Those look great!

Any chance you will have photos of the same exact subjects under the same conditions in your review to compare to the A550? Also, is the difference in quality between the A500 & A550 really that noticible or only under pixel peeping?

Jeff

Mentioned in a thread somewhere that a whole load of test images were lost in my A550 review, but I retained many others I had taken. The test subject controlled condition images were lost, sigh. I didn't know they were lost till the A550 went back to Sony.

Sorry I won't be able to post exact side by side samples.

I find that yes pixel peepers are going to be happier with the A500 files. I'm actually working on some raw files right now with the new ACR release, they look very good. Not A900 good, but very good.

Carl

You made me click to pixel peep:) :) :) That 3.2 sec ISO200 shot is very nice and clean!!
Thanks for the pictures. Don't stop... keep posting 'em :)

~P

Interesting results on ACR.

I'm seeing some seriously good DR at ISO 200. I'd not be surprised if DXO put the A500 at or very near the A900.

That to me is the most fun about the tests so far. Details look great at ISO 200, some sharpening needed at base sharpness level in the camera which is good actually. Not over sharpened to compensate for loss of detail because of NR processing on the Jpegs.

Good stuff on the A500.

C

I pester you agian, with the same issue as always - which camera to buy, a700 or a500?
I would really like your advice on this. Which camera do you think would make me happier? I am a current a300-owner, and I very often use jpeg's (Is that a bad thing?). I am (as many) not that much of a fan of the jpegs of the a300, and definately not the higher iso's. I do wedding images, studio portrait and boudoir. I love Live View, but would sacrifice it any day for IQ. I do pretty fine with the creative work in Photoshop, but not that great on the (rather boring) postprocessing of noise and so on. I would love to go FF, but the money is an issue and my minolta lenses would probably not be on par (Beercan, 50 1.7, 28-75 2.8). I would really love to have the "perfect combo" of these lenses and a camera.
Maybe your answer will be "go RAW" - maybe I will then.
I have been very close to buying a700, but maybe the a500 will be a great (enough) improvement in image quality to me - a simple a300 user?
It seems to me a700-users use post processing a lot - with good results - but is that because they have to? Are the jpegs right out of the box that bad? Yes control is nice - but if things were perfect from the camera, that would be ok, wouldn't it? Then I could concentrate on the more creative work in Photoshop. In other words: will a700 images need a lot of PP magic to make good images?
Thanks in advance
/Martinus

You had A550 fot weeks but I don't remember you posted any images. Too bad you lost A550 images, though. It would have been nice to see a comparison.

Yesturday I had a couple of issues on some office party photos, to say the least. But something new came to light during my request for help on another thread. My A300 ISO goes from 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200. I learned that A700 folks can select ISO's between 400-800, which appears to very useful. Does the A5xx have marginal selections like the A700?

Also, why does the A5xx start at 200 ISO, what does that mean in practical terms for shootng in low or indoor lighting. For example, if I take a photo indoors and have the Ap set tp 2.0 and the camera gives me a speed of 60 = good exposure with ISO at 100; does that mean on the A5xx I'll get Ap set at 2.0 and a spead of (guessing) 125 = good exposure at ISO 200?

As you stated before, Alphas are tend to underexpose, and I was wondering, as it seems for me that my body always strives to reach down to ISO 100 in auto, although an ISO 400 would be clearly better, which I fix in RAW in Pp. But if thed A5xx is only going down to ISO 200 that may help grab a brighter picture?

Ill set up the still image shots that I did in the A550 review and try those on the A500.

Carl

This may convince me to stick with Sony. I don't need much; clean ISO to 1600 will do just fine.

I am excited to see your A550 comparison

I had a blast with it last night, ill have to recommend people do what I did with it last night, at least for fun. It raises the bar of the A550/500 becoming fun and interesting cameras to use for indoor/parties, etc.. Pretty impressive.

Carl

"Does the A5xx have marginal selections like the A700?"

No the A500/550 do not have 1/3rd stop ISO settings like the A700. And the A700/850/900 all have 1/3rd stop ISO settings from 100-6400. Or you can use the control wheel and change in one stop settings just like the lower end Alphas do (which is pretty standard).

"Also, why does the A5xx start at 200 ISO"

I mentioned the answer to this in the review, but basically because the new sensor and processor are optimized for higher sensitivity, the A500/550 apparently do not benefit from ISO 100 (even a fake ISO 100), according to Sony... so it was left out.

"As you stated before, Alphas are tend to underexpose, and I was wondering, as it seems for me that my body always strives to reach down to ISO 100 in auto, although an ISO 400 would be clearly better, which I fix in RAW in Pp. But if thed A5xx is only going down to ISO 200 that may help grab a brighter picture?"

Not quite following you on this one... I don't think. But while on this subject ill say that Alphas do a great job at protecting highlights, which is probably the best overall solution when metering. They are just very protective :) lol.

I don't use auto anything that often, in fact quite rarely.

Carl

I'll try and clarify, because I really need to be better educated on this ISO stuff. Let me try it this way. Are the exposure settings the same sensitivity (hypothetically) at ISO 200 for both the A300 and A500, or is the ISO for the A500 the new ISO 100.

or

When my Aperture is constant on my A300 (50mm 1.7) I can increase my shutter speed from say 60 to 125 by increasing my ISO say from 100 to 400, so I can get a clean shot. On the A500, will my shutter speed already be markedly better because it starts at ISO 200 (assuming the same aperture)?

or

In apples to apples comparison, can I get a faster shutter on the A500 because of ISO sensitivity?

I probably made a mess of this, but I am trying my best to get a handle on minimum requirements for best picture. Kinda like when we are all at home and trying to figure out what is the lowest speed we can have with SuperSteadyShot and get a sharp picture.
Thanks
Daniel

I am new to the AMW site and I am completely overwhemled by the knowledge on this site. If I can learn to take pictures like those with my a500, it would have been money well spent. Now I just need some serious lenses.

First HDR shot attempt

Sony 18-70mm lens, ISO - 200, f/8
-------------------------------------------------------
Non HDR shot

Sony 18-70mm lens, ISO - 1600, f/36

Let me try it this way. Are the exposure settings the same sensitivity (hypothetically) at ISO 200 for both the A300 and A500, or is the ISO for the A500 the new ISO 100.

If companies play by the iso 'rules' all cameras expose the same at iso100, 200 &c. It's nearly true, but not quite: the DxOmark site (among others) tests for sensitivity, and often finds that different brands' actual exposures imply something else (usually slower). I'm looking at their a700 review, hovering over their chart shows iso1600 exposes like it's iso1170. Values are usually close at 100, but if you go by percentages the A700 value of 119 is 19% off!
I believe that's getting to your point about what the numbers mean?

Not an expert but I think this is not a shot that needs HDR.

It seems that your non HDR shot is just over exposed.

HDR would mainly be used for a shot where the dynamic range of the image was too wide for the sensor to properly record. This shot does not appear to fit those parameters but is just over exposed. Granted the HDR shot looks better but you would be better practicing the proper exposure which will help when you do need HDR to help with the dynamic range.

You should get a better image from as properly exposed shot than from an HDR capture when HDR is not necessary. That is a nice image though.

JMO.

Tom Power

Just out of curiosity it looks like you might have had DRO set at 4 or 5 for the non HDR shot - this could also give it that over exposed "look".

The A500 is now $699.00 body only and the A550 is $899.00 body only. Although only $50.00 less each body, the price drop gets both cameras much closer to competing with the competition at these prices. I think this is a good call by Sony at this time.

Carl

Edited (I typo'ed a550 instead of a500 initially as 699.00 .. I've had this problem while writing the A500 review as well... thank you Kevin)

Yes, $899, even though only $50, looks/feels much different than $949 :)

They should have started with this price!

By the way, you were going to post the comparison shot of A500 with A550 sample that you do have. What happened there?

I am writing a full review on the A500, I am not done with that review yet. That's what's happened there.

I thought that was evident here?

Carl

I have to admit, I choked a bit when I dropped $949 for the A550, but I needed it for this coming week so no regrets. That said, I did think it was overpriced and still is overpriced. I like the camera a lot, but being under $900 has a psychological effect of being much less expensive at $899 than $949. I would imagine in less than a year the price of the A500 will drop to $599 and the A550 to $799.

This price drop should help spark some holiday sales... Good move by Sony, but they should have started off at this price and may have helped make the perception of a value much greater.

I think you meant A500 is now $699.00 and the A550 is $899.00.. (On Sony USA the A550 is still $949.00)

Also I looks like they are still offering the A700..

Anyway
See YA
Kevin

I did mean A500 instead :). Typo's- gotta love em.

C

I am surprised to see a price drop on the 5XX series so soon. Man, $699 for an A500 is awfully tempting...

So for those of use who just purchased the camera, do you think Sony will be willing ot give us a gift card for the difference? Man, it hasn't even been out 35 days and a price drop already?

Hey Tom,

Thanks for the feedback and any feedback to help me get better, as I am not an expert by ANY means, lol. This is my first camera since my sony point and shoot over 7 years ago and that was primarily for my new baby.

The DRO was on auto, so I am not 100% sure what it turned out to be. However, you did give me a topic to really research and understand, so that I can speak to it soon :-)

This is a very interesting thread over at Dyxum:

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/hi-iso-comparison-a500-vs-a700-vs-a350-vs-km5d_topic55429.html

The 500 definitely has a different look than the 700, but I can't say it's "better"