Sony A560 tested at DxOmark

DxOmark added the test results of the Sony A560. As you can see from the image above the performance is very close to the NEX-5 whereby it shares the same sensor. The Sony A560 is currently in Stock at Amazon US (Click here) but not in Europe.

P.S.: Take a little bit of time to read the following article at Luminous Landscape: “An Analysis by Peter van den Hamer“. It explains how DxO tests the cameras. And those are just a few interesting info from the article:

“newer models generally outperform older models. In particular, the newest APS-C models (Nikon’s D7000 and Pentax’ K-5 and Sony Alpha 580) outperform the older 1.3× sensors and even most full-frame (1.0×) sensors due to a significantly lower noise floor.
The performance of the mirrorless Sony NEX-5 is in line with its 1.5× APS-C sensor. Its mirrorless design and its use of an electronic viewfinder have no impact on image quality: a classic SLR swings its mirror out of the way during the actual exposure. So the lack of a mirror doesn’t affect image quality.
The Sony Alpha 55 , with its notable semi-transparent^[4] mirror, performs roughly as you would expect given its APS-C sensor. But because its semi-transparent mirror doesn’t swing out of the way, 30% of the light never reaches the sensor. Note the performance gap between the Alpha 55 on the one hand and the Nikon D7000 or Pentax K-5 or Sony’s own Alpha 580: the higher score (lower noise) of the latter group could be explained^[5]by the light diverted by the Alpha 55’s stationary semi-transparent mirror.“

Via DxOmark

Thanks Chester

New Sony A55, A580 and A850 reviews!

Smart patent: How to add a foldable grip to compact cameras.

shu

3 years ago | Reply

Do we still not know the availability for the A560? I haven’t seen a formal release date ever since it got pushed back last fall…

Carl

Hopefully they’ll make a NEX with the 580′s sensor.

Red

They’ll make a NEX with A77′s sensor!

Catastrophile

you didn’t include the A33 in your comparison. very interesting that unlike in the A580/A55 comparison, the A33 is only lower in the low-light ISO score (591 vs 817 for A560) the DR and color scores are actually slightly better for A33 (12.6 & 22.8), overall score the same = 70. I find the differences between this A560/A33 comparison and the A580/A55 comparison, very striking, and conclude that A55 might have more than its translucent mirror to blame for the lower than A580 scores (especially the DR and color scores in that comparison which are significantly lower for A55 whereas in the A33/A560 comparison, A33 is slightly better in those 2 areas)! Maybe the sensor and other image pipeline component (eg ADC) of A55 is not exactly the same as that of A580.

Myst
3 years ago | Reply

The difference it’s basically the same cause the a33 has a ISO value of 78 at ISO 100 and the a560 has an ISO value of 119 at ISO 100 hence the better performance of the a33 (both Color Depth and Dynamic Range are calculated for the lowest value)
So no real difference between a55/a580 and a33/a560 the mirror affects the translucent cameras a bit, but i would challenge anyone to spot the difference in real life shots
- Catastrophile
  3 years ago | Reply
  
  sorry i don’t agree Myst, DR’s of A55/A580 are 12.4/13.3 respectively while DR’s of A33/A560 are 12.6/12.3 respectively also. so while A55′s DR is lower than A580 by 0.9, A33 DR is 0.3 higher than A560, similar story in the color depth measurements. I put the 4 main DXO scores (overall, color, DR, ISO in this order) of the 4 cameras hereunder and the numbers speak for themselves:
  A580 80 — 23.8 — 13.3 — 1121
  A55 73 — 23 — 12.4 — 816
  A560 70 — 22.5 — 12.3 — 817
  A33 70 — 22.8 — 12.6 — 591
  - Myst
    3 years ago | Reply
    
    You didn’t understand a33 has a lower ISO value at ISO 100 than the a560
    check out the results for ISO 400 and above and you will see the a33 falling behind in the same manner the a55 fell behind the a580
    Those scores are that way because a33 exhibits a lower ISO value (78) at ISO 100 while a560 has a value of 119 at ISO 100. You do know that ISO values are not exactly 100 200 400 800 etc. there is bound to be a variation
    - Catastrophile
      3 years ago |
      
      zig-zagging aimlessly or for whatever purpose in discussion is not something that I appreciate or get involved in. what i said was very clear from the very beginning, it’s above, there for those who can understand it.