undecided

[jarrod white]

I am looking to purchase a dslr camera, but I am torn between the Sony A200 and the Nikon D60.
Tell me what you know.

                                                              Jarrod

[Mike Hill]

Having had Nikon for years, I'm going to be biased - of course.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Sony, I think a lot of people are pleased with the camera.  Some claim the colors are better.  Their marketing for their sensor is a little misleading though - in a technical way. 

I really don't know that much about the D60 other than it is one of the four consumer Nikon digital slrs.  I've heard many people happy with the D40 and the D80 - just haven't heard anybody say anything about the D60.  I just don't know anyone who has one.  Try Fredmiranda.com, nikonians.com, and kenrockwell.com for some info. and to see if any complaints.  Also might try amazon.com for comments, but they are sometimes not left by experienced photographers and sometimes novices.

The Sony uses Nikon lenses I believe, so there should not be any problem with them.  I think one comment I heard that there are less buttons and more menus, but I would imagine that would be with both cameras.  Just takes a little longer to make changes. 

The Nikon autofocus and exposure is usually superior.  With a Nikon, you pay for the name a little, but sometimes it is worth it.  Unless, you are really set on the D60 - I'd look into the D80.  I think then the D80 would beat out the Sony - definitely.

I'd be concerned with battery life, type of battery, what programs you might need to get to process the files, the type of storage, "noise" in low light conditions, focusing and exposure in low light conditions assuming glass and mp and flash are similar.

[lawnman]

I also have been shooting Nikons for about 12 yrs.  I have the D70 and the D200 and a Nikon point and shoot.  I have not seen the Sony but I am sure it is a good camera, they do thier homework before they introduce things.  My friend is a pro and he shoots with a Canon, he says the battery life is terrible but like the camera. 

Cameras are like Ford and Chevy or Kubota (the best) and JD alot of it is your preference.  If your downtown I would go to Durys on Fogg street and hold the camera in your hands and get a feel for the controls.  Nikon has great lenses and unmatched flash system.  Do be decived my the megapixel count as much as the noise and color settings.  www.kenrockwell.com has a great reviews and tips.

[lawnman]

One other thing Jarrod don't go for the latest and greatest.  Example when Nikon first came out with the D200 the price of the body was around 1700 I bought mine less than one year later and after the D300 came out for 850.  Half price of a new one and only had 5k pictures taken on it and was still under warranty.  Just my 2 cents.  Hey give me a call this week on that job in Green Hills if you have not done anything on it yet.  Cell is 405-6152

[jarrod white]

Thanks guys, I have been to Wolf Camera about 3 times this week.


                                         Jarrod

[Mike Hill]

Agree completely with lawnman.  Been checking Craigslist for lenses and have noticed some D200's on there for good pricing.  Talking about latest, Costco has the D300 with a 18-200 VR for $300 less than normal.  - $2100

[Curtis Martin]

How big of a difference does the IS, "image stabilization", make in the quality of the pics? I know the IS lenses are more costly, but I hear that some of the old glass lenses are superior quality.

[Mike Hill]

IS, OS, VR - all the same thing, actually makes a good bit of difference to my surprise.  It is not an answer to bad technique, but it sure does help.  IMHO it is worth the extra money if you are interested in sharper pictures and you use longer lenses.  I wouldn't get it on a 55mm.  Essentially, you can gain a 2 or 3 stop gain in exposure.  That way they don't have to make a 'BIG' glass lens to essentially get nearly the same result.  You likely wouldn't be able to hand hold and get sharp prints using a 300mm f2.8 lens at 1/125 shutter speed.  But you probably could a 300mm f5/6 with IS, OS, or VR.  Plus the lens wouldn't be as heavy, big or as expensive. Granted, they are generally not the glass that the BIG glass is, but there's not much different to most people's eyes.

[jarrod white]

I finally bought the new camera, I went with the Sony A200.


                       Jarrod

[Steve H]

Congrats on the new purchase!! 

[Mike Hill]

Ahh, lured in by that sexy marketing about their more colorful sensor - eh?  Just kidding, that is a great camera - you'll enjoy it.  What lenses did you get.  I've got some minolta lenses that you are welcome to borrow.  Not too sure if they are A mounts or not though.  The 400, f5.6 I'm pretty sure is the MD mount and I don't know if that is compatible with the A mount.  I do want to try a side by side comparison with my camera.  I want to see how the sensors stack up to each other - especially in color saturation.  Also real curious as to how the in-camera stabilization compares to on-lens stabilization.  If the in-camera works as well - that is the ticket - even older lenses would benefit from stabilization!