Sony A330 Thread (or a230 and a380)

Rustico

Rustico

Messages
1,194
Name
Rucel (but call me Rusty)
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello, everyone!

Well, I have been reading some forum threads and reviews and have come to a conclusion that the a330, a230 and a380 were Sony's biggest waste of a camera. And so, in the hopes of lightening up the subject, I've been wondering how many of us a330 owners there are on this forum and why you bought one of the trio. I'll start us off...

Last year I knew I had to get a DSLR, as my bridge camera had issues and it just wasn't doing what I wanted it to. I started looking around and around and around... and pretty soon I got dizzy. But out of the confusion three cameras came out: the Canon Rebel XS (EOS 1000d), the Nikon d3000 and the Sony a330. I had a friend who had the XS but I didn't like the ergonomics and it felt quite plasticy and cheap (even though it was as expensive as the Nikon). Discarded the Canon. I liked the Nikon quite a lot, except that I was worried about the menus. After reading reviews I gathered that the menus, especially when shooting, while interactive, were a bit clumsy. Plus, I didn't like the menu color options or the screen resolution. Sounds silly, but I discarded the Nikon. I looked at the Sony last because I thought it would be best to buy one of the better known brands. As I looked over it and watched video reviews, it grew on me more and more. I liked the tilt screen, live view the in-body image stabilization, and the fact that I could buy used Minolta lenses, which are cheaper. I went to Walmart and Target (are these only American stores?) and had a play with it. I liked the grip and the way it handled. Besides all this, it was also some 70 USD cheaper than the Canon or Nikon.
I bought the Sony.
And I have been happy with it ever since.

Would anyone else like to explain why they bought theirs?
Comments? Questions?

-Rustico
 
Rustico said:
Well, I have been reading some forum threads and reviews and have come to a conclusion that the a330, a230 and a380 were Sony's biggest waste of a camera.
Click to expand...
I realise that you are being ironic but for those who aren't familiar:
the A230 & A330 have a very small grip that not everybody likes (you are obviously OK with it)
because of that they have a small battery so not the best battery life (still hundreds of shots)
Sony simplified things for beginners by removing a few features (like MLU) that more advanced users may complain about but I doubt few moving up from P&S did
they use CCD sensors so great IQ (imo better than CMOS) at low ISO but get noisier as you increase ISO far faster than CMOS.

& on the other hand Sony has had the lowest entry price for a DSLR for quite a while - you can currently get a brand new A290 with 18-55 for £264 - & the fastest focusing Live View by far as well as built in IS & wireless flash.
 
Last edited:
Ah, yes. Thanks for clearing that up! And, while the a290 is IMHO one of the ugliest and fattest DSLRs out there, what makes up for it is the uber cheap price.

Oh, and re-reading what you quoted me saying, what I meant was that the forum threads and reviews have come to the conclusion, not me. :) oops.
 
To be honest I didn't mind the look of the a230, a330 and a380.

I own the a300 which of course isn't one of the trio but I was originally going to upgrade it to one of the trio. They seem great cameras and the only thing that lets them down in the lack of buttons and controls, I wouldn't see the grip as a problem because it's something that some will like and others will hate so that's really just a preference thing.

All in all I liked the trio and wouldn't hesitate to recommend one to a beginner on a budget however the new a290 and a390 seem to be a bit better :)
 
Rustico said:
Ah, yes. Thanks for clearing that up! And, while the a290 is IMHO one of the ugliest and fattest DSLRs out there, what makes up for it is the uber cheap price.

Oh, and re-reading what you quoted me saying, what I meant was that the forum threads and reviews have come to the conclusion, not me. :) oops.
Click to expand...

I'm kind of staggered that anyone would care what a camera looks like. You could paint my a850 pink and write "I'm a bell-end" over the name and I'd still love it for it's performance and functionality.

Really, if you want something pretty hanging round your neck you'd be better off spending the money on a woman! ;-)
 
:lol: True! I like how the a330 looks; but maybe I overstated my opinion of the a290. Really, it's not that ugly, just fat and not as beautiful as the models offered by other manufacturers. But if you like the performance, etc. of the camera, why should care what it looks like?
 
I've actually got the a200. More because I wanted one to shoot birds on a weekend in the garden than get into it more serious! Although anyone who can recommend a 2nd lens other than a tamron 28-200 I would be very greatful!
 
Sony_SoFar said:
I've actually got the a200. More because I wanted one to shoot birds on a weekend in the garden than get into it more serious! Although anyone who can recommend a 2nd lens other than a tamron 28-200 I would be very greatful!
Click to expand...

Depends on budget but you can look at the Minolta 70-210mm f4 which is a great starter telephoto lens. Alternatively invest in a Sony 70-300mm G SSM :)
 
Tamron 70-300 SP at ~£350 looks to be the new mid-market bang for buck option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top