ISO comparison between MK D7, A700, A900 & A500 (I am assuming that the A550 will be the same as the A500).

http://www.artaphot.ch/dslrs/201-jpg-no ... d-dynax-7d

http://www.artaphot.ch/dslrs/202-jpg-lo ... -dynax-7d-

_________________
Sony, Nikon & Fuji

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fproduction/

Looks like the A500 is the first Sony SLR with a decent JPG engine. Especially on high ISO the noise reduction seems to do a much better job if you compare it to the blotchy colors of the A900 and A700. I doubt that many will shoot just JPG with an A900 though, the 'real' sensor performance test should be done with RAW results in my opinion.

_________________
Fujifilm X-E1 - XF 18-55mm - XF 55-200mm - XF 14mm - Lowepro Rover AW II - Think Tank Retrospective 5

Looks promising. I think Sony need to push out an update to the A900 as it's quite strange to see an APS-C camera outperform a FF camera.

_________________
PhilipGoh.com

Someone did a comparison of A550 vs A700 (from dpr forum).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ktc01/sets ... 46/detail/

correction: removed the 100% crops. A550 were ISO 3200 and A700 were ISO 6400).

I had a go at the A500 yesturday and to tell you the truth I was really disappointed with the way it felt and the way the menus were displayed. For example the mode dial felt plasticy and cheap (I was worried I was going to break it). the grip was even smaller than my A300. (Even the Nikon D3000 & D5000 that were next to it felt better in my hand). The menus on my A300 are really simple, easy to use and perfectly displayed on the whole screen. On the other hand the A500 menus' felt like that I was looking at a compact camera's menu.
Do not get me wrong, I am not saying that the A500,550 are bad cameras (I love the tech they have) but to me its got to feel right in my hands. I think what I m trying to say is that I might wait to see what the A700's successor would offer.

_________________
Sony, Nikon & Fuji

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fproduction/

The bad noise issues is the only reason why I am changing camera makers to Nikon.
I find that the second I shoot over 200ISO I get noisy images. I've shot with a D700, D3000 & D3 at uni and when put next to my a200 and another students a900 the second we shoot above 200ISO the Sony's just for a simply word SUCKS. using a light meter to set exposure as well.

_________________
http:/dowdenphotography.com/
Camera: who cares its the photographer
Lens: Lots

D3000 pics that I saw were not that impressive. I predict A550 will do better than D3000. As for D700, that’s $2500 FF with only 12 MP. If you resize A900's 25 MP photos into 12 MP, and then compare both (i.e at equal resolution), I suspect A900 might be able to compete till ISO 1600 and even ISO 3200. And A900 beats the crap out of D700 at ISO 400 and lower.

If thats the case why is it that next to none Sports photographers use the Sony a900 but more than half at any sporting event will have a D700?

Don't get me wrong, I like the sony cameras, I own one and will keep one around until I retire, but the High ISO issues that the sonys have make it a poorer camera.

I haven't use a D3 yet, but matched next to a a900 I bet the D3 wins hands down.

_________________
http:/dowdenphotography.com/
Camera: who cares its the photographer
Lens: Lots

D3 costs twice as much as A900. Go to imaging-resource, download the files and view them at equal 12 MP resolution. You can't compare noise when one is 12 MP and the other one is 25 MP. It will be closer than what you think if viewed at equal resolution, at least till ISO 1600 and maybe even 3200. At ISO 400 and lower, A900's 25 MP photo will have far more detail than D3. As I said, it will beat the crap out of D3 at low ISO.

Yes you can, and should. What do you think happens when you print? That's right, your 12 MP image is going to print into the same area as the 25 MP image. This doesn't just apply to print, but also to web publishing. Let's face it, you're not going to publish an image at 12 or 25 MP on the web and then let force your customers to view them at 100%, right? Your 12 or 25 MP file is going to get resized down to 600x400 or something for display in a webpage.




The D3 and A900 target different markets. If the A900 didn't do well at low ISO speeds, then it's failed at it's job. Similarly the D3 is targeted at high ISO high fps shooting, where MP count doesn't really matter.

_________________
PhilipGoh.com

That's right. When you print the photos at equal size, both D3's 12 MP and A900's 25 MP images will print into same area. That's why you should compare them at equal resolution. Or print them at equal size and compare the print. If A900's ISO800 image shows more noise on your computer screen, that does not mean there will be more noise if both are printed on equal size paper (say 8 x 10)

How about you try this and let us know? Download the files from imaging-resource, and print them equal size. The result will be closer than what you see on your computer screen. I doubt that you will see any difference till ISO 1600, even if you see it on the computer screen at full resolution.

There is a reason why cameras like the D3 exist, they fulfil a different function. If what you said were relevant, Nikon and Canon would not be making such cameras. The A900 does not shoot or AF as fast as the D3 and it's not designed to. You are also forgetting the fact that the larger pixel pitch brings an increase in DR which cannot be replicated with the A900.

_________________
Graham
Flickr

That's irrelevant to the topic though. The person that I responded to was talking only about noise, not FPS and AF speed. Note the word the "ONLY REASON" in his post. That only reason was noise, not AF speed and fps. Strangely he also mentioned D3000, not the most impressive high ISO performance there.

Sony makes sensors for almost all Nikon cameras (not including D700/D3). The "better" noise on cameras like D90/D300 is probably due to better jpeg engine. The RAW should be similar to Sony A700 (v4 fw) that has the same sensor as D300. Sony just needs to improve the jpeg engine, which isn’t as good as Nikon. So let's see if they did any better with A500/A550.

Gordon said he will post high ISO comparison soon.