To start with full disclosure, I own an A550 and love it. I owned an A300 and liked it very much, but was disappointed with its low-light performance. So the A550 was a no-brainer. Still, I try to be as objective as I can.
My distaste for the DPR review of the A550 is based primarily on the final verdict. While "Recommended" seems a fair opinion standing alone, it is unfair by comparison when just about every competitor gets "Highly Recommended".
Why do I care? Not because it affects my self-esteem. I'm quite happy with my purchase. But because it WILL discourage people who could and probably should be getting the camera from doing so. And why do I care about that? Because increased sales for Sony means more lenses and accessories for me.
However, my complaint with the DPR review goes beyond the final verdict. If you read the entire review, it does not seem very fair/objective. Almost every positive point is either followed by a very strong caveat or treated as relatively unimportant. By comparison, other camera's weaknesses are treated better! Read the review of the Nikon D5000 to see the difference. There, they will admit this is a camera that is odd and either hit or miss, but it's clear that they happen to love it. The Sony, on the other hand, they do not love. I guess they are entitled to their opinion. But a rare "Recommended" verdict is a pretty harsh consequence for such a subjective factor.
I've seen plenty of speculation as to why Sony "crippled" its A550. In fact, I think I see their strategy now. The A550 is NOT a crippled A700. It is not intended to be an enthusiast camera, although enthusiasts can enjoy it. It is intended to sit at the top of the entry level market. In the entry level market, people don't care about MLU and the like. And they don't want complicated cameras. But they do want performance and features. The A550 has both of those. What features would an entry level audience want? Things like usable Live View and handheld HDR mode. (Video, too, I guess. I don't understand why Sony kept this out; but I personally don't care.)
I say all of this with some sadness. I no longer consider myself an entry-level market kind-of-guy, so it hurts to admit I bought an entry-level camera -- even if it's the cream of that crop.
However, I don't have regrets because an enthusiast's camera would never work for me. Why not? It's not that I don't want MLU or am afraid of advanced controls. The main thing for me is that I don't like using the optical viewfinder. I have glasses, which makes looking through the viewfinder difficult and unenjoyable. And I have astigmatism, so I can't simply get a diopter correcting eyepiece. I'll use the OVF occasionally, but I don't like it and would never give up my Live View. So what I want is the best Live View camera money can buy. That's the A550.
If an A750 that included true Live View were announced tomorrow, I would have regrets. But I don't expect that to happen. Why? Because the world of photography enthusiasts, including reviewers, doesn't seem to value the feature very much. It's not just a feature that can be added and ignored; it involves a trade-off -- a smaller OVF. Most enthusiasts don't want to make that trade-off -- they'd always rather have a larger OVF -- so Sony would be stupid to include Live View in a 700-level camera. If I'm right, then no matter how great the A750 will be, it still won't be the camera for me. And I know this is true because I had the opportunity to buy the A700 at about the same price -- or less -- than the A550, but I didn't. I was tempted, but in the end, I realized that I need Live View.
It's apparent that I'm idiosyncratic in these parts, so I have to live with options that are less than ideal for me. A blend of the A550 and the A700 would be ideal, but it probably will never exist -- or at least not any time soon.
But that said, let me reiterate how much I love my A550. Aside from Live View, low-light performance, speed, and HDR mode are excellent. The ergonomics -- both physical and electronic (i.e., menus) -- are also very good. And I have not had IQ problems of the sort people discuss, except a tendency to overexpose by 1/3 stop (which I can easily correct). Most of the stuff people complain about doesn't bother me. I would almost never use MLU; I find DOF preview to be a relic; and program shift can be re-created by using Aperture mode. What I really would like in the A550 are more physical controls (especially two dials) and the ability to program custom configurations of settings (for easily moving from outdoors, to indoors, to studio). The A550 isn't bad in any respect -- it's much better than the A300, which I liked, in every respect -- but it could be better. It could be more enthusiast-friendly.
So I can understand where enthusiasts who do not care about Live View can frown upon the A550. But that's because it wasn't built for you. It just happens to be such a good entry-level camera that it is worth your consideration.
It's not a crippled enthusiast camera; it's an entry level camera on steroids -- and the best Live View camera money can buy. And if that's the case, it doesn't deserve a relatively horrible verdict. (And yes, in a world where everything gets Highly Recommend, Recommended is a horrible verdict.)
My distaste for the DPR review of the A550 is based primarily on the final verdict. While "Recommended" seems a fair opinion standing alone, it is unfair by comparison when just about every competitor gets "Highly Recommended".
Why do I care? Not because it affects my self-esteem. I'm quite happy with my purchase. But because it WILL discourage people who could and probably should be getting the camera from doing so. And why do I care about that? Because increased sales for Sony means more lenses and accessories for me.
However, my complaint with the DPR review goes beyond the final verdict. If you read the entire review, it does not seem very fair/objective. Almost every positive point is either followed by a very strong caveat or treated as relatively unimportant. By comparison, other camera's weaknesses are treated better! Read the review of the Nikon D5000 to see the difference. There, they will admit this is a camera that is odd and either hit or miss, but it's clear that they happen to love it. The Sony, on the other hand, they do not love. I guess they are entitled to their opinion. But a rare "Recommended" verdict is a pretty harsh consequence for such a subjective factor.
I've seen plenty of speculation as to why Sony "crippled" its A550. In fact, I think I see their strategy now. The A550 is NOT a crippled A700. It is not intended to be an enthusiast camera, although enthusiasts can enjoy it. It is intended to sit at the top of the entry level market. In the entry level market, people don't care about MLU and the like. And they don't want complicated cameras. But they do want performance and features. The A550 has both of those. What features would an entry level audience want? Things like usable Live View and handheld HDR mode. (Video, too, I guess. I don't understand why Sony kept this out; but I personally don't care.)
I say all of this with some sadness. I no longer consider myself an entry-level market kind-of-guy, so it hurts to admit I bought an entry-level camera -- even if it's the cream of that crop.
However, I don't have regrets because an enthusiast's camera would never work for me. Why not? It's not that I don't want MLU or am afraid of advanced controls. The main thing for me is that I don't like using the optical viewfinder. I have glasses, which makes looking through the viewfinder difficult and unenjoyable. And I have astigmatism, so I can't simply get a diopter correcting eyepiece. I'll use the OVF occasionally, but I don't like it and would never give up my Live View. So what I want is the best Live View camera money can buy. That's the A550.
If an A750 that included true Live View were announced tomorrow, I would have regrets. But I don't expect that to happen. Why? Because the world of photography enthusiasts, including reviewers, doesn't seem to value the feature very much. It's not just a feature that can be added and ignored; it involves a trade-off -- a smaller OVF. Most enthusiasts don't want to make that trade-off -- they'd always rather have a larger OVF -- so Sony would be stupid to include Live View in a 700-level camera. If I'm right, then no matter how great the A750 will be, it still won't be the camera for me. And I know this is true because I had the opportunity to buy the A700 at about the same price -- or less -- than the A550, but I didn't. I was tempted, but in the end, I realized that I need Live View.
It's apparent that I'm idiosyncratic in these parts, so I have to live with options that are less than ideal for me. A blend of the A550 and the A700 would be ideal, but it probably will never exist -- or at least not any time soon.
But that said, let me reiterate how much I love my A550. Aside from Live View, low-light performance, speed, and HDR mode are excellent. The ergonomics -- both physical and electronic (i.e., menus) -- are also very good. And I have not had IQ problems of the sort people discuss, except a tendency to overexpose by 1/3 stop (which I can easily correct). Most of the stuff people complain about doesn't bother me. I would almost never use MLU; I find DOF preview to be a relic; and program shift can be re-created by using Aperture mode. What I really would like in the A550 are more physical controls (especially two dials) and the ability to program custom configurations of settings (for easily moving from outdoors, to indoors, to studio). The A550 isn't bad in any respect -- it's much better than the A300, which I liked, in every respect -- but it could be better. It could be more enthusiast-friendly.
So I can understand where enthusiasts who do not care about Live View can frown upon the A550. But that's because it wasn't built for you. It just happens to be such a good entry-level camera that it is worth your consideration.
It's not a crippled enthusiast camera; it's an entry level camera on steroids -- and the best Live View camera money can buy. And if that's the case, it doesn't deserve a relatively horrible verdict. (And yes, in a world where everything gets Highly Recommend, Recommended is a horrible verdict.)
