sony alpha a200

Andy77

Andy77

Messages
2,543
Name
andy
Edit My Images
No
hi peeps has anybody got any feedback on this camera and if its any good, as a relative of mine is thinking of buying one?:thinking::thinking:
 
I got one a few months ago, it won loads of awards. I'm very happy with it considering i have some mates that brought into the Nikon range with D40's and now they are crying that they have to spend extra on lenses cos the D40 doesn't have a motor in the body. Swings and roundabouts really though, any of the entry D-SLR's are worth the price. It's what feels good in your hands and fits your budget. All the phots in my flickr are taken with a Sony a200.
 
it's as good as any entry level DSLR & probably better than most.
As Sarin says ergonomics are important & what suits 1 person may not another so if they haven't already been get them to a shop where they can handle different bodies.
 
I think mine does exactly what I needed it to do. For me it was a good camera to get back into SLR photography on the budget I had. It has plenty of features to allow for experimentation and produces some good images.

If you have not handled it, try one and some other makes in a shop. I was convinced I would go for an Olympus E510, until I tried one.
 
I was given one for christmas, and so far, so good..
I'm a complete newbie, and it seems pretty easy for me to work my way around it.

As for Value for money- there are some cracking deals going on with them at the minute.
 
Complete newbie here too, got my A200 back in Sept 08. Loving it and since have got a 18-250 lens and am taking it will me when I travel Oz / New Zealand for 6 months soon.
 
I owned an A200 for just over 3 months as my first SLR, and it is a very good beginner camera. The advantages of inbuilt stabilisation, slightly bigger screen than alternatives and slightly better comfort (IMO) make it a great choice.

But, the main thing you need to consider is the lens systems and where you aim to go with photography. If you have a collection of old Minolta AF glass, then it is a great choice.

I sold my A200 because it was an impulse purchase, and after doing some proper research and trying out several mid-range SLRs (40D, D90) I just preferred the feel and operation of them, and since I had only purchased one lens for the A200, it wasn't much hassle to sell my equipment and buy a Canon 40D.

But, don't get me wrong, the A200 is a great choice, although you can't go wrong with any SLR from Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax etc because it is the lenses where you make the investment.
 
I bought one in December. I am a returning SLR user as my previous SLR (for those with long memories) was a Canon AE1 film camera.

For the money, the Sony is brilliant. Most reviews seem to conclude it's the best entry level camera.

However, I was very disappointed with the stock lens that came with it (18-70mm zoom). The lens feels poorly made and the image quality was OK, but frankly disappointing versus the £100 compact digital camera I'd upgraded from.

The good news, as someone has already pointed out, is that all the old Minolta AF lenses work perfectly on it, so, thanks to EBay, I have the following collection of old Minolta glass:

35-70mm zoom (£25), 70-210mm zoom (aka 'beercan') (£150), 50mm f1.7 'prime' (£112).

The prices in brackets are what I paid on Ebay for them. The 35-70mm is great value and an excellent lens!

All these lenses give very noticeably better results than the stock lens and feel much better built. The beercan is my favourite - it seems to give the sharpest and most 'luminous' colours results.

The prices for these used lenses, particularly the more desirable ones, seems to be going consistently north as more Sony cameras are bought. So the plus, probably, is that if you 'invest' in the old glass you will be able to sell it for more than you paid for it in the future, should you need to!

The only good thing one can say about the stock lens is that it zooms down to 18mm wide angle, and I haven't yet found affordable old Minolta wideangle lenses, so it stays in the collection, if only under sufferance!

HTH!
 
This is a fantastic entry level camera. I changed over from a canon 400D to the sony a200 just because I felt more comfortable with the sony and it had the AF motor built in. The SSS (Super Steady Shot) allows you to step down a couple of notches and really offers the beginner a very steady and reliable platform to get back into or start DSLR photography. I agree that lenes seemed to be the issue, but more and more are becomming available and there are plenty out there to satisfy the beginners needs. You can put a cheap lens on a very expensive camera and get a reasonable shot, but if you put a good lens on an entry level camera you can get a great shot. Lens are the system you are buying into and that is where the expense is. The kit lens that comes with the camera provides some good pictures and should not be written off as "not worthy". Look around in flickr or similar and you will see some cracking shots with the kit lens. I can reccommend this camera as a good un(y)
 
Gazbag said:
The kit lens that comes with the camera provides some good pictures and should not be written off as "not worthy". Look around in flickr or similar and you will see some cracking shots with the kit lens.
Click to expand...
You're right. There are many more skilled practitioners than me and I'm not saying the stock lens is awful - just that it didn't get me the image quality improvement versus a £100 compact that I was hoping for (given my limitations as a photographer)!

I can definitely say that the quality of the images I've shot with the old Minolta glass on the Sony are definitely much better quality in terms of sharpness and sometimes colours too, than what I get from the kit lens.

When I bought the camera one of the reasons for going Sony was that the stock Sony lens zoom range was wider than the other brands. That's a point in its favour I guess.

Does anyone have any comparisons between the different brands' stock lenses? If they're much of a muchness in terms of IQ then I guess my criticism of it is unjustified, and indeed, because it covers a wider zoom range, the Sony stock lens actually becomes a positive!
 
Just throwing it out into the thread, but I recently purchased the Sony SAL18250 lens (18-250mm f35/6.3) as I'm going traveling and wanted an all round lens.

I have to say I am super impressed! Build quality is leagues above the kit lens and the picture quality is very very good across the range. You need to knock it down to f8/f11 at the zoom end to get it sharp but once done its excellent. Nice an weighty too.
 
petersboulton said:
Does anyone have any comparisons between the different brands' stock lenses? If they're much of a muchness in terms of IQ then I guess my criticism of it is unjustified, and indeed, because it covers a wider zoom range, the Sony stock lens actually becomes a positive!
Click to expand...
overall they are much of a muchness - after all they are produced down to a price.
Having said that the Sony 18-70mm is starting to show it's age as it was fine for 6Mp but at ~15Mp on an A350 it's flaws can become visible (this is normal e.g both Canon & Nikon recently updated their kit lens for similar reasons).
However, 1 of the Sony lens concepts at PMA looks to be a new kit lens.
 
I got a a300 and have no issues with it. I just need the 18-250 lens for it but cant afford it. Have the standard lens that came with it and also bought the 55-200 lens, but am trying to get rid of both for the one 18-250 lens. I recommend Sony as a good entry level camera. No probs with it so far!
 
Sarin said:
I got one a few months ago, it won loads of awards. I'm very happy with it considering i have some mates that brought into the Nikon range with D40's and now they are crying that they have to spend extra on lenses cos the D40 doesn't have a motor in the body. Swings and roundabouts really though, any of the entry D-SLR's are worth the price. It's what feels good in your hands and fits your budget. All the phots in my flickr are taken with a Sony a200.
Click to expand...

I wasn`t crying, but if i had to choose again i`d go for a different nikon e.g D90 or D300 def not a Sony lol.
 
everybody has different requirements but e.g. an A700 will compare very well to a D300.
Yes, ultimately the D300 is a little better but it's also nearly twice the price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top