Any new A-500/A-550 users out there yet?

[oneguy]

Someone did a comparison of A550 vs A700 (from dpr forum).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ktc01/s...955346/detail/

[TCav]

Originally Posted by oneguy

It looks like A550 has less noise but less detail too, but after increasing color saturation to A550 images, they look much better.

Apples and oranges.

All the shots from the A700 were shot at 1/50, f/5.6, and ISO 6400. The shots from the A550 were all shot at 1/40, f/4.5, and ISO 3200.

The A550 has less noise at ISO 3200 than the A700 has at ISO 6400. Duh.

The images from the A550 have less detail even though they were shot with a higher resolution image sensor because they were shot at a different aperture.

This is meaningless.

[JimC]

oneguy:

We're prefer it if you did not embed images in posts that you did not take yourself here.

So, I've removed the img tags and left the links instead.

But, from what I can see of the EXIF and embedded thumbnails, you're posting 100% crops of ISO 6400 photos from the A700 and 100% crops of ISO 3200 photos from the A550. ;-)

Also, sharpening was increased on the A700 (and sharpening is going to make noise more apparent). I haven't looked at more detailed maker notes data in the EXIF yet, but I suspect DRO was turned on, too (increasing noise levels even more). Exposure is also different. IOW, those conditions were not very well controlled if you want to compare image quality.

[oneguy]

Originally Posted by JimC

oneguy:

But, from what I can see of the EXIF and embedded thumbnails, you're posting 100% crops of ISO 6400 photos from the A700 and 100% crops of ISO 3200 photos from the A550. ;-)

Ops. The 100% crops were wrong. I removed the links. The original pictures on flickr are correct though.

[TCav]

Originally Posted by oneguy

Ops. The 100% crops were wrong. I removed the links. The original pictures on flickr are correct though.

Ok, now we're talking.

At ISO 6400, the images from the A550 are sharper where this is no texture (i.e.: text on book spines) but while the images from the A700 are noisier, they contain more detail if there is texture (i.e.: woodgrain). The images from the A700 have more noise in out of focus areas, but, again, the apertures are different, so the lens' sharpness and the depth of field would be different for the images from each camera, so it's difficult to be precise. I prefer the images from the A550.

At ISO 3200, the differences are much more subtle. I have no preference.

[oneguy]

It would be interesting to see how the 12 MP A500 does against A700. Some have speculated it might be better than A550 due to less pixels, but no evidence for it yet.

[TCav]

Originally Posted by oneguy

It would be interesting to see how the 12 MP A500 does against A700. Some have speculated it might be better than A550 due to less pixels, but no evidence for it yet.

More pixels means more detail. And even if it does also mean more noise, each individual errant pixel contributes less to the total image, so there would have to be A LOT more errant pixels in a 15MP image to make the entire image worse than an equivalent 12MP image.

[oneguy]

Pretty negative and angry review (the conclusion part)

http://www.alphamountworld.com/revie...ha-a550-review

[oneguy]

A500 might not be that bad choice after all. About $200 cheaper and appears to have better low ISO than A550.

[kethineni]

Hi Guys, I just joined the forum today, I bought a new A550 last week. I am new to SLR photography, so far, I am loving it. So many features to play with ! Image quality is astounding !