Sony "DSLR 200K"

Stephen P

I've been thinking about investing in a basic DSLR camera. I want to be able to get really good shots. Would the Sony "DSLR 200K" camera be a good one for a novice? The kinda shots I'm after are ones like when you see a photo of a waterfall for example and the water looks smooth, there is probably a proper word for this but I don't know?
I'd be grateful if any advice good or bad on this camera.
Thanks

Duchovny

Any special reason you want Sony?

Stephen P

Duchovny wrote: »

Any special reason you want Sony?

As money is a bit tight I'm getting it on credit from Littlewoods. It's in my price range and with over €250 off the price.
Would you not recommend Sony?

Duchovny

Honestly i don't have any experience with Sony, but I don't know I'm not a big fun of them just personal not saying they are not good...

Check Canon 1000D always a option worth checking...

CabanSail

The water effect you describe does not require an SLR camera, only a camera that has manual exposure control, a tripod & the right light.

Getting "milky" water is acheived with long exposure (2+ seconds) & hence the need for a tripod (or other steady mount) The light has to be low enough to allow these long shutter speeds, but if it's too bright you can lower it with Neutral Density Filters.

Now if you do want a DSLR, the Sony Range do seem quite good value for what you get. They are quite firmly in the 3rd place in the market right now. The first two places are Nikon & Canon, the order depends on your viewpoint but most will agree they are fairly equal & lead the market by a good deal. If you are buying the camera as a one off then the Sony is a good buy. If you are looking at getting into photography more in the future then you should look at the whole system & Nikon/Canon are still way ahead there & will be for some time yet.

Stephen P

Thanks lads for the advice. I think I'll go for the Sony I mentioned above. I don't think I'll get into it serious, maybe one day but for the moment I'll practise with the Sony and see what kinda shots I get. :pac:

sNarah

I'm using the A200 myself, happy enough about it.

One thing to keep in mind is that at this stage Sony isn't as far developpend as Canon/Nikon and therefore getting extra nifty fifties is more expensive because it's not soo widely available as the above 2. Also important to remember in case you want to upgrade at a later stage, because people do tend to "stick" with the brand they started off with, unless they are exteremly unhappy with it.

jaqian

I've the A100, which I find to be a very good camera.

Regarding Canon/Nikon, they have a bigger selection of second hand glass as they're the most popular players. However Sony is based on Minolta having bought them over in 2006 so any Minolta AF lens will work with your Sony. New Sony glass is very expensive compared like for like with Canon/Nikon but you can find cheaper used Minolta for a third of the new Sony stuff. I bought a Minolta F1.7 50mm AF last week for €149 from Conns Cameras, the Sony version would have been nearly €400. Even though used it came with a 1yr guarantee. Shop around for your glass especially on Adverts.ie

Stephen P

jaqian wrote: »

I've the A100, which I find to be a very good camera.

Regarding Canon/Nikon, they have a bigger selection of second hand glass as they're the most popular players. However Sony is based on Minolta having bought them over in 2006 so any Minolta AF lens will work with your Sony. New Sony glass is very expensive compared like for like with Canon/Nikon but you can find cheaper used Minolta for a third of the new Sony stuff. I bought a Minolta F1.7 50mm AF last week for €149 from Conns Cameras, the Sony version would have been nearly €400. Even though used it came with a 1yr guarantee. Shop around for your glass especially on Adverts.ie

By "glass" I presume you mean lenses? What's the lens like that comes with the camera? What kinda zoom is on it? Would it be the same as a compact digital camera or better? Sorry I'm clueless but very eager to learn

CabanSail

The Kit lens seems to be an 18-70mm (the zoom range) f3.5-5.6 (the max. apertures or how much light it will let in)

This is a fairly standard Kit Lens spec that many the entry level DSLR's will have. It is designed to work well for general use. The zoom range is from reansonably wide to slightly telephoto. It is not particularly fast, especially at the long end (at 18mm it is f3.5 but at 70mm it is f5.6)

cnocbui

Stephen P wrote: »

Thanks lads for the advice. I think I'll go for the Sony I mentioned above. I don't think I'll get into it serious, maybe one day but for the moment I'll practise with the Sony and see what kinda shots I get. :pac:

The main reason to go for an SLR is if there is a likely prospect of getting several lenses.

If you don't think you would be likely to do that, then you would probably be better off getting a good quality compact camera with a decent lens, something like a Panasonic LX3, which has the capability of long shutter times to capture the sort of image you mentioned.

SLRs are bulky and not pocketable. They therefore tend not to be carried around all the time. A compact camera that can be carried about all the time, will be on hand to capture images an SLR would miss by not being there.

pawrick

had a sony before upgrading (not as advanced as this one and bought about 4 years back) personally I would recommend going for something smaller and easier to carry around instead of this if you are not really in to it or you could end up leaving it at home most of the time. you'll get more practise in with something easier to carry about.


re sony - never had a problem with mine, pics were fine and it took a bit of hardship. if this has a sony memory card that can be a pain with adaptors. had no other issues. good luck

melekalikimaka

everyone goes into the slr world with dreams of collections of lots of len... most end up with a 24-70 and a prime ot two... lens porn is over rated

Thirdfox

Cheap used lenses (I can only speak for Nikon) are a dime a dozen on ebay... with 60 euro I got 2 prime lenses. If you want to collect glass then there are some really nicely made Nikkors from 40 years ago that will still work with your Nikon SLR today. But for me I use my lenses, not collect them so I don't think I'll be spending much on anything new for the foreseeable future.

As for Sony - don't have an opinion on them. You may also want to have a look at Olympus (they do make the world's smallest dSLR afterall). And maybe the Panasonic G1 if you really want compact and really want to be able to change lenses.

BigPoppaFluff

Stephen P wrote: »

As money is a bit tight I'm getting it on credit from Littlewoods. It's in my price range and with over €250 off the price.
Would you not recommend Sony?

Hi Stephen,

I just got the same camera from Littlewoods too... How do u find it

Stephen P

BigPoppaFluff wrote: »

Hi Stephen,

I just got the same camera from Littlewoods too... How do u find it

Hey,
I got mine last week. It's a great camera. I'm new to DSLR's so I'm still learning all the different functions it can do. I want to buy another lens though. The lens with it is great but I think with another lens I'll get even better shots. I haven't really taken many shots with it yet just messing around the house.
How do you find it?

conkeroo

I used to own the A100 and it actually wasn't a bad camera. Plenty of features, image stablisation. But the kit lens sucked. I would say that if you think you're going to invest more money into photograpy, Sony is probably not the best route to go. The body might be o.k. but you'll pay premium for the Carl Zeiss lenses later if you want better image quality. Go for a consumer range Canon or Nikon. This way you can buy whatever glass you want and when you upgrade the body the glass will work with it. Sony just don't have the catalogue of lenses as Canon and Nikon. Believe me, I know, you will get to that point where you'll want to expand your limitations of glass and the last thing you want is to have to change your entire system. I'm now a Nikon user!!

Mycroft H

Have to disagree with the previous poster. The 18-70 is no worse then the canikon kit lenses. You cannot expect serious qualitly form a kit lens.

That said sony are releasing a new kit lens, the 18-70 has been withdrawn from supply in the u.s

Nothing wrong with the sony system, lots of good lenses covering from 11mm to 400mm. The old myth that sony lenses are more expensive then everyone elses is pure bull. For example, the classic 50mm prime, sony f1.4=£289 canon=310 nikon=249. Not the dearest at all.


For the normal photog, sony have pretty much all the bases covered, unless you want super focal lenght primes greater then 800mm.

Plus theres new bodies due to be released this year to replace the a200/300/350 and the a700.

Ricky91t

I know you've got it,But if you're finding money tight i'd keep well away from littlewoods,Terribly overpriced IMO

Anouilh

landyman wrote: »

The 18-70 is no worse then the canikon kit lenses. You cannot expect serious qualitly form a kit lens.

I have been using the kit lens that came with my Canon Digital Rebel for over a year now. I think it is very good and the photos I've taken are taken seriously by friends.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/77969956@N00/2877857493

I know it would not be possible to make a professional career with this equipment, but whenever I've shown photos to people who assume that the kit lens is inferior or not sharp, they have been surprised.

I quickly learned to use a tripod, which proably helps.

The Sony system seems to be well regarded on the Internet, but as several posters have mentioned, Canon and Nikon seem to have the most followers.

mumof2

this is an interesting post - I have the Sony Alpha 200K as well, since last November or so, and am considering getting the Sony Lens 75-300 which so far ive seen for IR€242 or 179Pounds - these are online prices.

However, I have been in two minds about upgrading my camera as I want to take it to the next level, and I feel the Sony isn't right for me.

I think i'm going to do some research on the Canon range of lenses and check the compatability with the various bodies they have etc.

I would also agree with the post that Littlewoods are way overpriced in all departments!!:mad:

Rainbowsend

I have the Sony A700 and find it an excellent camera, I started with the A100 which was also a good camera, as for lenses there are Minolta, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Quantaray, Sony and Zeiss, covering all price ranges and quality levels, Sony are up there with the big boys (but for less money) I think you can get carried away by upgrades etc and sometimes dont take the time to get to know the kit properly before moving on. I cannot see myself buying another body, both the 100 and 700 do everything that I shall ever need a camera to do. After all it is practise that makes perfect and not the camera, I hope you enjoy your new camera,

Mycroft H

mumof2 wrote: »

this is an interesting post - I have the Sony Alpha 200K as well, since last November or so, and am considering getting the Sony Lens 75-300 which so far ive seen for IR€242 or 179Pounds - these are online prices.

However, I have been in two minds about upgrading my camera as I want to take it to the next level, and I feel the Sony isn't right for me.

I think i'm going to do some research on the Canon range of lenses and check the compatability with the various bodies they have etc.

I would also agree with the post that Littlewoods are way overpriced in all departments!!:mad:

Just out of interest what do you think your 'missing' with sony?

nilhg

mumof2 wrote: »

this is an interesting post - I have the Sony Alpha 200K as well, since last November or so, and am considering getting the Sony Lens 75-300 which so far ive seen for IR€242 or 179Pounds - these are online prices.

However, I have been in two minds about upgrading my camera as I want to take it to the next level, and I feel the Sony isn't right for me.

I think i'm going to do some research on the Canon range of lenses and check the compatability with the various bodies they have etc.

I would also agree with the post that Littlewoods are way overpriced in all departments!!:mad:

One thing you should carefully consider before you switch is that no Canon or Nikon has any image stabilation built into the camera, if you want it you have to buy stabilised lenses which carry a fair price premium. Some will say you don't need it but my experience having moved from a non IS body to one with it built in is that I wouldn't be without it.

On a more general point, it's worth having a read of Mike Johnsons post here, instead of moving brands you might consider moving uprange, and being able to bring the knowledge gained with Sony with you.

Anouilh

Stephen P wrote: »

The kinda shots I'm after are ones like when you see a photo of a waterfall for example and the water looks smooth, there is probably a proper word for this but I don't know?

It is a good idea to choose a camera that is best suited to the type of photo you want to take. However, smooth water is a feature of many cameras and probably depends on choosing a slow shutter speed. Perhaps finding some more images that you like could help you make a clearer choice.

I have a Canon Digital Rebel. I sometimes borrow a Nikon D40, which is an equivalent model and I have noticed that the colours seem cooler with the Nikon. This seems to explain why this is so:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/XTI/XTIIMATEST.HTM

Also, because I really love my Pentax MZ50 film camera, I keep an eye on Pentax and this seems attractive:

http://photo.net/equipment/pentax/k20d/review/

Price was a deciding factor when I chose the Canon EOS 400 D, and at the time I did not understand anything about crop factor or the (seeming) limitations of the kit lens. Canon have improved the kit lens recently and the IS feature seems to make the images much sharper.
With a nice Sigma apo macro zoom, it has kept me entertained for months.

salamanca

mumof2 wrote: »

this is an interesting post - I have the Sony Alpha 200K as well, since last November or so, and am considering getting the Sony Lens 75-300 which so far ive seen for IR€242 or 179Pounds - these are online prices.

However, I have been in two minds about upgrading my camera as I want to take it to the next level, and I feel the Sony isn't right for me.

I think i'm going to do some research on the Canon range of lenses and check the compatability with the various bodies they have etc.

I would also agree with the post that Littlewoods are way overpriced in all departments!!:mad:

You could look at Sigma lenses for Sony also, for example:-
http://www.pixmania.ie/ie/uk/1645/47/xx/433/1/criteresn.html

I got a Sigma 70-300 lens for the zoom but I find I use the macro function a lot.

melekalikimaka

Anouilh wrote: »

r I've shown photos to people who assume that the kit lens is inferior or not sharp, they have been surprised.

I quickly learned to use a tripod, which proably helps.

well a tripod is only ever realy needed over 1/30th, maybe 1/15, if got a steady hand.

I used kit lens for a while... and was happy with results... until you move on... you look back and to regular unphotography minded folk... a photo is a photo... but you really notice the difference, not just sharpness, CA is really the thing that gets to me with kits lens... dunno what canon is like but its awful on nikons, also the limiting ap kills me now

Anouilh

melekalikimaka wrote: »

CA is really the thing that gets to me with kits lens... dunno what canon is like but its awful on nikons, also the limiting ap kills me now

Apparently Canon is considered to have a better kit lens than Nikon:

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24740

I always associate CA with photos taken on dull days in Winter and, with skill, it can be minimized.

I expect that most professional photographers must look at amateur work in much the same way as professional musicians suffer when listening to amateurs.

If you have a moment, please let me know what AP is.

(I worked out that CA is Chromatic Aberration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration)

mumof2

Thanks Salamanca for that tip - was looking at them earlier today, but are they compatible with the Sony A200, or even a 300/350? It states for DSLR-A100.....

@Landyman - I feel im missing the vibrancy and the clarity - maybe I just need a better lens and invest in filters, not sure if upgrading within Sony as
Nilhg mentioned, is worth considering...till I know whether its just my technique or whether I need to invest more in better equipment.....

Mycroft H

Conns have a couple of second hand minolta 75-300s the last time i was in there for €120. They have better i.q and build then the sony equivilent

mumof2

landyman wrote: »

Conns have a couple of second hand minolta 75-300s the last time i was in there for €120. They have better i.q and build then the sony equivilent

Good price...

Anouilh

nilhg wrote: »

One thing you should carefully consider before you switch is that no Canon or Nikon has any image stabilation built into the camera, if you want it you have to buy stabilised lenses which carry a fair price premium. Some will say you don't need it but my experience having moved from a non IS body to one with it built in is that I wouldn't be without it.

On a more general point, it's worth having a read of Mike Johnsons post here, instead of moving brands you might consider moving uprange, and being able to bring the knowledge gained with Sony with you.

Sony seems to get top reviews for IS.

However, I have had access to a Nikon D4o recently and the 50-200mm zoom has Vibration Reduction:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm

I do a lot of "Drive By Shooting" as a passenger when travelling and this lens is just right when on bumpy roads.

Here is an example of what it produces in good conditions:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/3468526621/sizes/o/

I don't know the current pricing, but it was around 200 euro.

Also, be careful if buying as a kit lens, as the non VR version is sometimes offered:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm

Apparently, to get an equivalent quality lens in Canon would cost about 500 euro.

Mycroft H

^ Wouldnt pay an awful lot of attention of what ken rockwell has to say. All of his reviews are totally biased towards nikon.

Anouilh

landyman wrote: »

^ Wouldnt pay an awful lot of attention of what ken rockwell has to say. All of his reviews are totally biased towards nikon.

I didn't know that.

I like Nikon d40 because of the crisp colour.
I don't know enough about sensors and colour to understand why my Canon eos 400d seems to give some very OTT pinks and reds.

BigPoppaFluff

Stephen P wrote: »

Hey,
I got mine last week. It's a great camera. I'm new to DSLR's so I'm still learning all the different functions it can do. I want to buy another lens though. The lens with it is great but I think with another lens I'll get even better shots. I haven't really taken many shots with it yet just messing around the house.
How do you find it?

I actually like it, I dont have a lot of experience with such cameras.. I was using my phone, I have a c905 (8.1 MP) and got some fantastic shots with it

My friends advised me to try a "real" camera... so here I am


Have u found any good sites that give tips?