Dynax Digital Forums

Firstly, let me introduce myself, my name is David. I'm looking for a good entry level Digital SLR and so far the A230 has me sold. Im just a little skeptical about Sony and digital cameras. I've had a few people tell me to stay away from Sony, but havent given any real reasons why. So, can someone please finally convince me to dive in? Or give me a few pros and cons about the A230? I've read a few reviews and the general census is, 4 stars our of 5.

Thanks ahead of time guys =]
David

Hi David- good to have you here. I have said this so often that some of the members might not want to read on...I use professionally all high end Canikons on a regular basis but privately use Sony. Believe me...would there be a camera out there which is bees' knees than I guess we would all have it by now Each system has advantages and disadvantages and there are quite a ew people out there who jump ships from one to the other for whatever reasons.
I do not want to go into all the differences or advantages as most of these really depend on your personal shooting expectations. If you know that you will shoot a lot of low light photography such a rock concerts, sports events, theatre performance...by all means go for Nikon as this is the best low light performer out there. They have also by far the best flash system. On the other hand- most of Nikon's cameras have much lower resolution than the Sony ones and their lens line up was at times and still is open for improvement- to put it politely. Canon has superb lenses, crappy menu system and IMHO take no responsibility over issues that are camera related and not user related. I.e. they had with EVERY new camera that came out lately issues and it took them months to admit them. Particularly bad are the af issues we have seen with their latest line up of cameras- and there were other issues. On the other hand their lenses are outstanding and cheaper than most rivals' ones. The menu system is a real nightmare!
Sony has the cheapest high resolution ff frame camera on the market with in-camera lens stabilisation. It has also top of the range lenses (albeit more expensive)- a reason why some Canikon users have Sonys as their second body. It has the easiest and best menu system on the market and a fantastic dynamic range. Downside: not so good out of camera high ISO performance and no video.

Now it depends entirely on your own needs. But don't fall for what some people say about Sony and don't forget the have the most money of all three companies- therefore the highest resources to put into their research and they are leading in video technology. Sony will do anything in their power to get to place one in the camera market- the same way they have done with their video section and they do have the financial resourves to do so.

Anyhow with Sony you will get a lot for your money and I think just go to a shop and handle them one by one. The ergonomics of each camera play a crucial role in whether you like them or not.
Hope this helps a bit?
All the best and good luck with your decision.
Stef.

Last night i sow a demonstration of Nikon (lens/Cameras) and i must say they have very good cameras and very good lens.

I have place a question to the man he made the demonstration." Lets say you have bought a lens 70-200 f2.8 before 5 years will you be able to replace this lens today with the new one because Nikon have produse image stabilizer/vibration reduction II ? he said no is too much money to replace such a good lens just for the VR II version but body you will be able to replace in 5 years"

So in a few words body will be replaced with new technology but not a lens so this marketing strategy from Canon/Nikon i don't like and a lot of people that own Canon/Nikon don't like this strategies either.

Sony have taken over from Minolta the 70-200 f2.8 since 2003 and until today this lens  is the same. What it will change it will be only in body so the cost overall investing in Sony will be less cost than any other manufacture

Image stabilizer in body can use any AF lens since Minolta time, but by the Nikon/canon you have to wait until they cover all the range of pallet and when they make it they will come out with VRII/IS II and so on......... 

What type of warranties? Are they local or grey market (ie overseas stock).
To be honest, I'd pay the extra 100

Carbon: Don't dismiss Pentax or Olympus.  Those two companies have been making cameras for over 50 years, and that wouldn't be the case if they made crap.

I'm sorry for the double post.

So how does this compare to the A230? Is Sony the only ones that have built in image stabilization?
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Olympus-E-420-10MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-with-14-42mm-Zoom-Lens-includes-2GB-XD-Card.-Additional-Accessory-Limited-Time-Offer/12560763

Theres one common thing i'm finding that people say and that is Sony has the most developed menu system, which matters to me. Aside from that, whats the first thing to look at when comparing?

Carbon: "Well thats the thing, when I keep talking to people they keep dismissing basically everything but Canon and Nikon, and im not 110% sure what I should be looking for when comparing two cameras. I will look into those as well then, thank you zeke"

You're welcome. 

As you can see from the gear information at the bottom of my postings, I use many makes of cameras.  I can tell you then honestly they are all good.  The Canon and Nikon guys will say "Well whoever sells the most cameras obviously makes the best."  Don't believe them.  McDonalds sells more food too than most anybody else, does that mean their's is the best grub?  No.  Anymore in today's world, unless it was made by somebody who really is a trivial player in the camera market, (and Pentax & Olympus are definately NOT), then you won't find a poor performing camera.  They are all good.  It just depends on what you want and need.  If you go to Flickr for example and read the discussions in the Olympus and Pentax groups, you will see that those folks are just as enamored with their DSLR's as everyone else is with the other major brands. 

Also, don't let the "bigger lens selection" argument sway you.  The next Canon and Nikon guy that harps on that to you, ask them how many lenses out of that large variety they actually have, and you will generally find it is only about four or five.  Those then will be of common ranges and types that are found in every manufacturer's inventory.  So the lens selection issue really become moot unless you are a photographer with a very specific need.
 
I agree with the first thing Rob said.  The ergonomics of the body are equally important, if not more, than the features of the camera.  As for the menu system, I have no clue if they are better or not.  All I can say is that I have little difficulty navigating my wife's A100 menu.  As for myself, I like lots of knobs, switches, and dials which I why I went with a used Minolta Maxxum 7D to get away from having to use menus so much.

Just to put my 2cnts

When I got my sony A300 it was the better value over all the other brands. What I valued most was the built in image stabilization. That was every lens I could possibly have would be stabilized. What this meant, was that hand held photography could be done better if there was poor light in my subject.

I am in no way a pro, just a fan of taking pictures.

Once I joined the group here, I quickly learn that Sony had an additional advantage and that was the ability to use legacy minolta lenses (some of which can be had as a bargain).

Which ever brand you choose, like others have said, make sure that it feels comfortable in your hands and that the menu system is easy to learn and adjust.