Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 3, 2009, 11:54 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
vexedviking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba Canada
Posts: 191
Default

Just brought home a a200 from sony. I decided on this one because it was 250 dollars less then the a300. Now Im having second thoughts. The only diference between the two is Live view and moveable view finder on the a300. Is it worth the $250 to take back the 200 and exchange it for a 300?? Im loosing sleep over this. Thanks in advance
vexedviking is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 3, 2009, 11:57 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
vexedviking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba Canada
Posts: 191
Default

vexedviking wrote:
Quote:
Just brought home a a200 from sony. I decided on this one because it was 250 dollars less then the a300. Now Im having second thoughts. The only diference between the two is Live view and moveable view finder on the a300. Is it worth the $250 to take back the 200 and exchange it for a 300?? Im loosing sleep over this. Thanks in advance
Also can I use my external flash from my z3 minolta on the new cam? :-)
vexedviking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2009, 12:06 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

Are you planning on using live view? Also, did you check out the A300's viewfinder? Sony had to make the viewfinder smaller on the cameras with live view to allow for the separate sensor. Just my opinion, but I thought the A300's viewfinder would drive me nuts but there are lots of happy A300 users out there.

Live view isn't useful for me - I do mostly outdoor photography. I've found the LCD hard to see in bright sunlight. I mostly hand-hold my shots and a dSLR is way too heavy to hold out at arms length and expect shots without camera shake (anti-shake can only do so much). If you use a tripod and do mostly indoor photography, then I can see how live view would be useful.

My answer would be to keep the A200 and use the extra money to get another lens.

I shoot Pentax so can't help you with your flash question.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2009, 7:53 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Another difference between the A200 and the A300 is the speed of continuous shooting. The A200 can shoot at 3 frames per second, while the A300 only does about 2.5.

The frame rate for continuous shooting is important for sports/action/wildlife and low-light photography, and faster is better.

And don't publish your e-mail address in discussion forums and blogs like this. You'll lose a lot more sleep with some of the things you'll receive in your inbox. You should edit your original post to remove it ASAP.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2009, 11:02 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

VexedViking-

Stick with the Sony A-200! Its not a bad camera at all. From my point of view you do not really gain much more from switching to the Sony A-300.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2009, 11:53 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Decatur, GA
Posts: 2,053
Default

I use the A200 to photograph fire and rescue stuff and at night its getting me really great pictures with the use of the pop up flash. The day pictures are AWQESOME!!!! Its a very good camera. I like the viewfinder on the A200 never used the A300 or A350, but like others have said I heard its smaller and hard to use with glasses.

Also the battery life on the A200 is far better than stated in the operating manual and on line specs for the camera. I am getting over 500 images with flash at night and over 800 in the day...... I bought 2 extra batteries for it but so far never had a need to use a spare battery in the field.

One thing I have learned is if you really want to take advantage of the 3fps continious shooting then you need a 166x or faster CF card or Sandisc Exterme III. The 133x transcend and sandisc Ultra IIs give you 3fls for about 3 seconds and then drop to 1.8 or so per second since the buffer is trying to clear and the card speed can't keep up. However I did a test shoot 100 frames one days and it did 3fps for 3 seconds and then stayed at 1.8fps for the rest of the time using a 133x speed card. I confirmed that with a 166x and 233x the speed is much better so if you want to do sports and wildlife I'd spend the extra money on a fast CF card.

I also want to note that with my old Fuji S9100 I didn't use the LCD screen much except for checking images and the occassional shooting out the car window at something. So I don't miss that all that much.

dave
Photo 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 5, 2009, 12:24 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Thanks a lot, Dave-

I sincerely think that the Sony A-200 gets less praise than it really deserves. The rumor is afoot that Sony will drop the A-200 from their DSLR camera line in 2009.

That would be a real shame if they did, as the A-200 is one of the least costly entry level DSLR cameras right now.

Sarah Joyce


mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 5, 2009, 12:44 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
vexedviking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba Canada
Posts: 191
Default

Thank you all for your valued input. I thought long and hard about taking back the 200 and getting the 300. I did get the 300 for two reasons, I like to do flowers and insects up close and thought the live view would be much easier then being behind the eye piece. The other thing was I have found myself in crowds befor wanting to get a shot, and had to hold the camera over my head to get it. The live view I thought was worth the extra $200. That said , now I have to come up with yet another $250 for a 75–300mm lens :evil: Lifes funny like that. Any thoughts on a place to get a good deal on one of those. Thanks again for all the input, it was greatly appreciated.
vexedviking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 5, 2009, 7:15 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Those are good reasons for selecting the A300 over the A200. Perhaps if you had made those concerns clear in your original post, you might have gotten some responses telling you so.

The Sony 75-300 is not a very good lens. It is soft throughout its zoom range,and has significant chromatic abberation starting at 200mm.The Sony 55-200, and Tamron 55-200 and 70-300 Di LD are much better. And the Tamrons are cheaper, and the Sony 55-200 is just a rebranded Tamron.

An important consideration when selecting a lens is what you might want to shoot with it. Some lenses work better with certain subject matter than others. What types of photography do you want to do?

And I strongly suggest that you remove your e-mail address from your original post.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 5, 2009, 5:40 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
vexedviking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba Canada
Posts: 191
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
Those are good reasons for selecting the A300 over the A200. Perhaps if you had made those concerns clear in your original post, you might have gotten some responses telling you so.

The Sony 75-300 is not a very good lens. It is soft throughout its zoom range,and has significant chromatic abberation starting at 200mm.The Sony 55-200, and Tamron 55-200 and 70-300 Di LD are much better. And the Tamrons are cheaper, and the Sony 55-200 is just a rebranded Tamron.

An important consideration when selecting a lens is what you might want to shoot with it. Some lenses work better with certain subject matter than others. What types of photography do you want to do?

And I strongly suggest that you remove your e-mail address from your original post.
Of course I didnt think of those bad points to the 200m untill I got it hom and stated to look at the camera. Great advice on the lens. Im hoping the Henrys in town carries the Tamron product line. Cheaper and better works fine with me. I did find a 70-200 minolta lens for this camera used, what do you think of those? Thanks for the reminder on the email address, its been removed.
vexedviking is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:42 AM.