Sony A200K

[Crhis]

I have about £300 to spend on a new digital camera and was considering picking up this:

Sony DSLR-A200K Digital SLR Camera + Zoom Lens Kit (18-70mm F3.5-5.6) (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-DSLR-A200K-Digital-18-70mm-F3-5-5-6/dp/B0011U9U9A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1216037066&sr=8-1)

Any other suggestions?

[Oxi]

A Canon or a Nikon would make a better choice. I used to have a Minolta/Sony but I've switched to Canon before all my gear became worthless. Friends who have kept their Sony aren't so lucky, they have trouble selling their gear for reasonable prices.

There are several aspects to consider, and the most important one is the available glass. Sony has hardly any glass other than a few kitlenses (which are fine, just like on any other brand) and a few hard-to-find very expensive lenses that underperform for their price. Same applies for Pentax but is actually worse.

Unfortunatly there are only two brands that don't have above mentioned problems; Canon and Nikon. Image quality is better on both and even if you decide to stick with entry-level lenses, this matters. No-one knows absolutely sure what (s)he's going to do with his camera 1, 2 or 5 years from now. And it's comforting to know you CAN upgrade a lens that will last you for years without scavenging on eBay for some overpriced old glass. If you like that any brand would suffice, but Pentax is best. Pentax hardly has any new lenses so everyone trades them on eBay. :redface:

As a rule of thumb regarding Canon and Nikon:
Canon has a wider more divers range of lenses. From kitlenses tot extremely high quality, but the most important thing to remember is the mdidel segment. You can actually buy a very good lens for a lot less money than with a Nikon.
Nikon is in some aspects better and in some aspects not as good as Canon. But it is more expensive, and many agree that the high-end stuff is a little bit better.

You wouldn't go wrong with either of those. With a Sony you're actually stuck with those lenses and thatever third party produces have to offer. It isn't that bad, but choice wisely before you commit to a certain brand. Switching or maintaining two brands costs alot. Plus, with Canon of Nikon your image quality can't be beat and that is what's it all about. :biggrin:

Best advice I can give without pushing you to a particulair brand: Try them out before you buy. A camera that fits nicely in your hand works much better than one that doesn't. If it's too small, ask for a batterygrip you can screw underneath. Such a grip helps the balance and are quite comfortable with a handstrap.

[jzono1]

Personally I'd go with Nikon, Pentax, or Olympus for a entry-level dslr. Canon's regular 18-55 kit lens tend to be crappy, and relying on luck to get a good sample isn't fun. If you can afford a kit with the 18-55 IS lens, Canon is also worth a look.

For Nikon, the D40 is pretty good, anything above it is silly if you want it cheap, as you need atleast a D80 to get better functionallity. I went with a D80 myself, but my brother got a D40, and it's pretty good value.

Edit: And yes, remember to feel how they fit your hand, it's what matters most. Ergonomics matter.

[krawlx]

Just a quick note on the Nikon D40 which is what I'm shooting with. With 300 pounds to spend you could probably buy just the body and invest in an excellent lens as well. However, the D40 only auto focuses with AF-S and AF-I lenses. That is, there is no motor within the D40 body itself to drive auto focus lenses. So, selection on lenses is rather small, but it's improving. Just something to consider.

[evil.monkey.in.my.closet]

I'm looking at one of these myself (having previously been looking at a Fuji "bridge" camera). If you want the kit with the lens then Amazon is about the cheapest in the UK at the moment - and I believe that if you buy from them, and then they subsequently drop the price within 30 days, then they'll pay you the difference back.

If, like me, you have got some old Minolta lenses sitting around then these should fit on the Sony too. If you just want to buy the body only then have a look at warehouseexpress.com as they're quite reasonable.

[Crhis]

I think I ought to clarify this.

I'm actually looking around at these various cameras on behalf of my mother. She used to have a DSLR back in the days before digital. Since the switch she's only used compacts and has been disappointed with the results. I fully expect the thoughts of changing lenses etc. never to enter her mind. The problem is, she's now biased against any compact as meaning shoddy image quality and is looking for an SLR or SLR type camera.

Now I mention SLR type as I understand there are 'bridge' cameras. The problem is, and I'm kinda guessing here, all the articles I'm reading are from mid 07 or so saying bridge is worth it cos of the big price difference between that and an entry level slr of similar quality.

But now bridge cameras seem to be rare - and I doubt they've altered much in price since then. Whereas dslrs like the one I linked to have crashed in price so I'm unsure if the comparisons they make are still apt.

That may be bullshit, it's just the impression I get from half an hours research.

[Oxi]

Which camera does she have and which lenses? Just don't forget that digital SLR's have a smaller sensor then the film in a analogue SLR. Due to this change all lenses lose a part of their wide-angle and gain on the long end. She might want to buy a new wide-angle lens with her camera because of this.

[Crhis]

I'm unsure as to the details of her previous SLR. My understanding is that it was an entry level Canon bought for a similar price in the early 1990s and pretty standard.

Either way it hasn't been used since 99-00 when she switched to compact digitals.