Should I get this camera.

Dasoupdude

TPF Noob!
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
Location
SoFLA
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I was over at the local camera store today in the mall and this caught my eye..

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665315453


Does anybody else have this camera, I'm looking for a camera that will mainly be used in shots for like cars, rolling highway shots, professional skateboarding etc. My small cybershot is good but it is not fast enough for those kind of pictures.

I'm a beginner so im looking for a scale of one to ten, what would you rate it..
 
Here is a full review on the camera.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dslr_a200-review/

and here is cnets review.

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/sony-alpha-dslr-a200/4505-6501_7-32815227.html

after watching and reading the reviews I would rate this camera at a 6.. Not the greatest camera in my opinion. I think you could get a much more performance out of a canon or pentax. Now i've been into photography for a year and half but from what the reviews say not built well and does not take great sharp pictures with the stock lens that right there tells me not to buy it. In the end i would buy a canon or pentax. Hope that helps ya.
 
It's a fine camera (nowhere close to be a "6"). Of course that all depends on how much you are spending to get it, and what kind of lenses you are going to invest in.
 
Comes highly recommended from this site. Thought just barely they say. Here is their conclusion.



taken from here
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra200/page31.asp




If you're currently in the market for an entry-level DSLR and you've come across the Sony DSLR-A200 one of the first things you have probably noticed is its incredibly tempting price point. If your budget is limited the A200 is by default one of your top options. But does it actually provide value for money or would you be better off spending a little extra and getting a competing model?
As usual, there is no easy answer and it will entirely depend on your specific needs. Feature-wise the A200 provides all the essentials but there are better specified and more customizable cameras in the entry-level segment. Most notably the A200 is lacking a live-view system which is featured by most of its direct competitors. Only you can tell if you actually need this (and if you do, and would otherwise be happy with the A200, you should probably consider the Sony A300) but is has almost become a standard, even in the bottom bracket of the market. On the other hand you do get dust reduction and an efficient image stabilization system, something you could not necessarily expect at the A200's price point.
The A200's plastic surfaces look and feel a little cheap but the overall build quality can be described as solid. The control layout and the menu structure are simple and intuitive but from an ergonomics point of view there is one major point of complaint. When in shooting mode the multi-controller to the right of the screen is programmed to trigger the AF. For most people this might not be a problem but it was for us. A number of left-eyed photographers in the dpreview office repeatedly, and unwillingly, operated the button with their noses when looking through the viewfinder. This caused quite a few out-of-focus shots and can be extremely annoying. So if you're considering the A200 I can only recommend you check beforehand if it is compatible with your facial features.
The A200 is not the quickest performer we've ever come across but does generally a solid job. The camera takes a little longer to start-up and display an image in record review than most of its direct competitors but in a real-life situation that's hardly ever an issue. Just leave the camera switched on if you want be prepared to take an unexpected shot (the excellent battery life is certainly useful when doing that).
Image quality on the A200 is a bit of a double-edged affair. While at base ISO the Sony's output is fairly clean and detailed (though not very good at low-contrast detail) things go downhill once you dim the lights and switch your camera to a higher ISO setting. The A200's noise reduction is pretty aggressive and causes visible smearing of fine detail in the camera's JPEG output. Most of the A200's direct competitors can produce visibly better results in challenging light situations. Shooting RAW to reduce the noise reduction's impact is a good option and makes sense even at base ISO where you can squeeze visibly more low-contrast detail out of an image (compared to its out-of camera JPEG counterpart).

In conclusion, the Sony DSLR-A200 is a solid overall performer that does not have any major flaws (AF button issue aside) and comes with a feature set that is more than adequate for its very attractive price point. Therefore it just earns our Highly Recommended badge.

-TAG
 
I have the A300 & love it. There has been many discussions about this. You're going to find people bash Sony just b/c its Sony. I love not having what everybody else has.
 
werd.gif


Forget them I love my sony products, ps3, tv etc.

Heck if I had the money to I'd get a Leica m9.

I can only "move bricks" so fast lol...
 
Sony bodys are rather inexpensive but they have consistently failed to impress me. Their lenses are average and greatly overpriced and their image quality above ISO 400 is very soft, mushy, chroma blotchy and plain ugly. I say forget it and get a Canon Nikon or Pentax.

General review about brand products (my opinion based on experience):
Canon - lousy ergonomics and somewhat slow but outstanding image quality
Nikon - Good - Excellent ergonomics and speed (D40/D60 good, rest excellent), good image quality (but not as good as canon)
Pentax - Very Good - Excellent Ergonomics, Average Speed, good image quality
Sony - Ugly but somewhat ergonomic cameras, good speed, lousy image quality
Olympus - Good ergonomics, Good Speed, Average Image Quality

Sony owners will say that they are good because they have never used anything better but try them and you'll see what I mean. Please not that I may be exaggerating the differences but that is the direction of the difference.
 
Comes highly recommended from this site. Thought just barely they say. Here is their conclusion.



taken from here
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra200/page31.asp




If you're currently in the market for an entry-level DSLR and you've come across the Sony DSLR-A200 one of the first things you have probably noticed is its incredibly tempting price point. If your budget is limited the A200 is by default one of your top options. But does it actually provide value for money or would you be better off spending a little extra and getting a competing model?
As usual, there is no easy answer and it will entirely depend on your specific needs. Feature-wise the A200 provides all the essentials but there are better specified and more customizable cameras in the entry-level segment. Most notably the A200 is lacking a live-view system which is featured by most of its direct competitors. Only you can tell if you actually need this (and if you do, and would otherwise be happy with the A200, you should probably consider the Sony A300) but is has almost become a standard, even in the bottom bracket of the market. On the other hand you do get dust reduction and an efficient image stabilization system, something you could not necessarily expect at the A200's price point.
The A200's plastic surfaces look and feel a little cheap but the overall build quality can be described as solid. The control layout and the menu structure are simple and intuitive but from an ergonomics point of view there is one major point of complaint. When in shooting mode the multi-controller to the right of the screen is programmed to trigger the AF. For most people this might not be a problem but it was for us. A number of left-eyed photographers in the dpreview office repeatedly, and unwillingly, operated the button with their noses when looking through the viewfinder. This caused quite a few out-of-focus shots and can be extremely annoying. So if you're considering the A200 I can only recommend you check beforehand if it is compatible with your facial features.
The A200 is not the quickest performer we've ever come across but does generally a solid job. The camera takes a little longer to start-up and display an image in record review than most of its direct competitors but in a real-life situation that's hardly ever an issue. Just leave the camera switched on if you want be prepared to take an unexpected shot (the excellent battery life is certainly useful when doing that).
Image quality on the A200 is a bit of a double-edged affair. While at base ISO the Sony's output is fairly clean and detailed (though not very good at low-contrast detail) things go downhill once you dim the lights and switch your camera to a higher ISO setting. The A200's noise reduction is pretty aggressive and causes visible smearing of fine detail in the camera's JPEG output. Most of the A200's direct competitors can produce visibly better results in challenging light situations. Shooting RAW to reduce the noise reduction's impact is a good option and makes sense even at base ISO where you can squeeze visibly more low-contrast detail out of an image (compared to its out-of camera JPEG counterpart).

In conclusion, the Sony DSLR-A200 is a solid overall performer that does not have any major flaws (AF button issue aside) and comes with a feature set that is more than adequate for its very attractive price point. Therefore it just earns our Highly Recommended badge.

-TAG

Every DSLR that dpreview has reviewed in the past god knows how many years (at least 2) has earned a highly recommended rating. All that means is that all modern cameras can take good pictures but that doesn't mean that sonys are any better than others. The only thing that really matters is the photographer. Buying fancy paint doesn't make you a great painter and a great painter can make art with almost any paint. The same applies to photography.
 
I've bought lots of Sony products but none of their cameras. In my experience they make throw-away consumable items. I remember having a problem with one of their DAT recorders (which cost GBP1200 15 years ago - that's a heck of a lot of money in today's terms) and referring it to their service centre - they just said "throw it away and buy another one". I've had several of their camcorders and found them irrepairable.

Canon, by contrast, really stand by their products. A friend has a Canon camcorder and has had it repaired by Canon - for a low cost it was returned to her as new. I have had two Canon compacts that had to be returned, once after an accident, the other time because they recalled it when it was three years old. In both cases they replaced the entire camera with a new one, at no cost. My present 5D is a superb beast, despite not having the gongs and bells that later-developed cameras have.

Someone above suggested Canon or Pentax. I'd also include Nikon on that list, as they have some very good cameras right now, and if you can find lenses that suit you (their weakest point currently) the quality of construction and of images will blow your socks off.

There are lots of technology junkies out there, so there's a steady flow of used recent model cameras that are intrinsically very good but just happen to have been superceded. You can save an awful lot of money by buying used, and if you don't trust your judgement then buy from a dealer with a warranty. Personally I'd buy privately on eBay, but you do need to be careful.
 
I have the A300 & love it. There has been many discussions about this. You're going to find people bash Sony just b/c its Sony. I love not having what everybody else has.
i have a A200 and think it fab. ROCK ON SONY. i absolutly agree, its nice haveing something not everyone else uses.
 
Buying fancy paint doesn't make you a great painter and a great painter can make art with almost any paint. The same applies to photography.




werd.gif


QFFT.
 
Buy a Sony A350 body only with live view and tiltable screen and then put a Sigma f.2.8 18mm to 50mm macro on it. It will give you a sharp photo at f.2.8 down to 1/8 of a second handheld as well as a useable photo at ISO 1600 in the almost pitch dark of mine shaft.

skieur
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top