Thoughts on Value - Sony A200 vs Nikon D80

[tom_turner5]

I will be a new DSLR buyer in the near future - who wants a camera to take good

pictures of my family and of my boys playings sports. I was set to by the D80

until the A200 announcement. Thoughts and recos

 

Thanks

T2

[nolan_ross]

Both would be more than adequate for the type shooting your interested in. It's hard to beat just going to the store and handling them both and see what feels and looks good to you. When you buy one of these models you are buying into a system of accessories that you might purchase at a later time such as add on flash, lenses and so on. Possibly go to BHPhoto.com and look up some accessories to see how they stack up in price and availability. Something to consider would be the kit lens focal length that comes with the camera. The D80 has a 18-135mm kit lens. The D80 cost about $1200.00 with the kit lens. The A200 when available is going to be much cheaper about $700.00 with an 18-70kit lens. If you were going to just use the kit lens for a while as your only lens then I would rather have the Nikon since it's telephoto reach is nearly double the A200 which would be nice for sideling sport shooting such as football. A faster f1.8 lens would be nice for indoor activities and sports where flash is not appreciated. A 50mm f1.8 lens would work well for this such as basketball or stage performances. Look to KEH.com for good used fast standard lens for either camera. Financially speaking the D40x is closer in price to the A200 then the D80. Good luck. Give some thought to hanging onto the pictures of your kids once you have taken them. Taking thousands of pictures now are not much good if you do not still have them later in life.

[ricardovaste]

You are comparing 2 different spec cameras, hence the price difference. The A200 compares with the D40x price wise, as mentioned by Nolan. The D40x has been on the market, what, 5 months? After the initial prices of the A200 it will be very similar to the D40x... but has considerable advantages spec wise.

 

The important thing here is handling. For family snaps any SLR on the market is more than adequate, so you may as well get a up to date and reasonably cheap one, then spend the rest of the money on a good standard zoom. So its more how the cameras feels in your hands than what spec's it has here i believe.

 

Either would be a great option im sure and you will get years of memorys captured :). One thing to note is that the A200 will have SSS (super steady shot) and 'in camera' stabalisation technology... every lens you put on will be stabalised, unlike the Nikon equiv. where you have to buy expensive lenses that are stabalised. But that might not be significant for you.

 

All the best,

 

Rich

[douglas_ferling]

Wait a few more weeks. A couple of more cameras below the Sony A700 are allegedly gonna be announced. The A200 is just the beginning.

[Sanford]

The Minoltas don't have the information window on top. I have the D80 and I need to see

the shutter speed/aperture etc on top.

[elnoralouisa]

Gee, that's exactly what I don't like about Nikon and Canon, the top view of the info. I always had to put my glasses on to see it :)

One major consideration for me was the image stablization. After having a camera with an image stablization in it, and then going to a Nikon or Canon without it, there is a difference, unless you are in a place where you can use a tripod all the time. The camera store said I would never know the difference in a lens up to 135 (they didn't have the lens with VR or IS in stock). Well, I did, and so did other people. If you can afford the VR or IS in the lens, then go for it. Obviously Canon and Nikon are more popular, but if you want the IS in the camera, I would go with the A200.

[Sanford]

Debbie - not a problem for me, I just leave my reading glasses time and adjust the

viewfinder to the glasses. That way I can review the shot just taken on the rear screen.

Problem is I can't see more than 10 feet in front of me when wearing glasses. It's fun

getting old! IS would be cool. Does the Minolta have live view? That would be the next

great feature I can't live without especially with a swing-out screen like the Olympus E3.

[ricardovaste]

Live view technology is not currently up to the standards that would allow it to be put into a semi-professional DSRL. Hence no inclusion of it in the A700. See my thread on the new A300 though, very similar to the A200, supposedly 12MP sensor, it has live view. The screen swings out too, but doesnt seem to swivle.

[dave_bernard]

The A100 is the competition to the D80. The A200 is an upgraded A100. It is definitely not in the D40 segment.

 

If you don't have a current system, Sony is offering a fantastic bargain in exchange for market share. Add to that the built-in anti-shake capability, and the Sony is hard to pass up. Sony is continuing to add to their lens line up, and include Zeiss lenses in that line-up. They have announced intentions to also introduce a "Pro" grade (whatever that is) camera to their DSLR line-up.

 

If you have a good use for the money you're saving- such as investing in your kids' private sports coaching- go with the Sony.

 

Nothing wrong with the Nikon, of course.

[eric_arnold]

nothing wrong with sony, either...

just a note that glass selection should be a consideration. if you never want to use anything other than the kit lens that's one thing. if you want to do a more specific kind of photography, that's another.