Sony Digital SLR Alpha 200 $349+tax at Target YMMV

[beyonddc]

I saw it today for $420. I wonder if they forgot to switch the tag. I'll do a price check first thing tomorrow morning.

[ws2112]

found one at my local target in wa, but didn't pull the trigger though, The camera feels a little bit cheap and lens isn't really good either. Well, you get what you pay for ><

[skippapotamus]

I can vouch for the build quality and image quality. This is a hell of a price. Realistically no difference between this and the brand new, expensive a230. Only difference between this and the more expensive a330 is live view.

and, of course, being able to mount Minolta autofocus lenses (cheap in price, great quality) makes the Sony line a winner.

[dp1fw]

no live view though

[liighettoromeo]

the A200 probably got some of the best reviews for entry level DSLR in 2008...one of the best entry level for 2008

[travfar]

Quote from skippapotamus : I can vouch for the build quality and image quality. This is a hell of a price. Realistically no difference between this and the brand new, expensive a230. Only difference between this and the more expensive a330 is live view. and, of course, being able to mount Minolta autofocus lenses (cheap in price, great quality) makes the Sony line a winner.

I had a A200. Got it from Wally for $299. Returned it just before the 30 day return period ended since I was able to trade one of my $216 K2000 for a A300 with only 100 activations.

The A200 and the A300 are the same except for liveview. They are nice cameras but definitely not single handlers like the K2000.

[trza]

I saw this for $450 last week at my Target in Easton MD. There were some small P+S cameras on clearance, too.

[liighettoromeo]

Quote from dp1fw : no live view though

live view has to be the worst idea ever. It really takes from the "SLR" photography aspect. Might as well just go buy a point an shoot

[laidbacklarkin]

Quote from liighettoromeo : live view has to be the worst idea ever. It really takes from the "SLR" photography aspect. Might as well just go buy a point an shoot

Wish I can rep you for this. Why did SLR makers even explore this option other than enhancing the marketability ? The only time I can imagine this making sense is an overhead framing option with a tilt screen that lets you shoot a subject that's not in your line of vision. But how often does that occur ?

[skippapotamus]

Definitely, live view has its place as does HD video, but they're both gimmicks. Sony got live view right (I bought the a300) and its tilt up/down functions are useful, but any real shooter is going to be in the viewfinder 95% of the time or more. Sony's viewfinder is a little dim comparatively, and things like liveview are gadgety items added to entice people who were using point and shoots, but it's a good camera by a company who's pulling out all the stops to go from an afterthought to a #3 in a very tough market.

as for video, if you want a swiss army knife type camera, buy a superzoom. I buy a DSLR to have the best tool for the job. I don't care if it can do video and I can get a palm-sized HD videocam cheaper anyway.

[dts0240]

in certain situations, live view can be very helpful. I use it when at awkward angles (i.e holding it very close to the ground) to make sure the shot is framed just right. You can't argue against its helpfulness when doing something like that. It's not an everyday thing, but it can be useful to be sure.

[916]

what makes liveview a crutch for the optical view? does the optical view offer more accurate quality of the outcome of the picture?

[lilmikeysot]

Quote from 916 : what makes liveview a crutch for the optical view? does the optical view offer more accurate quality of the outcome of the picture?

Indeed, that's correct. Not sure of the resolution of this one, but the new Canons are the highly marketed 1080p. That's 1920x1080 pixels. Pretty good, until you think about the resolution of the photograph being 4-8x larger than that. You'll lose a lot of detail. The idea behind SLR photography is that you getting all the nuances - the focus, the depth of field, the sharpness, the ISO, shutterspeed, etc. WIth a chintzy little 1080p LCD, you really lose a lot of that. When you "calibrate" the shot to be 1080p, it'll look great in 1080p, but not necessarily higher than that. Might. Might not. You won't know, bc you calibrated your shot in 1080p. That's, what... 2 megapixels? How'll that look when you print a 5x7? Or an 8x10? Maybe great. Maybe not.

That's why the viewfinder's so much better. W/that, you get exactly what you see before you shoot. HTH... (btw, great deal OP - reps x4 for you)

[Surfbum72]

Quote from 916 : what makes liveview a crutch for the optical view? does the optical view offer more accurate quality of the outcome of the picture?

Live view is generally slow(ish) to both display what's in front of you and take photos. It's not a huge amount of time at all- but it certainly feels like a point and shoot feature while using it. I own a Nikon D90 and never use it, because the reason I bought a DSLR was to be able to look through the viewfinder and see right through the lens, giving me an exact idea of how the photo will turn out and the ability to use some creativity and such to get the shots I am after. Looking right through the lens is really what SLR photography is all about, and people who are overly concerned with features like live view are generally people who won't be taking full advantage of their equipment until they realize how flexible their cameras are without using this feature. Really SLR photography is all about taking excellent quality photographs and is a lot of fun, and while certain features may be neat or handy in some circumstances, I think live view really defeats the purpose.