sony a200 as an entry level...
Discussion
I have an A200, which I bought a couple of years ago, and have the 18-70mm kit lens which is a bit iffy, and the Sigma APO 70-300mm lens, which is very good value for money. It's an easy to use camera, not many frills but returns good results for the money. Thumbs up from me anyway.
The Alpha range of lenses is fairly comprehensive, and there seems to be plenty of third-party lenses on offer too - any old Konica Minolta lenses will also fit (Sony bought into the SLR market by aquiring said company). There'll never be as much choice as the Canon/Nikon brigade but unless you're going to be spending thousands on your hobby or going pro, I doubt you'll be left wanting.
The Alpha range of lenses is fairly comprehensive, and there seems to be plenty of third-party lenses on offer too - any old Konica Minolta lenses will also fit (Sony bought into the SLR market by aquiring said company). There'll never be as much choice as the Canon/Nikon brigade but unless you're going to be spending thousands on your hobby or going pro, I doubt you'll be left wanting.
I started off with Sony DSLRs.
The built-in stabilisation is great. Works better than most stabilised lenses I've used. And it saves you money on lenses because you can go for non-stabilised ones (my Tamron 28-75mm was fantastic with my Sony cameras, I got all my best photos with it).
BUT... And this is a very, very big but... ISO 400 sensitivity on the Sony A200/A300/A350 sensors is worse than ISO 3200 on my current Canon 50D (which is not especially known for ISO performance!)
If I couldn't use ISO 100 or at a stretch 200, I often didn't bother taking the shot because I knew it would turn out awful. I have some really good shots that are ruined by noise from ISO 400/800.
If you're just starting out with DSLR cameras, you may not mind this too much. But I guarantee it will become a problem soon enough.
BTW the newer Sony models are supposed to be far better in this respect. If I was buying a Sony now, I'd be looking at the A550.
The built-in stabilisation is great. Works better than most stabilised lenses I've used. And it saves you money on lenses because you can go for non-stabilised ones (my Tamron 28-75mm was fantastic with my Sony cameras, I got all my best photos with it).
BUT... And this is a very, very big but... ISO 400 sensitivity on the Sony A200/A300/A350 sensors is worse than ISO 3200 on my current Canon 50D (which is not especially known for ISO performance!)
If I couldn't use ISO 100 or at a stretch 200, I often didn't bother taking the shot because I knew it would turn out awful. I have some really good shots that are ruined by noise from ISO 400/800.
If you're just starting out with DSLR cameras, you may not mind this too much. But I guarantee it will become a problem soon enough.
BTW the newer Sony models are supposed to be far better in this respect. If I was buying a Sony now, I'd be looking at the A550.
thanks for the reply rasputin
tbh the 50d even on ebay is well out of my reach at the moment for a dslr with my level. i'm just hoping to find my feet and once i know what each thing does i can splash on something more monsterous.
i want to get into the hang of things and then move onto the nikon/canon's of this world. plus its something i want to know i'm going to stick at it or will it be another "fad" i like for a few months before its set into the corner
tbh the 50d even on ebay is well out of my reach at the moment for a dslr with my level. i'm just hoping to find my feet and once i know what each thing does i can splash on something more monsterous.
i want to get into the hang of things and then move onto the nikon/canon's of this world. plus its something i want to know i'm going to stick at it or will it be another "fad" i like for a few months before its set into the corner
dreamz said:
i want to get into the hang of things and then move onto the nikon/canon's of this world. plus its something i want to know i'm going to stick at it or will it be another "fad" i like for a few months before its set into the corner
Why not start with Canon/Nikon then? S/h 350D will be around the 200ish mark.If you like photography and start with a s/h Canon, your next move can be a new lens (eg something that interests you, either long or wide, or maybe a different type of kit lens (eg f2.8)) rather than new body.
I started on a Canon 300D to see if I would progress with my photography and invested in a decent lens over a few months. Next thing was upgrading the body to a 400D (this was 3(?) years ago). 400D does everything I want it to, so when I had some cash earlier this year I went for a new lens over a new better body.
So my point is why start with Sony when you can start with Canon/Nikon?
Buy it, it'll serve your purpose well.
The Sony's get a hammering on here by the Canikon brigade - ignore them, it's mostly brand loyalty/snobbery speaking. Sony bought Konica Minolta's Still Camera expertise and they have been producing High End Video cameras in there own right for years. The equipment is as good if not better than similar priced Canon or Nikon.
Don't underestimate the usefulness of In-Body Stabilisation. To get the same effect wth Canon or Nikon you need to buy stabilised lenses - and they ain't cheap.
The A200 is a very capable Entry Level Digital SLR, ideally suited for the beginner. Check out the reviews of it.
Dpreview are well respected: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra200/
High ISO noise can be an issue but by the time that really bothers you, you'll be looking to upgrade to a higher spec anyway.
If you don't take to the hobby then move the camera on.
There's an Alpha 200 on ebay at the moment with the 18-70mm kit lens and a 70-300mm telephoto currently at £244, another one at £265.
Neither have the 50mm Sony 1.8mm lens, which if it is a Sony, would cost at least £120 new.
For £250, for the kit you describe, you can't go wrong.
Of course you "could" go for a secondhand 350D, I'm sure it's a capable camera. 8mp and introduced in 2005, no image stabilisation.
Personally, I'd put my money into the newer, introduced in 2008, Alpha 200 with its 10mp resolution and image stabilisation.
The Sony's get a hammering on here by the Canikon brigade - ignore them, it's mostly brand loyalty/snobbery speaking. Sony bought Konica Minolta's Still Camera expertise and they have been producing High End Video cameras in there own right for years. The equipment is as good if not better than similar priced Canon or Nikon.
Don't underestimate the usefulness of In-Body Stabilisation. To get the same effect wth Canon or Nikon you need to buy stabilised lenses - and they ain't cheap.
The A200 is a very capable Entry Level Digital SLR, ideally suited for the beginner. Check out the reviews of it.
Dpreview are well respected: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra200/
High ISO noise can be an issue but by the time that really bothers you, you'll be looking to upgrade to a higher spec anyway.
If you don't take to the hobby then move the camera on.
There's an Alpha 200 on ebay at the moment with the 18-70mm kit lens and a 70-300mm telephoto currently at £244, another one at £265.
Neither have the 50mm Sony 1.8mm lens, which if it is a Sony, would cost at least £120 new.
For £250, for the kit you describe, you can't go wrong.
Of course you "could" go for a secondhand 350D, I'm sure it's a capable camera. 8mp and introduced in 2005, no image stabilisation.
Personally, I'd put my money into the newer, introduced in 2008, Alpha 200 with its 10mp resolution and image stabilisation.
for what i'm spending i feel i'm getting my bucks worth. i probably will move to the canonikon stuff eventually but till then i think this is more than sufficient. from the entry level dslr's on the market the a200 has been top or near there in alot of the review sites.
i do think there is a certain your paying for the name thing too - had this been one of the big two i think the price would've been 50-100 higher.
i do think there is a certain your paying for the name thing too - had this been one of the big two i think the price would've been 50-100 higher.
sgrimshaw said:
High ISO noise can be an issue but by the time that really bothers you, you'll be looking to upgrade to a higher spec anyway.
I'm not sure I'd write off ISO noise quite so easily. You need ISO flexibility when light starts getting low and where every stop counts. If ISO400 is bad, I'd pass on the body. It's a bit like having a car with no headlights, but a really good flash light from Pound Store. Why not just buy the car with the headlights in the first place?The A200 is a cracking camera, especially for the price. Had mine for a couple of years now. Only problem was with the kit lens dying on holiday.
Now its being used with the Sony 50mm F1.8 (which is a fantastic little lens), a Sigma 28-300, Sonys F42 flash and a 16gig CF card, and definitely does the job. I was asked by a friend to handle her wedding photography, and it handled absolutely everything without any problems. Okay, occasionally I wish I could have gone without the flash and used higher ISO/natural lighting, but the overall results have impressed everyone who seen the pictures so far, including the best man who runs a canvas printing business .....
Now its being used with the Sony 50mm F1.8 (which is a fantastic little lens), a Sigma 28-300, Sonys F42 flash and a 16gig CF card, and definitely does the job. I was asked by a friend to handle her wedding photography, and it handled absolutely everything without any problems. Okay, occasionally I wish I could have gone without the flash and used higher ISO/natural lighting, but the overall results have impressed everyone who seen the pictures so far, including the best man who runs a canvas printing business .....
dreamz said:
wedding
dreamz said:
what about a d50?
Nope!ISO noise means you'll end up putting everything into B+W to hide problems from whatever you shoot indoors without flash. If you can use flash, great. Knowing roughly what they go for, and if thats your budget, maybe D80 for that money.
dreamz said:
i've looking to pick up a 2nd hand dslr to start off
i've been offered an a200 18-70kit lens, an additional Tamron 70-300 lens, and a Sony 50mm f1.8 prime lens for £250
now i've read things about canon's and nikons but anyone got an opinion about the sony range?
As I said on TP i've been offered an a200 18-70kit lens, an additional Tamron 70-300 lens, and a Sony 50mm f1.8 prime lens for £250
now i've read things about canon's and nikons but anyone got an opinion about the sony range?
, at that price it's a stonking deal.The 50mm lens will continue to serve you well if in future you decide to get a better APS-C body (e.g. A4xx/5xx, which are current or the A700 which is discontinued - all have much better high ISO performance), the other two are entry level like the a200 and you might find youself wanting something better (i.e. more expensive) after a while. Sony have also recently introduced a couple of other relatively cheap primes for people that don't want to spend £1000+ on a lens - a 35/1.8 and a 85/2.8 which plug a couple of gaps in the range. The focal lengths were always covered but with top end (and therefore expensive) glass.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff