Sony Alpha 200

[paigegreen916]

I know most photographers love cannon and nikon, but i've heard great things about the sony 200. any opinions?

 

[LuisAugusto]

Since I own one my opinion may be a little influenced, but you'll get the same with nikon and canon users., so:

First, all entry-level cameras deliver practically the same amount of image quality, as long as their are 10 MP cameras, 6 MP cameras aren't good enough, why? because some times you need to crop, specially with the kit lens from any manufacturers, because they don't have enough tele-zoom.

So this is reduced to the "extra" features all DSLR have.

Canon XTi: In it's favor it has DOFP button (If its important is up to you, for me it's useless in their small viewfinders), the pop-up flash go higher and slightly better control noise in high ISO, this is an important factor, however, I find that turning off the Noise reduction of the A200 and then applying noise reduction in the computers is way better anyway for both cameras (it doesn't change the fact that is slightly better here). In A200 favor you have a more richer package of features, spot-metering, Super Steady Shot, a slightly, and far better, wider and longer (since canon crop factor is x1.6) kit lens, DRO, a slightly larger screen, 3200 ISO and an accurate battery life indicator, slightly bigger viewfinder, better build, ergonomics and battery life.

Canon XS: It has the same advantages the XTi had, plus Live View, however, unlike sony implementation, it's 100% accurate but slow (since it's contrast based live view), for me, unless you're shooting in a studio, it's way to slow, around 5 seconds to get focus, however, it may be useful for you usage, so think this carefully. The A200 advantages remain the same, with an additional more sophisticated 9-points AF.

Nikon D40x: In it's favor it has slightly better high-ISO performance and the flash pop-up higher, but the A200 clearly is a more featured camera, far more sophisticated 9-points AF, larger screen, accurate battery life, better battery life, Super Steady Shot, better ergonomics and build quality, DRO, longer kit lens (however, the nikon kit lens is a far better performer) and spot-metering.

An extra feature of the A200, its supposed to shot 3 fps, but reviewers said it was 2.8, however you can boost this with the right CF card, up to 3.4 fps, I dunno about the others.

 

[Rogan]

disagreeing with the above,
6MP cameras ARE good enough

 

[LuisAugusto]

I usually make crops bigger than 6 MP, and is basely, aside of selective black and white sometimes, the only post-processing I usually do. It isn't like 10 and 12 MP, the difference is more substantial in usage.

 

[Sirashley]

Alright, I own an a200 so I figure I'll throw down on this one. First and foremost, I absolutely love it. I got a great price from Dell.com on it and it was $200 cheaper than the D60 and $110 cheaper than the xti. The kit lense is great in my opinion and pretty sharp. I really use it for portraits and for landscapes. I also have a tamron 28-200mm lense which I got from beachcamera.com for a crisp $89.99. Let me tell you for the money, you won't find a better lense. It is surprisingly sharp and exceeded my expectation.

1. As far as ease of use. I found the a200 pretty simple. The Nikon and Canon have similar setups. Personally, I found the Canon the easiest to use, followed by the Sony, then the Nikon. I work in electronics so I have been able to shoot with all three.

2. In terms of feel. I liked the Nikon the best, I think it felt the most durable but the body is smaller which I didn't like. I love the fact that the Sony is larger. I have big hands and kind of found myself somewhat bumbling with the Nikon. The Canon in my opinion was the worst of the three. It felt really cheap and fragile in my hands. The new Xsi is much better, but I'm leaving it out of this argument.

3.Picture quality... I think all three are about the same. Each one has alittle different flare to it. Since I own the Sony, and have shot so many photo's with it. I can tell you that at iso's above 800, the noise is so heavy that photo's are pretty much worthless. I've heard it's alittle better with Nikon and Canon, but most cameras struggle at iso's 1600 and 3200...

Here is my flickr link... All photos were shot with my a200. Please bear in mind that I am a supernoob at best, but it should give you an idea of the photo quality...

www.flickr.com/sirashley

The photos shot in Alcatraz were shot at iso 800. I didn't have a tripod and it was extremely dark.

Lastly, I feel that going with the Sony a200 was the best decision I could have made. It was way cheaper than the other cameras and it offers a noob pretty much all the features and then some. Lastly, the a200 has image stabilization built into the camera, which Nikon and Canon do not. Also, the Nikon D60 does not have an autofocus motor in the camera body, which means all the lenses you buy, will need this motor and therefore, are more expensive. Well, don't know if I left anything out, did I say I love my camera...