Sony A100 vs Nikon D200

the Alpha is the first dslr that sony has. for now. sony is in the process of developing a high-amature and what looks to be a pro model dSLR. photos of the prototypes are out there, i just dont really feel the need to post the links because thats getting a little off topic. although sony hasnt been in the camera game for as long as nikon, Minolta has been in it for a long time. Sony bought out konica minolta a while back and with that came their camera knowlege. when i was in the market for a camera, the price was probably the biggest factor deciding what one i bought. I didnt really even consider nikon because i didnt like the feel of the grip and sony's fit my hand perfectly. I took a risk buying the alpha because its their "first" dslr but the two i was choosing between were the k10d and the alpha and ultimately i decided on the alpha just because i liked it more and i had several minolta lenses already. and its not like there's a shortage of lenses for the sony/minolta cameras, there are PLENTY of lenses out there, but.... when its all said and done.. you're probably going to choose the nikon no matter what i say, but i dont fully understand why you were comparing the two cameras since they're SO different, why arent you comparing like the d40 and the sony or something? just forget about the lenses for a second. what are you looking for? what features? what price? are you looking to go pro? is this just for fuN? thats what you need to ask yourself and then choose a camera based on that. not just the megapixels, or what lenses you have. maybe you want something Canon? (by the way, i chose the sony hands down over the rebel xti because i thought compared to the rebel, the sony DIDNT feel cheap and like a toy, newrmdmike- have you held a rebel before?)
anyway, i think everyone gets a little defensive if someone else badmouths their gear....
 
but remember, if you dont want to pay that much, there ARE many other options such as sigma and tokina which give you very good quality stuff for the same price for most cameras (example- sigma10-20 is the same price for different mounts as far as i know)


but i do agree, sony lenses at this point are unnecessarily expensive. thats why i havent bought any from them and i'm perfectly happy, but yeah, these are two completely different cameras on different levels, one sells for $1,600 and the other is around 700 right now. so thats something to consider.

anyway, if you're an amature, consider the sony, if you're thinking of taking photography up as a career, maybe go with the nikon... but i dont think you should really compare the two because they're different levels

You are correct. However if you want to compare apples to apples then you have to look at similar products. In this case, Nikon's and Sony's top glass. It gets harder when you start comparing third party products to one another or lesser quality items from either company.

As for camera choice, of the two mine would be the Nikon, even if we were looking at say the D80 compared to the Alpha. First, I have shot Nikon bodies (F2's) for 30 years and have owned tons of Nikor lenses. I know their quality. Secondly, there is a slew of Nikon accessories and glass, not only made by Nikon but by other manufactures. Sony is new in the business so their range is limited. Yes there are allot of Minolta items that fit, but my knowledge of them is limited.

Finally, I am a little tired of hearing about the the two "selling" features being touted for the Sony. The first is in camera image shake reduction. Yes it works pretty well in the average situation with short or medium focal length glass. No it doesn't work as well with long range glass when compared to Canon or Nikon IS lenses. Long glass magnifies shake, and the technology is just not there to move the sensor far enough to compensate with long glass.

And as stated in my previous post the second is cost savings. Yes your Tamron, Tokin, or Sigma non is lens is going to be cheaper than a Nikon or Canon IS lens of the same focal length range. But are we always talking apples to apples here or are we sometimes talking apples to grapefruit?

When I am shooting portraits I would much rather have my Canon 24-70 f2.8L lens with out IS than any lesser quality, low priced lens on an IS body. I am a dedicated hobbyist who shoots for the love of taking pictures but I have learned patience and buy what I want when I can finally afford it. In the long run it has saved me money.

Don't get me wrong, I am not bashing the Sony. I think it is a capable camera,as it the Nikon, Canon or Pentax. It is a matter of personal choice.

I do however feel that anyone considering getting into digital photography seriously do their homework and actually spend some quality time examining the camera's that interest them including lenses and accessories before buying. That includes shooting photos with the cameras of the types of things they intended to use the thing for. Then make their decision on what they know, experience and like, not on what some counter jockey tells them. I was a dedicated, die hard (Feel free to insert the word fanatic if you like) Nikon film fan. When I went digital, I ended up with Canon, much to my surprise. I have never looked back or regretted it for an instant.
 
I defended your Alpha as best I can but to no avail. The only cameras I believe you can truely say need some help are the D40 and D40x, other than that, IMO all cameras are to be treated equal, with a tad bit more lust on the pro line.
 
Personally, i use the Sony Alpha 100 DSLR, and as im a student, and dont have much money, I did ALOT of research before i purchased a DLSR. As i didnt want to spend my money on the wrong one.

I handled the Nikon D200, Sony alpha, Canon 400D and the pentax one (cant remember)

I also compaired them using a few magazines, and also compaired their features.
When it boils down to it, its all really down to personal opinion.

newrmdmike thinks that the sony feels like a toy... Thats what i feel that the nikon feels like. Its all personal preference.

I love my Sony, and my Girlfriend ended up buying the Canon (which was my second choice) we swap every so often, as we have different lenses for different jobs (she likes macro stuff, and portraits) where as i have the big glass.
And really, there isnt much difference between our pictures, they usualyl come out a little "worse" when we've swapped as its generally cos we arent used to the interface, but generally the pictures are the same.

As for the lenses, All the old minolta ones fit the alpha, and the minolta glass is just as good as any other glas out there. and. its dirt cheap!
Sony lenses are expensive, but at the end of the day, your paying for the name. not saying they arent good quality lenses, but they are over priced.

A the same time though, you can probably get nikon lenses quite cheap. but they'll probably be as old as the minolta ones.

I also found out that magazine reviews are pointless. They are all bias in one way or another, i found one magazine that called the alpha the best thing since sliced bread, and another that said it was little more than a paper weight...
But i read the same reveiws for practically every entry level DSLR, so i stopped spending my money on magazines and put it towards more glass :p

At the end of the day, go out and feel the cameras yourself, if you can, take some pictures and see what you like the best. then make up your mind.

and dont listen to anyone else, dont let them make the decision for you. as you might buy something that you dont like, just cos some "professional" told you it was good...
 
killcrazy- my thoughts exactly.

i hate discussions about what camera is better.....
 
I can't believe how hung up everyone gets on comparing two dissimilar cameras. Why is that so terrible? The point of my question was to get some insight as to whether my own photography would realize practical benefits form purchasing the more expensive Nikon or whether I might be happy (while spending less money) with the Sony.

Posters seem to have lost sight of the fact that I own lenses for both camera systems. Someone here has stated that the Minolta IS system doesn't really work that well, but, I have a suspicion that the person making that comment hasn't really used the camera - I'd rather hear from someone who owns the camera to tell me if he/she really feels as though one realizes the claimed 3 - 3.5 stop advantage. If you do, then, I beg to differ with anyone who states that it would not be a factor in low light with long or slower lenses.

I am not a professional - I am an advanced amateur who has used what was, at the time I bought it, a ground shaking model, the Minolta Maxxum 9000, the worlds first professional level auto-focus SLR.

I've held both cameras (A100/D200) - and feel I can shoot pictures with either. If they both feature good body sealing, and the Sony has a self-cleaning sensor, then, that is also a real advantage. Anyone who uses an DSLR heavily without the feature can look forward to an annual cleaning tab of $50 or so - that's a benefit that will mean something to me in five years ($250 or so that can be spent on something else).

I wasn't looking for anyone to prove to me that one camera is better or worse than the other - only to assess the strengths/weaknesses of each as it relates to their cost.

At any rate, I ordered the Sony from B&H tonight, complete with the 18 - 75 (or whatever) lens that comes with the body for and extra $100.

I will shoot with it for 6 days and, if I like it, will keep it. If not, I'll send it back and try the Nikon in the same manner.

In the end, it boiled down to paying more for the Nikon (better build notwithstanding) to get fewer features that will be useful to me in my shooting - the IS built into the body of the Sony makes that technology available to me no matter what lens I pop on. To get similar technology on the Nikon with the same range as what I will have with the Sony would mean spending an extra $700 for a Nikon wide-range VR lense.

Bottom line: I get to try the Sony with my 28-300 mm lens (or the 18 -75 that come with the camera), test out IS, have the comfort of a self-cleaning sensor, all for $760.

To get the same features in the Nikon would have set me back over $2200.

I think the Sony deserves a try (and I've been shooting Minoltas for well over 20 years (owned a manual SRT-101, an X-700, and the Maxxum 9000)).

Sony may be new at DSLRs, but they are not new at all to digital imaging. In fact, in the digital realm, Sony probably has an edge owing to their long history in the development and sale of video gear.

Whatever, the decision is history - I've gone with the Sony - my satisfaction is theirs to lose. Will have the thing tomorrow, so, I'll let you know my impressions.

Thanks again for the replies.

Caruso
 
thanks for joining the winning team! haha, kidding, but i think you'll be happy with the sony. I love my camera and i think the reason people get hung up on the comparison is just because its like hearing someone say mean things about your child or something... when people say that the equipment that i have probably close to 2000 dollars invested in isnt worth buying, it makes me feel bad, like what if i'm just wasting my money because the camera THEY own is SOO much better.... as for the image stabilization- its nice to have it. I dont have unlimited money so if i were to buy something like a nikon, i wouldnt be able to afford the stabilized lenses, so with the sony i dont need to worry about it! sensor cleaner- it works but you may still need to clean the sensor occasionally because nothing is perfect. I use a rocket blower. hope you enjoy your camera!
 
I am sorry if you had to put up with our petty back-and-fourth forum fighting. I am glad you were able to make a descision and I know you'll be pleased. My point was that every camera deserves a chance and every camera is just as capable of producing professional magazine quality prints as the other. I hope you enjoy your camera, please post up some pics taken with it.
 
Hey! Thanks for the encouragement. I really didn't' meant to put anyone's post down, it's just that I wanted to concentrate on practical benefits. If a box takes good pictures, I don't really care if it feels like a toy to hold. I would love to own the very best (felt as if I did when I purchased my Maxxum 9000, but some of my most precious pics were taken not with the 9000 or the very fine x700 that preceded it, but, with my very first SLR, some Yashica fully manual screw mount camera sporting a single 50mm lens and a top shutter speed of 1000).

In the final analysis, although we want the best tools we can afford (and justify (in the wallet, to the Mrs!!!)), taking pictures is all about being where the pics are (or having an eye for pics wherever you happen to be) and snapping the shots.

For half the price with no practical sacrifice in features, I'll take my chances on the Sony. I declined B&H's offer of a $70 five year warranty - my 9000 still functions after more than 20 years.

This thread, as it evolved, reminds me of the sort of discussion in which I participated several years ago as we film users grappled with ways to get our negs into the computer.

At the time, Minolta and (I think) Nikon offered dedicated film scanners at really premium prices ($5000 or so). I went out on a whim and purchased an Epson Perfection 2400 for less than $200 and started scanning my negs.

To my pleasant surprise, the results were more than acceptable (and I have been happily using that scanner to scan film since).

In our forum exchange, one poster (who owned neither a high end dedicated scanner or the Epson budget solution) suggested that the reason I was so happy with the Epson was that I couldn't appreciate what I was missing, that my scans looked good to me because the Epson was masking all the imperfections and intrinsic detail.

To be fair, I have never used a dedicated scanner, so, cannot judge how much better one might be, but I have seen many a digital image shot on a range of cameras, and, besides, I know a good picture and an acceptable enlargement (digital or film) when I see it, and these Epson scans were quite commendable, especially considering that, at $200, I could scan my library of images now, not four years down the road when I might be able to afford a $5000 outlay.

I challenged that poster to stop debating, go out and drop the $200 (fully refundable if not satisfied) and get back to me with his impressions.

To his credit, he did just that, and, like me, became a convert.

Again, I"m not putting anyone down, here. The point is that the none of these pieces of equipment have any value until we, the users, point them towards an image and snap a memorable shot.

Like anyone else here, I want to own the best I can afford - and, most important, I don't want to spend hard earned dollars on some piece of equipment that is inferior to some other piece that wiser (even if slightly more or less) money would buy.

That was the reason for my post, and I value each and every response, even if I may not agree with one or two.

Thanks again. Have a great day. I'll be looking forward to receipt of my new toy . . . was doing the calculations . . . I spend roughly $2.50 for a roll of film, another $5.50 to have it processed and scanned to disc (could skip the disc scanning and save $2.00). At that rate, if I like the results, my $784 digital camera will pay for itself after the equivalent of 98 rolls of 24-exposure film - 2352 exposures.

I shoot a couple rolls of film per week, so, in less than two years, I will have saved enough in film and processing to offset the cost of the camera. That math makes it easy to see why the digital age continues to prevail.

Caruso
 
One, with digital you will shoot a lot more than 48 exposures a week if you are a typical digital shooter. Two, I.S. is of little value in my opinion in a DSLR body. It's still a new version of the technology. VR or IS lenses have been around a while. They had some growing pains in the beginning but now are a good benefit to the SLR owner. I think it will take a year or two for IS in the body to shake out the critters. (pun intended)
 
i've seen the IS for Sony in opperation and its pretty cool. i was surprised to see how responsive the mechanism is (display in camera store where the body was attached by a wire to just the moving sensor part) if you just move the camera a tiny bit, it responds to that. I'm not saying it works better than a stabilized lens, but for the price difference, i'm going to take what i can get! but i agree they probably do have bugs to work out on it. another note i wanted to make- although you COULD buy a box solely on the fact that it takes good pictures, if ALL the boxes take good pictures, maybe it would be nice to have one that feels comfortable to you?
 
I don´t think you will regret the decision to go for the Sony...I´ve heard it´s pretty good
(I joined in a bit late to offer my suggestion to give the Sony R1 consideration...it´s in some respects possibly better than the Alpha)

Technology is changing rapidly, so in a couple of years you´ll be ready for a change, and after spending some time using a good camera you will be more informed about what suits you best...and upgrade if you really need to.

Have fun...and show us your results. :wink:
 
FWIW, I took a trip to the Glimmerglas Opera (Cherry Vally, NY, near Cooperstown) where my daughter is singing this summer. Also toted my new Alpha 100. The only lens I took was my Sigma 28-300 hpyerzoom. I also ordered and took along the more powerful of the two dedicated flashes for this camera (spoiled by my old Minolta AF4000/Maxxum9000 combo).

Shot all my photos in RAW. Impressed the heck out of the opera singers there, including my daughter who, on advise of her mentors there, is on the lookout for a new headshot, her expression in the current professionally shot pic being judged too serious.

It was after a nice (if a bit overpriced) dinner at the American Hotel - we retired to the front porch, and, of course, I had lugged along the A100 with attached flash. It was totally dark, although the porch was well-lit (tungsten). On a whim, I rotated my flashhead 90 degrees (a little less than 90, actually) to do a "portrait-scape" bounce flash shot of her sitting in a red rocker, auto-exposure quickly dialed to the "portrait" preset.

Her partially natural, partially trained reaction in front of a camera provided the perfect lean-in sort of pose, and the camera really did the rest.

The result was a perfectly exposed, soft-lit shot that is more than worthy of replacing her existing head shot. She was thrilled, and, I don't have ta tell ya, that anything that thrills your daughter thrills you.

I managed to capture a number of really stunning shots with this camera as I tooled around this little town looking for photo opportunities.

Needless to say, at this point, I am quite pleased with my purchase which, when I factor in the hyperzoom that I didn't have to purchase along with the savings on the body as compared to the Nikon D200 and the steady shot that keeps my old SLR lenses current, it turns out that the Sony for me is quite a good value.

. . . and it takes quite good pictures.

Some annoyances - certain settings reset to default when you power off and back on . . . gosh, that's the only annoyance I can think of for the moment.

Caruso
 
glad you're enjoying it! now if sony would only lower thier lens prices...
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top