Sony Alpha A200 any good?

Raymond Lin said:
I already went through the same debate 2 days ago...

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=71956&highlight=canon/nikon
Click to expand...
& some people disagreed with you there too.
I'm not saying that Sony have the perfect system either but it's in no way as crippled as you seem to believe & for the vast majority of normal people it offers far more than they need.
It may surprise you to know that there are already professionals using Sony DSLRs & as mentioned an awful lot more waiting with interest for the FF body.

Btw, there is a market of & for s/h Minolta/Sony (& Pentax & Olympus).
 
Last edited:
I have a mate who has a minolta camera, and is thinking of upgrading. he is always being steered away from the sony's when he goes to look at bodies. the sales guys always say that the canon and/or nikons are a better bet in the long run, they have a better choice of lenses, better choice of 3rd party support, and are expected to be better supported by the manufacturers. he has already had to replace most of his minolta lenses as they were proving unsuitable (soft, slow af etc. etc.) and ended up with a sigma 70-300 APO DG. at exactly the same time he bought it, another mate bought one for his nikon. the performance on the minolta is worse, slower to af, hunts more and seems softer. i know that's a generalisation, but it doesn't exactly give you great faith on a quick inspection does it? i can see both sides of the argument, and have given thought to buying a sony alpha body as the missus is a sony whore, but each time ask about them, they are very quickly dismissed in the shops i visit. it is almost as if the salesmen don't want to sell you a sony!
 
3dcandy said:
I have a mate who has a minolta camera, and is thinking of upgrading. he is always being steered away from the sony's when he goes to look at bodies. the sales guys always say that the canon and/or nikons are a better bet in the long run, they have a better choice of lenses, better choice of 3rd party support, and are expected to be better supported by the manufacturers. he has already had to replace most of his minolta lenses as they were proving unsuitable (soft, slow af etc. etc.) and ended up with a sigma 70-300 APO DG. at exactly the same time he bought it, another mate bought one for his nikon. the performance on the minolta is worse, slower to af, hunts more and seems softer.
Click to expand...
well optically they should be the same, however, Sigmas are known for having quite a lot of variation in product quality.
I presume that the Nikon version uses HSM but that the Minolta mount version doesn't (you also don't say which Minolta body & which Nikon so we could be comparing apples & oranges).

it is almost as if the salesmen don't want to sell you a sony!
Click to expand...
it's possibly more a case of that they want to sell you a Canon etc. more - when I used to work in camera retailing Canon used to incentivise branch sales staff to sell their products.
 
I know it's not a fair comparison really, just an observation. the only clue i got from a retailer is that "sony shafts retailers slightly less than customers..." which is a fairly damning piece of evidence, and something that has been whispered a few times recently....

don't take it as the gospel truth, but with a pinch of salt i'm guessing the guy wasn't a sony fan! minolta body is a dimage 5d, nikon is a d70s. the nikon is probably light years ahead tbh. but the point about the minolta lenses is what i regard as the killer. my mate has had to replace his whole lens setup as the older lenses simply weren't good enough, which kinda negates the lots of lenses about theory implied by others. zeiss lenses are a different matter i'm sure...
 
[RoGu3^SoLd13R];12105428 said:
Basicly I want my first dSLR for around the £300 mark

Will be using it to catch some birds in flight, out around Northumberland realy
Click to expand...

hmmm..

If birds in flight will be your primary use for the purchase, you seriously need to have a good think about what you'll need and be realistic about the end result.

I'm not saying that you're "running before you can walk" but to get good BIF shots does unfortunately require pretty good kit, preferably a sports body and a lens with very quick focussing. That is if you actually want to get shots where the subject is bigger than a tiny dot in the frame, its hard enough with £6ks worth of sports gear lol :D.

Being totally and truthfully honest, I'd say you need to spend around £1k to get kit capable of doing BIF well, and would produce quality images.
I'd say the most important aspect will be the lens, i'd recommend a Canon 400mm F5.6 L, which can be had brand new for around £600.. Its got the length you'll need, and the focussing motor is lightening, AND its very lightweight. There are cheaper non L zoom lenses which go up to 200-300mm for like £200, but they lack the focussing speed you will need for BIF, you'll end up being frustrated.
In terms of body, if you can stretch to it, get 40D body only off evil bay for around £400, failing that a 400D to get you started. bodies can be upgraded, glass is always good :D
 
^^

What he said, but saying that, I've got loads of seagulls and geese in flight shots with a mere Sigma 70-300mm on a cropped body Canon 20D (so slightly more coverage than a 400mm on a FF camera).

It's no where near sharp than the 400mm L but in good light, the shutter speed is easily higher than 1/250 for decent shots :)

So with a Nikon 40x, look for the Nikon mount 70-300mm APO Non-APO is ok but APO is preferable, as it is better optically) - that lens can be had for around 100inc if you look around.
 
As always it gets into a Canon/Nikon fanboy arguement...


I have a Sony A100 and I also have a Cannon 300d. I prefer the Sony by miles...

There are millions of lenses available second hand for the Sony range and the likes of Sigma and Tamron produce pretty good ranges of lenses if you prefer to buy new.
 
Gav said:
As always it gets into a Canon/Nikon fanboy arguement...


I have a Sony A100 and I also have a Cannon 300d. I prefer the Sony by miles...

There are millions of lenses available second hand for the Sony range and the likes of Sigma and Tamron produce pretty good ranges of lenses if you prefer to buy new.
Click to expand...
Too true..

I have a Pentax K100D (going to upgrade to the K30D when it comes out :D) and love it. My friend owns a 350D and we both agree that in our opinions the Pentax is the better camera. Also my friend has commented that the quality of the Pentax glass is so much nicer than his Canon glass (his 18-55 is about as sharp as Jade Goody and his nifty fifty fell apart!).

DSLR people don't seem to realise Pentax were once kings of the camera industry, and still make pretty damn fine lenses... I read somewhere yesterday in a thread recommended camera manufacturers that 'Canon and Nikon make very very nice lenses, and if you want to pay a little less then Pentax ones are reasonable'. This is rubbish! Pentax make some very very fine lenses (it has been suggested that the Pentax 'limited series' primes are some of the best AF lenses every made!)

With regard to the (supposed small) range of lenses available for Pentax - the bodys still use the same K mount as they have always done, meaning that EVERY lens designed for Pentax bodys will work even on the newest DSLRs. This opens up a massive second hand market of quality MF and AF lenses; along with the excellent current lens range from Pentax, Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss etc.
 
3dcandy said:
I know it's not a fair comparison really, just an observation. the only clue i got from a retailer is that "sony shafts retailers slightly less than customers..." which is a fairly damning piece of evidence, and something that has been whispered a few times recently....

don't take it as the gospel truth, but with a pinch of salt i'm guessing the guy wasn't a sony fan!
Click to expand...
tbh I think that in some cases it's a bit of sour grapes.
Afaik there is no doubt that Sony want dealers to carry a certain level & range of stock that many smaller shops don't want to commit to but I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing for the consumer. Those shops then complain that they can't buy at the same prices as companies who buy far, far more.

minolta body is a dimage 5d, nikon is a d70s. the nikon is probably light years ahead tbh. but the point about the minolta lenses is what i regard as the killer. my mate has had to replace his whole lens setup as the older lenses simply weren't good enough, which kinda negates the lots of lenses about theory implied by others. zeiss lenses are a different matter i'm sure...
Click to expand...
You mean a Dynax 5D?
Well, yes, the D70 is a superior body to the 5D but when KM brought out the 7D & 5D for whatever reason AF perrformance took quite a step backwards. If you use something like a Dynax 700Si that came out in the early 90s let alone something like a Dynax 7 from ~2001 (& at that time the fastest focussing SLR from any manufacturer) you can see/feel the difference.
The good news is that an A200 is something like 2x as fast for AF as the 5D & the A700 has been tested to have the best AF in it's class.

Again, without knowing exactly which lenses he had it's impossible to be sure but if he had the typical kit lenses then they were no better & no worse than any other manufacturers. Step up to the next level or the level beyond that & you get noticeably better but at more cost - again exactly the same with all brands.
& again common to all brands the 10Mp, 12Mp + sensors are now showing up flaws in lenses that were previously considered perfectly adequate or even good on ~ 6Mp/8Mp sensors which is why there are so many replacement lenses coming out from all brands atm.
There is a subforum on 1 of the main Canon community forums just for discussing converting other brand lenses to that mount & 1 of the lenses most commonly sought/converted to Canon mount is the Minolta Rokkor 58mm f1.2.

Gav said:
I have a Sony A100 and I also have a Cannon 300d. I prefer the Sony by miles...
Click to expand...
& I know someone that switched from a 350D to an A200 & much prefers it.
1 of the digital photo magazines just had a group test incl. the A200, the 400D, the 60D, K200D & a Samsung & the A200 won their group test.

The bottom line is that there isn't a bad current DSLR but that individually they may have different features (e.g. ergonomics, size, weatherproofing, a particular feature or availability of a specific lens) that may make 1 better suited to a particular individual's need than another.
As long as people end up buying what suits them best I don't care whether they buy a Canon, Nikon, Sony or whatever as long as they make that decision based on the true situation & not disinformation from people who in many cases really don't know the other systems.
I think that you will find that user satisfaction across all brands is similar.
 
If it's so great then how come canon and nikon have majority of the market? Why don't you see all the pro use them? And saying the kit lens is crap , i could've told you that beforehand, why do you think it goes for about £30 2nd hand. And How does your pentax compare to an L glass?
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
If it's so great then how come canon and nikon have majority of the market?
Click to expand...
Pentax clung onto the 35mm market too long before starting to release digital stuff, thus meaning people wishing to switch to digital were forced to move away from Pentax.
Raymond Lin said:
Why don't you see all the pro use them?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing for the same reasons as why Pentax don't have a big market share at the moment, namely people had to choose either Canon or Nikon if they wanted to shoot digital.
Raymond Lin said:
And saying the kit lens is crap , i could've told you that beforehand, why do you think it goes for about £30 2nd hand.
Click to expand...
Just because you know the kit lens is crap yourself doesn't reinforce your pro Canon argument ;)
Raymond Lin said:
And How does your pentax compare to an L glass?
Click to expand...
Well I guess that depends on the lenses you are comparing :)
 
I do agree with the majority of points...I did say it wasn't a direct comparison, more an observation really. the mate with the minolta however has found that all his older lenses perform badly with the switch to digital and has replaced the lot. he kinda wishes he'd tried a few more bodies now because in the long run he has saved nowt with sticking with minolta which swayed his choice in the first place. i like both his 5d and my mates d70s and my fuji s5600, but in different ways, but currently my choice is probably a 400d which felt best to my hands and had the features i want/need and like.
each to their own, and in my personal opinion, going the high street to try the cameras isn't probably the best bet - if you can find a knowledgeable smaller dealer you *may* get a more unbiased opinion
 
Raymond Lin said:
If it's so great then how come canon and nikon have majority of the market? Why don't you see all the pro use them?
Click to expand...

In Canon's case because they chose to effectively buy the press photographer pro market (which is also why Nikon's market share fell back when because they & other brands chose not to give stuff away to compete).

Also Canon's marketing is excellent (I used to work for them so have 1st hand experience) whereas Minolta's camera division made great gear but couldn't market their way out of a paper bag.
You will find some pros who use Olympus, Pentax & Minolta/Sony though.

And How does your pentax compare to an L glass?
Click to expand...
All the other systems have glass that can compete or better L glass depending upon the exact lens (no system has the best in everything).
 
Well if any of you care, heres a few I got with the Nikon D40x I bought

2686358835_8930544237_b.jpg


Bamburgh Castle

2686344653_5c3260c8ca_b.jpg


Stag Rock

2687143036_b80114ed2e_b.jpg


Stag Rock Waves
 
There are stacks of sports and press photographers who choose to use Canon off their own back, the 1D MkIIn was the best auto focussing digital back ever seen bar none, it was lightyears ahead of the D2x/D2H. All of Canons Telephotos had IS way before most Nikon lenses too, which is a big thing.

Everyone knows, that until recently Canon were well head with the Pro DSLR stuff, the D3 is changing that.

There aren't really any other companies selling telephoto sports/press stuff which competes with Canon/Nikon, Pentax lost their way with the pro stuff a long time ago, and most of their big lenses are mile behind Canon/Nikons. Take the pentax 600 F4, totally awful lens, 13lb, no IS, slow AF and soft at F4.

I don't think its fair to assume that press/sports photographers all use Canon because they're paid/given free kit, I know several football shooters who all use 1DMkIIn and have nothing to do with Canon, because its the best focussing body you can buy for sports, some of them are considering the D3 because its also a cracking camera, but they do so at their own will.


Its all just kit at the end of the day anyways, most DSLRs are P&S. Unlike my friend who takes 30 mins setting up his medium format camera :D

I have sleepless nights worrying what the light/weather will be like, not whether my lenses are sharp lol.
 
First image with the sunrise/set is awesome~ might want to photoshop that couple of flares on the right side of the image away? Bit more tidy that way :p
Edit: I would also crop just a tidy bit of the foreground, up to where the sun reflection is - bringing the horizon down a notch, keeping in line with the Rule of Third, sticking with the rules:)

As for number 2, Black and White is good but the crashing waves is almost the same contrast as the sky, making it disappear into the background... abit of punch in the contrast there might make it stand out? Or just stick with colour photo of it but selective on the colours? (Can't judge until I see the colour image)

Almost the same with number 3, those whites look like milk?

Keep snapping :)
 
Last edited:
Cheers for input, Just getting used to SLR camera and currently reading a few books in photography and have just em' "purchased" Photoshop Elements ¬_¬

Just having a bit of bother trying to slow down shutter speeds so i can catch some motions of the waves, I keep getting a over exposed image when i take the pictures, I usualy get a help message saying its either to bright or too dark. Any help would be appreciated :)
 
V-Spec said:
There are stacks of sports and press photographers who choose to use Canon off their own back, the 1D MkIIn was the best auto focussing digital back ever seen bar none, it was lightyears ahead of the D2x/D2H. All of Canons Telephotos had IS way before most Nikon lenses too, which is a big thing.

Everyone knows, that until recently Canon were well head with the Pro DSLR stuff, the D3 is changing that.

There aren't really any other companies selling telephoto sports/press stuff which competes with Canon/Nikon, Pentax lost their way with the pro stuff a long time ago, and most of their big lenses are mile behind Canon/Nikons. Take the pentax 600 F4, totally awful lens, 13lb, no IS, slow AF and soft at F4.

I don't think its fair to assume that press/sports photographers all use Canon because they're paid/given free kit, I know several football shooters who all use 1DMkIIn and have nothing to do with Canon, because its the best focussing body you can buy for sports, some of them are considering the D3 because its also a cracking camera, but they do so at their own will.


Its all just kit at the end of the day anyways, most DSLRs are P&S. Unlike my friend who takes 30 mins setting up his medium format camera :D

I have sleepless nights worrying what the light/weather will be like, not whether my lenses are sharp lol.
Click to expand...

A lot of the pentax and minolta/sony lens get very poor reviews these day. Just read a review on the Sony 70-200 2.8 Very expensive and very soft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom