Sony Alpha A200 any good?

Have you ever used a DSLR camera before? Why are you getting one and what are your intentions with it?

Just so we know roughly what you need :)
 
Yes, it won the TIPA 2008 award for entry level DSLR http://www.tipa.com/awa_detail_2008...&-Table=web&-Database=awards_&-KeyValue=32939

Sony got their DSLR expertise basically by buying Minolta's imaging division so there are millions of Minolta AF/Sony Alpha mount lenses available.
Imo for the current prices (you can get body only for ~£230) it's hard to beat.

As always though , get to a shop & try handling the different cameras to find what suits you best as there isn't a bad current DSLR.
 
I won't say millions of lenses, Minolta always had good camera bodies, but it fell short on glass as a system. It is why Canon and Nikon are the choice for most people.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I won't say millions of lenses, Minolta always had good camera bodies, but it fell short on glass as a system. It is why Canon and Nikon are the choice for most people.
Click to expand...

This is the trouble for Sony and the other smaller makes no matter how good the bodies are and no matter how greater value for money they look in the long term it's cheaper and easier to buy into the Canon or Nikon systems if you want to have the easiest upgrade routes. Sony have been making some great strides in the glass area recently but they still lack the value for money options in the Cannon/nikon lines. Third party lenses are always an option and sigma in particular seem to be supporting all the different mounts pretty well.
 
If Sony stick to the photography game and not pull out, it'll take them decades to catch up to Canon/Nikon for the entire Glass package. Sure you can rely on Sony and it's 3rd party lenses, but with Canon/Nikon you look at those 3rd party lenses as an option AFTER you decided that they are cheaper than the Canon/Nikon equivalant. Plus at the moment Sony don't make pro camera bodies, so whilst the entry level camera give you lots of bang for your bucks, after collecting a few lenses, you'll stuck if you want something like Full Frame, or something more pro.
 
[RoGu3^SoLd13R];12107402 said:
Is the Nikon D40 any good?
Click to expand...

It is an excellent camera for starters (or so says a lot of people who recommend them on forums) - but certain lens that doesn't have a auto-focus motor (usually the cheaper ones) wouldn't auto-focus when added to the Camera.

However, the D40 is still a favourite choice of many to start off into the DSLR - the Nikon route.

Canon however, in my opinion have better route in the "cheaper" DSLR department, solely for any Canon Fit lens will fit (I'm taking about the EF-S Camera range) Have a look at the 350D, 400D or even the 450D. The 10D, 20D, 30D and 40D are much better make cameras, with the 30D and 40D abit out of your budget.

Best thing is to pop into a camera shop and try either the Canon or Nikon and have a feel, which is better e.t.c. Mostly larger hands photographers go with the Canon whilst the daintier hands go for the Nikon.

As said above, Nikon and Canon have so much more lens to offer than what the Sony and 3rd parties can off. However! If you're just looking for cheaper but better than compact camera photography, the Sony is a good one to go for. You'll be limited by the lens range but you can still upgrade from time to time depending on what's on offer.

Also have a look at the Fuji S1 (?), apparently that takes Nikon fitting lens on its body.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I won't say millions of lenses, Minolta always had good camera bodies, but it fell short on glass as a system. It is why Canon and Nikon are the choice for most people.
Click to expand...
there are something like 16 million Minolta AF lenses in circulation plus those made by Sony, Sigma, Tamron etc.
Canon got to where they are because they bought the professional news market (it's no secret that they gave or lent an awful lot of product out & other marks chose not to).

Minolta lenses were just as good & often better than CaNikon.
The current Minolta/Sony 70-200mm f2.8 SSM is probably the best (certainly better than the Canon, the Nikon is possibly a tie) & the Sony 24-70mm ZA is definitely better than the Canon or Nikon.
True there aren't as many of the really esoteric lenses but that doesn't affect 99% of people (plus some like the 400mm f4.5 & the 600mm f4.0 are expected to reappear).
There will be several new Sony lenses at Photokina plus a FF body.
There are already plenty of pros slavering at the chance of a FF body plus Zeiss glass - they turn up on Minolta/Sony forums regularly (the UK Zeiss importer has now started stocking Sony as well).
Want a stabilised f1.4 - Sony can give it to you in a couple of focal lengths, can CaNikon?

It won't take Sony decades to catch up with CaNikon glass for the simple reasons that:
a) they have the resources should they choose to use them
b) existing lenses in all mounts are already being shown up by sensor developments meaning that CaNikon etc. are having to replace existing glass as well.
c) they don't have to make non-IS & IS versions
 
Last edited:
BUFF said:
there are something like 16 million Minolta AF lenses in circulation plus those made by Sony, Sigma, Tamron etc.
Click to expand...

Not in circulation, i mean in production and current range.

As for Sony "will" do this and "will" do that, that is a very vague and hopeful outlook, by the time they start R&D, announce and then production, you would have missed god knows how many shots. And they might not choose to make them, certainly they don't have the use base like Canon/Nikon to justify the more exotic lenses to make the accountants happy, so the chances of getting some really really fast lenses like a F/1.2 or some ultra wide or long lenses.
 
Someone in the market for a £300 DSLR probably doesn't need to factor in the availablity of £4000 500mm f4 or £1200 50mm f1.2 lenses into the equation when choosing a camera.
 
NinjaBill said:
Someone in the market for a £300 DSLR probably doesn't need to factor in the availablity of £4000 500mm f4 or £1200 50mm f1.2 lenses into the equation when choosing a camera.
Click to expand...

Nor did I want to spent £700 on a 24-70 2.8 either when i first got into film camera on a £250 EOS 300, you never know what the future holds.
 
Raymond Lin said:
As for Sony "will" do this and "will" do that, that is a very vague and hopeful outlook, by the time they start R&D, announce and then production, you would have missed god knows how many shots. And they might not choose to make them, certainly they don't have the use base like Canon/Nikon to justify the more exotic lenses to make the accountants happy, so the chances of getting some really really fast lenses like a F/1.2 or some ultra wide or long lenses.
Click to expand...
They already have f1.4 lenses (& stabilised on a a Sony DSLR so that at least accounts for that extra .2).
1 of the lenses being launched at Photokina is a 16-35ZA which is fairly wide for a FF lens, there is already a 16mm FF prime & an 11-18mm for APS-C.
Canon wides are nothing to right home about, Nikon are better sorted there - there is not 1 perfect system out of them all.

The end that is currently hurting for Sony is the long end but the 70-400mm G SSM is supposed to launch in August & we wouldn't be at all surprised to see the return of a refreshed (it already existed as a Minolta) 600mm f4.0 (why would Sony need it before they had a FF body, on APS-C it's 900mm effective in 35mm terms) & the 400mm f4.5.

Imo Sony are (rightly) concentrating first on the needs of the 99% of users.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
True to some extend, but then Sony is not high on the list of providing every thing the user needs.
Click to expand...
what does the user need?

On a Canon or Nikon as you trade up bodies you have to change storage format & batteries - that's not too user friendly is it? On Sony they are standard across the range.
Every Sony DSLR has wireless flash built in, not so CaNikon.

I've just spent some time this afternoon compiling a comparison of Nikon & Sony's lens line up & there really isn't a massive difference (& indeed Sony have some lens types that Nikon don't have).
Where there are gaps (principally as I mentioned earlier in "super telephotos") in many cases the designs, tooling etc. already exist from Minolta days & would just need a cosmetic update into Sony's design style.
However, that doesn't appear to be the way that Sony are working, they are also improving as they update. Sony have stated several times that they will have a 40 lens line up & Nikon only have ~47 including at least 3 announced but that haven't shipped to market yet.
The days of people saying that Sony don't have the glass having a valid argument are not long for this world (indeed you can easily argue that for the majority it's already nonsense).
& of course when you take into account that every Sony lens is stabilised on an Alpha body then Sony have more stabilised lenses than either Canon or Nikon or indeed probably both put together.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom