Sony DLSR A200 Advice and Reccomondations

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by thomahawk, Oct 4, 2008.

  1. thomahawk macrumors 6502a

    thomahawk

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Location:
    Osaka, Japan
    #1
    Alright so im finally close to the end of my DSLR decision. Im not going to spend more than 500 or around there

    so far i have found a Nikon D40 and a Sony A200

    and as you know the topic, the "sony" i am leaning towards the sony more right now

    a lot of people are recommending the Sony to me, but most of my friends have Nikons. i like the feel of both cameras and the flexibility of it. and i want them BOTH! O_O

    so then i went down to features. seems that the sony has image stabalizing whereas the nikon does not. and sony has that new feature D-Range Optimizer which seems to be a very nice feature.

    however i want to find more information on the decision. i have already went to various other forums of photography and places and i want to hear this forums opinions on either a Nikon or Sony
     
  2. flinch13 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #2
    I'm a Canon guy myself, but really there's not much difference between Canon and Nikon.

    They're big big big companies which have been making cameras for many years. Sony, on the other hand, is a generalist electronics manufacturer. Does this make them worse? I don't know.

    I do know, however, that there are many more lenses available to Nikon users than to Sony users. This is really the benefit of using a DSLR, and choosing Sony just because of image stabilization is sort of silly IMHO.
     
  3. Techguy172 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Ontario Canada
    #3
    I have the Sony myself and I tried the D40 myself and didn't like it. It's too small and I hated the grip. I'm glad i got it. It takes really nice photos, Amazing battery life. Honestly I would get a sony because the D40 is much older and is missing today's technology. While Nikon has some good glass Sony has all the old Konica Minolta Glass, plus there new stuff.
     
  4. jhamerphoto macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    #4
    I would say go with the Nikon.

    Out of the features you mentioned as being a benefit with Sony:
    Image stabilization - many Nikon lenses come with stabilization, and the lens-based version is more effective than sensor-shift, and you also see the results in the viewfinder which you don't with the Sony.
    D-range Optimizer - exact same as Nikon's D-Lighting.

    The only thing the D40 lacks is an AF motor, but many people will agree that camera-based AF motors are on the way out anyway. Nikon has a large selection of AF-S lenses which focus much faster than their standard AF brethren, and more lenses are being converted lately, ie. the 50mm f1.4 and soon the 1.8.

    That's just my two cents, but if none of that matters much to you, just go to the store and see what one you like to handle and use better. A camera that isn't a pleasure to use is simply a bad purchase.
     
  5. NightGeometry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    #5
    I got the A200 after playing with the equivalents. The thing that weighted my choice - lenses. Plenty of very good second hand Minolta lenses relatively cheap, and for my usage the new ones cover everything I'm gonna need anyway - I don't have any special requirements though.

    I like in camera stabilisation, at least I don't need to buy expensive stabilised lenses (or more expensive, not meaning to imply stabilised lenses are hugely expensive pieces).

    At the end of that day, there wasn't much between the equivalent models, which one do you like?

    There is the buying into a system argument. My thoughts - if i get real serious then Sony can cover a future, but at this point I haven't invested a huge amount. Only enough that if I decided I am going to get a real expensive lens then I'll re-evaluate at that point, and be able to ebay off what I have without a huge loss, if I need to. To be honest though, I don't think I'll be leaving the Alpha range, I do like my A200.
     
  6. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #6
    Here is how to decide: What lenses do you like. What set of lenses do you want to own in five years? Does Sony make lenses like that? Does Nikon? What if you want to pick up a used lens or sell one what is the used market like for the two brands.

    Don't worry so much about the features on the dSLR body, they don't amount to much. In the end you will replace the body in three to five years anyway but the lens collection will grow over time and be worth much more than that first entry level SLR body. Heck just one high end lens can sell for 3X the price of the D40. Nikon has a good selection of pro-quality optics that Sony lacks but maybe you don't care and will be happy with lower-spec's lenses? Both companies have plenty of those.

    So the question is not d40 vs. A200 it's one brand vs. another ad which brand do you want to be locked into for the next couple decades
     
  7. Techguy172 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Ontario Canada
    #7
    Sony has more expensive lenses than cheap ones, Such as Carl Ziess and Sony G Glass. If you want to do macro, sony has you covered and wide angle sony has you covered. However the only thing sony doesn't have is a lot of Telephoto. I'm pretty sure they only go up to 300mm right now. However there is a 400mm coming out next year.
     
  8. epicwelshman macrumors 6502a

    epicwelshman

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Location:
    Nassau, Bahamas
    #8
    Don't forget too that if your friends have Nikon's you have a wealth of cameras, lenses and accessories to borrow or test out before buying your own.

    Not buying a D40 because it's "yesterday's technology" is silly, IMHO. I have a D40x, and my photos come out better than some people with a D300/D3/A200, etc. It's all about who's behind the camera. Now if we were talking A200 vs. a D50 or D100 it would be a different story, but the D40 is still new enough to remain in the game.
     
  9. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #9
    Yeah, if your friends are willing to share lenses with you, even if you can't lend them anything in return, then the Nikon may be the better choice.

    Otherwise, the Sony isn't a bad choice. I'd get the Nikon D60 because the kit lens has the 18-55 mm VR lens, which is "anti-shake", but the Sony really isn't a poor choice. :)
     
  10. thomahawk thread starter macrumors 6502a

    thomahawk

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Location:
    Osaka, Japan
    #10
    i used to have a Canon Rebel SLR (film) with like a lot of lenses. and i was planning on getting a Canon DSLR so i can use my lenses but the Canons are too expensive.

    Seems every1 here likes Nikons

    Oh yeah, any idea that the D40 or A200 might ever go down in price by the end of this year?
     
  11. dukeblue91 macrumors 65816

    dukeblue91

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #11
    Not me, I like the Sony much more.
    Let's break it down as to why.

    Newer sensor and electronics, Steady shot build into the body, anti dust coating and ultra sonic vibration to keep the sensor clean.
    Larger LCD, 40% more MP's, Lens selections: several million of used Minolta lenses, Sony, Carl Zeiss, Sigma and Tamron.
    Battery shows percentage left instead some bars where you have to guess on what is left of the charge.

    This is just of the top of my head but I'm sure there is more.
    And you get all this and more for about the same price as the way lower specked Nikon.

    Sony has spend a boat load of cash on the Alpha system and has brought out 6 bodies in 2 years time, you can bet they are serious about this business.
    There is a reason why they chose to buy Minolta and not some other maker.

    What Sony has accomplished in 2 years is just incredible.
    In the EU their market share is at 17% and growing and they are number 3 in the rest of the world, and all that in about 2 years.

    Nikon, Canon and the rest of the industry is taking notice and starting to worry and they should imho.

    Sorry for the long write up but it bothers me when people talk down something without actually knowing about it.
    It is like telling a PC user to buy a Mac on a PC forum.

    And yes I am a Sony user and I have the a700 and the a350 and a bunch of lenses.

    Good luck with your purchase.

    PS. I'm not saying that the Nikon is a bad camera. :D
     
  12. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #12
    Yes, Minolta was for sale as it was sinking quickly (47Billion Yen loss,) so they got it cheap- and they were already working with Konica-Minolta at the time, so they didn't have to rework to get their sensors in.

    They didn't say "Hey, let's find a camera company making lots of money because of their good business sense and wonderful market-leading technology and buy that!"
     
  13. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #13
    Sony's debut was at #3 in global DSLR market share at 6.2% when they purchased K-M's DSLR business. Today Sony is #3 at 6%- if you find a roughly .2% decline in share in a growing market incredible, then I suppose you have something.

    As far as European market share, those are Sony's own claims for a single month (July '08) without any ancillary data to back them up- apparently produced from a 14 country sampling- I sure wouldn't buy stock based on those numbers ;) It's also based on units shipped, so a lot of stock could be languishing on shelves- it's difficult to telll without a 3rd party to produce the numbers. Hopefully for Sony there's not a lot of stock counted in the Sony-Ericson store in London that's about to fall off the map!
     
  14. k.love macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    #14
    I am another sony owner and love it. My other choice was the D40 also. But over all the prices for lenses on the sony are WAY cheaper than nikon. I have both a Minolta 28-80mm 4-5.6 and a Tokina 60-300mm 1;4-5.6 lenses for my sony and love em. Paid a little over 100 bucks for both of them locally and they have great color out of the lenses. Unfortinantly the kit lens with the sony I would say has poor color quality and would suggest getting an after market lens when possible.

    Over all the feel and the battery life are great. Most of all the acsesories for sony are fairly inexpensive. This way if you decide to get heavy into photography later on you can decide to stay with sony or for out 2k for a great nikon or canon.

    From a beginer DSLR user to another
     
  15. Fuzzy14 macrumors 65816

    Fuzzy14

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Location:
    Renfrew, Scotland
    #15
    I bought the Sony A200 a couple of months ago as my first dSLR and have no problems with it. If I bought the Nikon I would probably just be as happy, but I preffered the 'extra' stuff that came in the A200 as standard (particularly the anti-shake).

    The only thing I've noticed so far is that the built in JPEG struggled a bit with a sunset shot (should have used RAW) and I think the RAW conversion on my MacBook is a bit fiddily, and I'm considering getting another lens although the 18-70mm included is a great all-rounder.

    My only doubt has been should I have spent an extra £100 and got the Cannon.

    -Fuzzy :)
     
  16. SLC Flyfishing macrumors 65816

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #16
    You know Compuwar, you seem to know an awful lot about DSLR market shares. Why the preoccupation?

    SLC
     
  17. dukeblue91 macrumors 65816

    dukeblue91

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #17
    Sorry but they were actually looking at Pentax too but decided against them.
    As far as the loss of $$ by Minolta that was due to a lawsuit they lost and when Konica took over they had no interest in the DSLR market which showed.

    Oh and just so you know, Minolta was way more innovative during their time then any other camera manufacturer.
     
  18. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #18
    That's what I said several posts up. Look at the lens selection. If you are happy with f/5.6 zooms then everyone has these and apparently Sony has them for cheap. But if you are looking for fast wide angle primes or professional telephotos or if you really want that Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR you are best off with Nikon. You have to think about where yu are headed.

    I'd worry a little that Sony just might get out of the SLR business too. Sony tends to go were the mass market is.
     
  19. dukeblue91 macrumors 65816

    dukeblue91

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #19
    You obviously have not looked at the lens line up.
    The G and the Carl Zeiss lenses stand on their on and in many cases are way better then those from Canikon.

    If you really serious about finding out about all lenses for the A mount got to
    www.dyxum.com

    As far as getting out of the Dslr business not after they dumped tens of billions of $$$ into it.
    Dslr's are the new mass market.
     
  20. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #20
    Actually, in this case dukeblue91 brought it up, I was just pointing out the issues with their claims. However, share, margins, average sale price and financials are all part of evaluating a businesses health. In the consumer market, share is a large part of it (though for Japanese companies overall global share isn't always as important as home market share.) I spent a few years doing technical due diligence for a large US corporation- besides the fun of flying around in corporate jets, I came away with an appreciation for how decisions get made and why some companies that look healthy aren't (if they were doing well, the wouldn't be on the block, and the usual suspects who get together to sell are pretty good at spotting things and more inclined to take a piece of a bad company they need than a larger business that's doing better because of how their compensation is usually structured- this is especially true of public companies where a bigger deal may change the quarter's numbers enough to get nuked on that basis alone.)

    Here's a Reuters article from the time, which paints a different picture of the losses- and affirms that they didn't want to be a consumer company:

    As far as "When Konica took over..." according to the company's Website, Konica Minolta Holding company was established in 2003, over a year before the 7D was released and I'd say that the losses overrode any possible strategy for the camera and photo businesses.

    As far as "looking" at Pentax, you always look at the market when you're going to do an acquisition, especially into a new sector- but if you think there was honestly any real choice between picking up the K-M camera business on the cheap and having to buy Pentax, then I think you're sorely mistaken and out of touch. Hoya paid about 91B yen for Pentax, Sony paid around 8B yen for K-M, a company they were already in a partnership with, who had already designed their senors into the product line. If you're the M&A guy at Sony the choice is so obvious it's not funny- and it's got nothing to do with buying the "best" company.
     
  21. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #21
    You're new to following Sony, especially after the last restructuring, aren't you ( I think the last tally of business lines they dropped was about 15.)

    According to Sony's corporate strategy documents, HD Video is the new mass market.

    How much money did Sony put into IC Fab plants? More than they paid for Minolta- but they're dumping them left and right.

    The new Sony cares about profitability- investors have been promised what- 12% or better global share? That could be dicey.

    There are strong rumors that Sony could stop with gaming consoles after the PS3, does that give you more or less confidence in their willingness to stay the course?
     
  22. dukeblue91 macrumors 65816

    dukeblue91

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #22
    Compuwar,
    No offense but I really don't have the time to get into all this and all the research for it.

    But I say this!
    No matter what's being said the a200 is a much better camera and deal vs. the D40.
    And that was what I really wanted to show here as all the rest is just fluff.




     
  23. weckart macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    #23
    As another A200 owner I take issue with this. There is very little to choose between Olympus, Pentax, Sony, Canon and Nikon in the budget DSLR market. All the relevant contenders offer very good cameras, with which any beginner can acquit himself well. None is markedly better or worse overall than another. Camera magazines seem to agree on this.

    The investment in lens argument seems compelling, but it is asking the buyer to look into a crystal ball and envisage what lenses he will be using in the future, when he does not yet know whether he will be in photography for the long haul. Who knows what models will appear on the market next year or the year after?

    It all boils down to the particular camera's strengths and weaknesses and how these matter to the potential purchaser. I liked the feel of the Sony and disliked the Nikon. No amount of quality Nikon lenses would make me fall in love with something that just felt awkward in my hands.

    As far as the A200 is concerned, its biggest Achilles heel is the quality of its JPEGs, particularly at ISOs 400 and above. You would be better off shooting RAW in low light, as long as you are prepared to post process each shot, which you could otherwise shoot straight to JPEG on the Nikon.
     
  24. mrgreen4242 macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #24
    I'll jump in with my limited opinion. I'm new to DSLR technology, so I won't weigh in with to much of a technical opinion. However, I did buy a D40 and here's why: size and weight.

    The D40 is really tiny, for an SLR. It's about 80% of the size and <90% of the weight of the Sony. I carry it everywhere. It lives in a camera wrap in my messenger bag so I have it all the time, not just when I think I might take a picture. For me, this makes all the difference.

    As for branding, there's nothing wrong with Sony, but I think that Nikon probably edges it out in terms of having been doing this longer. If the Sony was significantly cheaper, then sure it would make sense - it'd be a good value. But at similar prices, I think Nikon wins out. Unless of course you happen to have a bunch of compatible Minolta lenses, or a source of cheap Minolta lenses, etc
     
  25. dukeblue91 macrumors 65816

    dukeblue91

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #25
    Ah but it is significantly cheaper in a way.
    If you wanted all the same features you get from the Sony in a Nikon then you will need to look somewhere in between the D60 and the D80.
    Now that changes the pricing by a few hundred dollars for the same feature set.

    I know you bought the D40 because of size and that makes sense then but others just throw out flat and falsely that the D40 is a better Camera and most likely have never even touched a Sony before and that's what bothered me.

    I mean personally I don't care what a person buys but when the wrong people give advise I just have to say something.
     

Share This Page