Previous page Next page

Resolution Chart Comparison (JPEG and RAW)

Images on this page are of our standard resolution chart which provides for measurement of resolution up to 4000 LPH (Lines Per Picture Height). A value of 20 equates to 2000 lines per picture height. For each camera we use the relevant prime lens (the same one we use for all the other tests in a particular review). The chart is shot at a full range of apertures and the sharpest image selected. Studio light, cameras set to aperture priority (optimum aperture selected), image parameters default. Exposure compensation set to deliver approximately 80% luminance in the white areas.

What we want to show here is how well the camera is able to resolve the detail in our standard test chart compared to the theoretical maximum resolution of the sensor, which for the charts we shoot is easy to work out - it's simply the number of vertical pixels (the chart shows the number of single lines per picture height, the theoretical limit is 1 line per pixel). Beyond this limit (which when talking about line pairs is usually referred to as the Nyquist frequency) the sensor cannot faithfully record image detail and aliasing occurs.

This limit is rarely attained, because the majority of sensors are fitted with anti-aliasing filters. Anti-aliasing filters are designed to reduce unpleasant moiré effects, but in doing so, they also reduce resolution (the relative strength and quality of these filters varies from camera to camera). In theory though, a sensor without an AA filter, when coupled with a 'perfect' lens, will deliver resolution equal to its Nyquist limit. Therefore, even though it may be effectively unattainable with normal equipment in normal shooting situations, an understanding of a sensor's theoretical limit provides a useful benchmark for best possible performance. Nyquist is indicated in these crops with a red line.

On this page we're looking at both JPEG and Raw resolution. For a (more) level playing field we convert the latter using Adobe Camera Raw. Because Adobe Camera Raw applies different levels of sharpening to different cameras (this confirmed) we use the following workflow for these conversions:

  • Load RAW file into Adobe Camera RAW (Auto mode disabled)
  • Set Sharpness to 0 (all other settings default)
  • Open file to Photoshop
  • Apply a Unsharp mask tuned to the camera, usually 100%, Radius 0.6, Threshold 0
  • Save as a TIFF (for cropping) and as a JPEG quality 11 for download
JPEG (4912 x 3264) 4.0MB RAW (4912 x 3264) 4.2MB

Vertical resolution

JPEG
RAW

Horizontal resolution

JPEG RAW

The A55 makes good use of its 16 megapixel resolution and shows some detail up to approximately 3000 lp/ph which puts it in a similar ballpark as the 18MP Canon EOS 550D and a step ahead of the 12MP Nikon D90. The JPEG output is also fairly clean and free of artifacts and moiré.

A little bit more detail can be drawn out of images shot with the A55 in RAW mode but the improvement isn't that dramatic. More moiré patterning and slightly better vertical resolution are the two most obvious differences compared to the default JPEG output, but RAW files stand up to post-capture sharpening rather better.

Previous page Next page
180
I own it
7
I want it
111
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 6
sowow

I can only confirm that at least the first generation model is totally unreliable.
As others described often enough the camera would just turn off mid shooting, with only the first half of the shutter sound (shutter count 32k).

Sony insists on charging you for replacing the Shutter unit, which will likely die again within the next 15-50k.

Design flaws can happen, but Sony Customer Service is just terrible. Definitely not going to buy into their systems.

0 upvotes
Ranjansanath

It seems Sony A55 is very unreliable camera.

While I was taking photos, camera suddenly went black Fully dead. I verified battery is 100% charged.

I tried to contact the repair centre and no feed back. I am very much frustrated as my friend who took Cannon at the same time with me has had no issues with his and I have many other friends ho use Nikon never had issues with their cameras. I feel sorry for my decision to go for SONY DSLR.

1 upvote
BobFoster

I think that the fixed mirror means the cameras are relatively small -- 23 per cent smaller and 26 per cent lighter than the Sony Alpha DSLR-A550, to be precise. They're very light, but with a solid and comfortable rubberised grip.

2 upvotes
47872Mike

It does, or rather, did. Strangely, Sony decided, presumably for sound commercial reasons, to delete this body shape when they released the current model, the A58, which is bigger than the A55, 33, 35, and 37 which were all this shape. I like my cameras small (as well as light) so this shape definitely interests me more than the A58.

1 upvote
hrbaca

I love it. It is easy to use and I have never had any mechanical issues with it. I especially love the rapid shooting feature. My grandchildren never stay steady for a second. With this feature, I can go back and delete the frames I don't like. I also used it at professional sporting events at a great distance using the zoom lense with great success. I've also used the portrait function for stills. Great camera!

2 upvotes
MARMITE

I have not had a good time with this camera. Just over a year after buying it the camera stopped working and SONY charged me £117 for the repair. Now just 7 months later the camera has a different fault and will not focus or take photos. Sony want a further £117 for repairs!! I feel this is not what i expected from a camera at this price and SONY are not interested in the fact that possibly I have a poor quality camera. I would NEVER recommend a Sony camera to anyone

1 upvote
Total comments: 6