Sony A200 vs A300 vs A350

[Newfie]

I am considering getting one of these three and am curious what others think. From what I have been able to find on line there are only minor differences between all three - other than price. I believe all three use the same sensor, have built -in IS, same size LCD screen, etc. The 200 and 300 are both 10MP but the 300 has the flip screen and live-view. The 350 is 14MP but is otherwise the same as the 300.

Am I missing something? Would love to hear what others think.

[coplan]

I did a side-by-side over at dpreview.com (view the comparison here (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=sony_dslra200%2Csony_dslra300%2Csony_dslra 350&show=all))...and this is a really good way to compare.

I can't see too much difference between the cameras other than the items you stated. Normally, I wouldn't waste money going between 10mp and 14mp, focusing on other features instead. But the cost difference isn't very much.

That flip back on the 300 may look appealing, but I can't imagine a single circumstance where I would actually have use for that feature. In my opinion, it's just one more fragile aspect of your camera.

Can I ask why you're considering the Sony instead of a Nikon or Canon? I played with all of the comparable 10mp cameras a lot (I rented the Sony A200), and I wasn't really comfortable with the Sony body, I felt the controls were in awkward places and the viewfinder was hard to use.
In the end, I bought the Nikon D80 despite the cost difference. The deciding factor for me was the lenses. I'm not impressed with Minolta/Sony lenses, and there certainly isn't as much of a selection as the Nikon and Canon lines...so I struck the Sony from my list.

I will attest, however, the image quality is quite good. My camera uses the same sensor as the A200, and I couldn't be happier.

[coplan]

Side note - If price is a concern, the Canon Rebel XTi was a really nice camera to work with and it's only about $700 with a 18-70mm lens. I rented it for a couple of weeks, and it lost to the Nikon D80 by a very tiny margin. I really had a hard time deciding.

[Newfie]

Thanks Coplan for the comments. To be honest I would love to get a Canon 40D but this would be my first DSLR and I'm afraid it may be a bit too much camera for a newbie - not to mention it's considerably more expensive. I have always had Canon point n shoot cameras and I know there is a great selection of Canon lenses available but there is something about the Sonys that interest me. I have held them in stores a few times and they feel pretty good.

I looked at the same comparison on dpreview. There seems to be such minor differences and it makes me wonder why Sony went through the effort to release three models that are so alike. Its interesting that your camera uses the same sensor. As for the Nikon, for some reason I have never really considered them. Maybe I will.

[coplan]

Sony is a weird company. I love their home audio components, but when I competed in car stereo, Sony was greatly frowned upon in the competition circuit. So I learned to take everything of theirs with a grain of salt. In the camera world, they havn't impressed me yet except for their sensors (obviously...since my Nikon has one).

You have to think from a longevity point of view. If you like the lenses that come with Canon, you will likely end up back with Canon in the future. Maybe the 40D might be too much for you at this point with your experience, but the Rebel XTi might be perfect for you. It's very comparable to the Sony A200, but I think it's actually easier to use. I thik the autofocus system (especially in auto mode) is much smoother and easier to use on the Canon.

But this is the real issue: If you start with a Sony setup and you get a couple of lenses for it, when you do outgrow the sony, you're either going to be stuck with a new sony body to support your old lenses, or you're going to have to give them up to switch systems entirely.

In my opinion, I'd start with a lower Canon like the XTi...then when you outgrow it, you can buy the 40D (or whatever the latest and greatest model is) and still have use of any lenses you've acquired.

Here's the thing...once you get into the SLR world, you're more likely to buy new lenses than a new camera body. So in 5 years, you may have 3 or 4 lenses for whatever body you choose, and that is worth far more money than the body itself.

It all comes down to the lenses. If you aren't wild about the lenses available for a camera, don't even consider the camera. I think it will be several years before Sony can be considered a real contender in the market if only for this reason.

PS - the older Minolta lenses may work with the Sony body...but they don't provide all of the advantages of a digital setup. so you may as well not even consider the old minolta lenses.

[Newfie]

You make perfect sense coplan. The lenses should be the key. Maybe I'll go have a look at the XTi this weekend.

[Matthias099]

I agree. Personally I like the Nikon's a lot. My last two SLR's were Nikon's. I like there lenses. There is almost nothing better on the market. You can get the D40 with 18-55 lens for about $450-500. That's a good start. And Nikon has always been downward compatible with their lenses.

[porterd2nz]

I bought the Sony A100 just after it was released and am extremely happy with it. I don't have a background in photography and came into it with no preconcieved ideas about brands, etc.

The kit lenses that are bundled with the Alphas are no worse than the kit lenses that come with the Canon or Nikon offerings. The Canons and Nikons do have more options for lenses, but chances are that you aren't going to be dropping a lot of cash on extra lenses too soon.

The Sonys are compatible with a large collection of Alpha mount Konica/Minolta lenses. Some of these are fairly old technology and a few you give up auto focus, but they are still good to excellent glass.

As to upgrades, Sony are very committed to the Alpha line and there doesn't seem to be any reason that the line won't grow to encompass a full line of lenses in the future.

There seems to be a little bit of equipment snobbery around that assumes that the Sonys aren't anything more than an introductory step, and that when you want to get serious you'll need to upgrade to a system of the two big players, Canon or Nikon. Ignore it.

[theknapps@rogers.com]

I just entered the wonderful world of dslr and chose the a200 over all the competition. I shopped at a store where I could handle all of the cameras. I also checked reviews and comparative sites and feel I made the right decision for me.
I find there is camera snobbery out there but in the end, choose the camera that feels right to you and fits your budget.
For me, the a200 offered the most for the best price.
I came from a Fuji s700 point and shoot and found the a2oo rather staight forward to use ( and I just love using it :). I found the manual quite well written as well.
I think Sony are in the camera game for the long haul. Matter of fact, some camera site experts are suggesting that Nikon and Canon are very well aware of that.
That can only be good news for all of us camera buffs.
good luck with your search!! :)

[JMBull]

I just bought the Sony A100 for several reasons one being that is what cheaper than some of the other ones I had been looking at. I tried the Canon xti and it wasn't comfortable to me and the Nikon was to expensive and I like having the image stabilation in the body. I really like the camera and it can do so much and this is my first dslr, I have a Canon S2is. Just a thought they are still out there and I bought mine at B & h photo and it is cheaper than the A200. Hope it helps and good luck.

[coplan]

Camera Snobbery - trust me...I am not one of those. I use Nikon because I like them. I also like Canon. And depending on who you are and what you want, I might recommend one camera over the other. The advantage that Canon and Nikon have over Sony at the moment, as I mentioned, is just the lenses. Personally...I wasn't impressed with the sony Kit lenses...and I'm not too impressed with their full line thus far. And while Sony is comitted to the line...I'm not one to put much faith in something that is, thus far, vaporware.

As for the camera body stabilization...I'm personally not a fan of stabilization. I use a tripod. So it wouldn't even make it on a pros/cons list in my book. That said...the price difference between the Sony A200 and the Nikon D40 (or even the D80) is more than justified.

My advice to novices....start with something small like the D40. As you grow better...consider new or additional lenses, not a new camera. The Lens will have much more impact on my photography than the camera. You will inevitably outgrow your camera body, but then when you do...you'll have some nice lenses.

Stop thinking about it like investing in a camera. You're investing in a camera line - lenses, flashes and all.

[porterd2nz]

Stop thinking about it like investing in a camera. You're investing in a camera line - lenses, flashes and all.

This is it exactly! You make your choice for whatever reason and you stick with it.

The Sony line IS less mature. It is based on the Konica-Minolta lineage, so unless Sony stuffs things up completely, the line should mature okay.

I will be leaving it for a few more years before I can see the need to upgrade from the a-100 body. The new models haven't actually added much to their offering.

[Of course, this all changes when I win the Nikon D60 up for grabs this month...;)]

[hafizan89]

I just bought the A200, and for the beginner, it is nice. And it is my first DSLR.
Yes, some buttons were a bit off, and if you tried it in the highest ISO setting, it will make very hideous pictures.
But, if your not gonna buy a large set of stuffs like lenses and others, it's quite a nice camera to use.
If you are thinking of buying lenses that will fill your room, buy a Canon or Nikon because there are more accessories available.
But if you're like me, the A200 was the best for my price point.

[coplan]

[Of course, this all changes when I win the Nikon D60 up for grabs this month...;)]

Don't worry...problem solved. I'll be winning it. (I know I already have the D80, but I need a backup...or perhaps just a dedicated Infrared Camera).

[Linn]

I bought my A100 1,5 years ago, and was also looking at the Canon. The store convinced me of the Sony, with the argument that it is just so much more for the money compared to Canon or Nikon.

I am really very happy with my choise, even after one and a half year. The image stabilization in the body allows you to work with old Minolta lenses, yet not compromising image quality, and Minolta lenses are plenty and quite often quality lenses availble in good condition for affordable prices.

I am currently consdiering upgrading my A100 to an A700 - but will stick with Sony. Another Sony advantage - battery life is amazing...

[xcessi]

I don't get it. I just checked the comparison on dpreview and I see minor differences.
In some cases it might even be better to get the A200.
It is lighter and has greater magnification on the viewfinder (very little)
Everything else is basically the same.

Sony even has a sale on now where you can get the A200 for under $500 so I see very little reason to buy either the 300 or 350.

I need a DSLR camera work (graphic artist, web design)
I like the Canon's for the very reason discussed (available lenses)
Also I prefer IS in the lenses since I might change the camera body over time.

The XSI, I think, uses CMOS sensor as opposed to the CCD sensor? What the real difference? Better or worse?

Thanks

[caw]

Perhaps this article can help. It focuses on the A300, but it also compares this camera to the other Sony models.

http://www.alphamountworld.com/reviews/sony-a300-review?page=0%2C0

[sbharris20]

I just bought the Sony A700 in November. I love it, the only thing that I miss is the screen view when shooting sometime. Put I have found since I have been using the eye view I focus on the subject better. I also had a Minolta film camera, so my lens that I had fit my new Sony A 700. But I am trying to decide on a new macro lens.

I love my Sony A 700
http://sbharris.smugmug.com

[wp416]

I just bought the A300, and I love it. It has live view, shake reduction in the body (instead of the lenses, like Canon and Nikon). The price difference, if you want a shake reduction feature and a pair of lenses, to cover you from 14-300 mm, is over $1200 when you build in the difference in lens prices with the shake reduction system built into the lens (in nikon and canons case).

In short, the budget killer deals right now are the Olympus EVOLT 530 and the Sony A300. For the bucks I'd rather put the extra money between the A300 and A350 into extra flash gear. I don't need 14 megapixel images, although if the sensor was a full 35mm, I guess that would have made a difference to me.

The sony lets you buy used lenses (Minolta AF mount) whereas you can't do that with the Olympus. dpreview.com has great reviews. Read them first. Rent if you can, before you buy. I played for 1 hour with the A300 and I was hooked. I went into the store to buy a Canon Rebel XTi, and I saw what I could get with the money, then went back home and read all I could read, and went back and bought the sony. It ROCKS.

The proprietary flash shoe is a big drawback and there's no PC sync contact but you can fix that for $20 or so, if you know where to go to buy it:
http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/product.php?productid=16892&cat=275&page=1

Cheers.

Warren/Toronto

[from brazil]

this was a great tip. thanks

[Skoropada]

I've just bought the A200 kit with 2 lenses.

I'm eager to start using it, but I'm still at work and the battery needs to be carged!

[demody]

I've just bought the A200 kit with 2 lenses.

I'm eager to start using it, but I'm still at work and the battery needs to be carged!

Congrats on your a200. I have had mine for 2 months and have taken so many great pics that I wonder why I did not buy a DSLR sooner. (well I do know ... $$$ ... but the a200 is extremely affordable). I take all my pics in RAW and the post processing helps to make my pictures looking great.

I upgraded the kit lense to a Sony 18-250 and am real pleased with the sharpness. But have had success with the kit lense too. You might want to check out the enthusiasts groups at FLICKR for pointers. Here is one:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/sony_alpha_dslr-a200/

Cheers,

demody

[sarahgirl777]

I bought my A300 a few months ago and I love it. I chose it over the A200 for the live view. I don't always use it, but sometimes it helps when I'm shooting low children or other subjects, flowers etc, where I can't get in there as close, but I can hold the camera out and still see what I'm focusing on. I did a lot of research before buying also and found I got more with the sony for the $$. Yes I know it's about lenses later, but at that moment I only had a camera budget.

[samleo]

I purchased the Sony A 350 simply because it had live view and the tilting screen which I find invaluable for low down and high angle shooting; the low down shooting is great for garden macro! Another advantage the Sony has,or had, is the quick auto focus in live view mode. The image quality is first class and the extra pixels do make a difference but at a price of increased noise at high iso's. I must say the handling is a bit of problem at times, the body is bulky and can be awkward and rather agricultual but its a very good camera for all that! To get round the problem of Sony lenses I use only Sigma of which I am a big fan and which produce great images!

[cheshirekat]

It will be delivered tomorrow. I fully expected to switch to Canon for my first dSLR. But a few things made me decide to stick with Sony.

The most important thing that influenced my decision is that Sony offered no payments and no interest for 24 months. My mom wants the Alpha 900. But since she is a big Sony fan I thought we'd both get the 350. When she saw the 900, she immediately decided that was the camera for her. So, in my mind I decided to get the Canon XSi since the 900 is much more than I wanted to spend for my first dSLR. I planned to wait to see her use the 900 and save up for the 350 and good lenses.

Bu when I saw Sony's financing deal last Friday, I immediately went to Canon's web site to look for a good deal. I called my mom and we talked about it all weekend. On Sunday, I couldn't stand it any longer and ordered the Alpha 350 and the 70-300mm G lens. I could have waited a few months and gotten a Canon with more lenses and accessories. The new Alpha uses different batteries and flash memory than my Sony H9 and so does the Canon. Either way, my gear would grow substantially.

I think the Alpha 900 is super sweet, but I really like the tilt screen on my H9. I am very short and use it a lot. I also like taking close-up shots in my garden without all the contortions I used to do before I got a camera with a tilt screen. I went to the Obama rally here in Denver a couple Sundays ago and couldn't see a thing from where I was with all the tall people in front of me. But I held my camera high with the lcd tilted downward and got some good shots. Got a sore arm too, but I got over that because the photos were very good. Although I will always wish I had the Alpha dSLR quality images of Barack Obama.

I know there are a lot more goodies for Canon cameras but I'm also a Mac user and have heard the same said about my Mac and pc software. My mom loves her Jeep and I like Chevy. I played with the Canon, Nikon, and Sony cameras in the local stores and the Sony had the best fit for my hands. But since I hadn't made a decision at that point, the handling was something I thought would just take time to get used to. Just as it did when I bought the H9 after using the Sony W7. While it would be nice to have thousands of lenses to choose from, I know I will probably only buy a few. And so far, it looks like I can get other brands of lenses for my new Alpha. I'm considering a Tamron or two in the near future.

If I had a lot of money, I'm sure I would have bought a Canon. Having two years to pay this camera off before the high interest rates start is something I can do. I have credit cards I could have used to purchase my camera but this way works out better for me financially. If Canon had the same deal when I looked, I may have gotten that XSi. But then with the longer Sony battery life and the tilt screen and the better fit in my hand, I may have passed up an equal Canon deal. It doesn't matter, I got the deal that makes me happy and I'm sure I will love the IQ of my photos and have a blast with using it now instead of months down the road.

[pendulum_bob]

I own a Sony A200. I am happy about my camera. I get inexpensive lens (Minolta lenses). I am also happy with the result. :)

Its not about the brand nor camera its always the person behind the camera.

[TheMallowMan]

I bought the A300 kit with a 18-70mm and 55-200mm a while back and I have never been happier with a purchase. I'm not a very experienced photographer (far from it, the last SLR I bought was almost 8 years ago - a Canon EOS300 SLR), but honestly I see no difference in quality, workmanship or features between the Sony or Canon or Nikon. Sure, the viewfinder is a little standard, but that's just splitting hairs. The important features such as the sensor and sturdy body are what matters.

I also get the idea that Sony might be underpricing their DSLR's a little to break into the market - I paid 750 for the body and both lenses. Both Canon and Nikon are considerably more expensive, and I don't see any real difference.

Just my inexperienced penny's worth. :)