Sony A200 DSLR less than £250 quid!

Well this is a great price for a good DSLR. Not my cup of tea, personally don't like the lower end models, but if you wanted to go the Sony route what a great introduction. Sony cameras will take the Minolta range of lenses and there are loads out there just need hunting down a bit in the secondhand market.

http://www.play.com/Electronics/Elec...tml?P36=EAX6MR

As a matter of interest what do the lower end DSLRs not have that the prosumer market models do. Suppose there is and are differences apart from advertising budgets but what are the features that are missing from the entry level models?

Do think if you are coming into the DSLR market then some of the more advanced features may not be required and if you say lens are available secondhand it would seem a good way for someone who does not want to become a pro eventually, to go.

Well I don't generally like the design of the Sony models, the switches etc, the design of the lens etc. but that is just personal taste. I also think Sonty digital images often look overprocessed and a little oversaturated and garish as default but taht can be adjusted. Top end like the A900 is brill!

Models further upmarket in general will have better built bodies, weather sealing, more direct controls not hidden in menus, more options for storage of images (e.g. jpg plus raw at the same time), more complex autofocus, ability to couple with a greater range of lenses, ability to sync more accessories, etc. etc. To be honest many features are not required by the amateur hence the hierarchy of cameras available and in fact some 'lower end' models have features not always available higher up the range, video recording, pop up flash, convenient 'program' modes etc. Lots of generalisations in in there of course and talking broad range of models, not Sony particularly.

So IYO people should not be put off buying a lower end camera because the chances are their results will be as good, or bad, no matter what they pay for their camera body. The main difference is convenience of controls or lack of controls because the function required is available but is in the menu and not available as a button.

I think the important thing when starting out on the DSLR journey is the quality of the lens available for that body and the cost involved should one wish to change to a different type of mount further down the camera owning line. However if buying second hand the chance of getting most of the money back when you sell is pretty good.

Well it's quite complex and you would need to talk specific models but the resulting image in many instances would look the same or similar to higher end moxdels. I was particularly talking about features, robustness, handling and ergonomics that set professional cameras apart from amateur. I agree the lens is particularly important and of course many people advocate upgrading lenses in place of new body.

My original comment was aimed more at the lower end Sony's. I think they perform very well and I considered a A100 a couple of years back. But, I didn't like 'the look' in comparison to the Nikons at the same point in the market (and I was using a works D200 at the time). £249 for an A200 is a good price but potential buyers have to think where they are headed with it if they are looking at the basis of a system which is what a DSLR is.

Nice find BC

Well found, will keep this in mind for mum!

xx

Just FWIW, the A200 will save as JPG+RAW as one of the options
My opinion of the A200 is possibly somewhat biassed, given that it is the first (and as yet only) DSLR I've owned, but value for money it is a corker. One of the things I like about it is the In Body image stabilisation, which means lenses are cheaper, and you can use *pre-owned* Minolta lenses and still have image stabilisation, which is nice.

That said, I'm already getting itchy fingers, as the *Kit* lens, whilst being a good performer, is a little, erm, restricted...being neither a wide angle nor a telephoto...I think I will have to get two lenses, one that goes wider, and one more telephoto, to cover the bits that frankly I'm still using the Fuji bridge camera to do, as the Sony lens just isn't up to it.

That isn't to say that it isn't a good lens, or a good camera. More that as I'm using it more (and I really am, god help me...) I'm wanting to *do* more, achieve more, and the kit lens isn't up to it. *That* is the fault of the camera...it is too much damned fun, it draws you in, it is a trap, a ruse to get you to buy more!!

Regarding features, the 200 is less restrictive than you may think. Yes, it has fewer features than a higher priced body, but the only feature of a high-end camera that I would like to see on it, and that I would actually use, is that of multiple exposure on one frame, rather than having to shop the image...

Now, all I want is a wide angle lens, a decent mid-range telephoto, a good long telephoto, at least two wireless flash guns, a decent Benbo tripod...hey, it's my birthday next month, anyone wanna....

Yep, I did say the features part of my point was a generalisation rather than specific to any model. Indeed some 'lower' end models have features not found on higher, 'program' mode for example on the Nikons or even video recording.

Part of the benefit of Nikon and Canon is the wide array of secondhand lenses etc. available in many places unlike most of the others. Sony fit lenses, i.e. Minolta seem to be getting snapped as more people adopt a Sony as their camera. As I said, I think they are good further up the range and probably woukld love it to death if I had an A200 but in my hand I didn't like it enough to buy.