Anyone using a Sony A200 right now?

[AndrewR]

I finally saw the A200 in person at a store this week, and I was struck by how light it is compared to my A100. It may not have had a battery in it, but even without the battery, it seemed very light. Unfortunately, both A200 models I saw weren't powered so I couldn't even try out the focusing or the screen.

Has anyone used the A200 extensively, particularly in comparison to the A100? I'm just curious if my impression of the build quality is correct. The price point definitely seems like it's on the lower end from the A100, since an open-box A100 is currently selling for the exact same price as the new A200 at the Best Buy I went to (which says more about BB's idiotic "clearance prices" than anything else, however).

I'm very interested to see what the A300/A350 looks like in person.

 

[foghorn67]

Your instincts are correct. The A200 is supposed to be positioned even more entry level than the A100 model was. If you are a Sony/KM user, go for the A300/A350 or A700.
FYI-I never held an A200, but I read that while browsing the photo magazines at a book store.

 

[Heidfirst]

well, the A100 was positioned at mid-level when it came out, the A200 is bottom end but such is progress that it performs better than the A100.
http://photoclubalpha.com/2008...sony-alpha-200-review/
http://www.alphamountworld.com/topics/reviews
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_topics.asp?FID=29

 

[dug777]

Have the D60 & A200 surpassed the D80 in terms of high iso performance from the same sensor?

I'm quite a fan of Nikon's way of handling NR, even with my ancient D80

I've heard great things about the D60's new EXPEED processing, but until dpreview does their usual gamut of stuff it's hard to tell if there is any real and noticeable difference...

 

[soydios]

the D200/D80/D40x/D60 sensor never was a very good high-ISO performer. which makes it all the more amazing that the D300 performs so well.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: soydios
the D200/D80/D40x/D60 sensor never was a very good high-ISO performer. which makes it all the more amazing that the D300 performs so well.

While I appreciate that it's not quite on par with the 400D, with all due respect it isn't a 'bad high-ISO performer', and the difference isn't exactly mind blowing, even at epic levels of crop.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD80/page27.asp

My D80 rarely moves out of 100 or 200, but I've done some stuff more a play at up to 1000 (no flash) and got some very usable pictures...

 

[jpeyton]

This is what DPReview mentioned in their D80 review:

Closer inspection show that this is due to Nikon's superior chroma noise reduction which keeps the mottled color pattern (chroma noise) to a minimum, producing a more 'film like' monochromatic grain.

I do a lot of B&W digital photography, so I find Nikon's noise management a plus.

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: soydios
the D200/D80/D40x/D60 sensor never was a very good high-ISO performer. which makes it all the more amazing that the D300 performs so well.

it's a totally different sensor though (CMOS instead of CCD).
Plus a lot of it comes down to how the data is processed e.g. despite using the same sensor the A100 will have more detail than the D80 at low ISO but the D80 has less noise at higher ISO because the Sony & Nikon processing is different.

 

[dqniel]

Originally posted by: soydios
the D200/D80/D40x/D60 sensor never was a very good high-ISO performer. which makes it all the more amazing that the D300 performs so well.

If you think the D80's sensor wasn't a very good high-ISO performer, then what camera at the time had a sensor that you did think was a good high-ISO performer? The D80 was on par, or better than, the Rebel XTI at 1600.

Also, why is it surprising that the D300 sensor is amazing? Brand-spanking-new CMOS sensor in combination with Nikon's good noise reduction methods (high chroma reduction and low luminescence reduction).

 

[GrJohnso]

Hmmm... 4 posts (including the OP's) on subject, 5 posts off... Love how things drift...

You'll probably get a bit more info from either the DPreview.com Sony SLR forum or the Dyxum.com Forums on this subject. The general consensus seems to be better performance from iso 400 and up and faster auto-focus speeds with less hunting in low light. IQ at low ISO's is the same, with a slight edge to the A100 at ISO 100, but this is fairly subjective. Build quality/feel seems to lean towards the A100, but nothing real bad to say about the A200. Navigation is slightly improved with A200.

In general, people are not replacing their A100's with A200's. As noted, it seems to be a step in the wrong direction for most People are jumping to the liveview + higher mp a3## series or the a700 for all the other bells and whistles... That is, if they aren't just holding out for the FF "flagship" model(s) coming out later this year.