Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: A200 samples

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2

    A200 samples

    What do people think of the A200 sample photos posted in the dcresource gallery? They seem really blurry to my eyes, even compared to its predecessor the A100. Could it be a kit lens issue?

    Here's the Chinatown pic, as a good example:

    A200

    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/so...w/DSC00009.JPG

    A100

    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/so...w/DSC00003.JPG

    Pentax K100D

    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/pe...w/IMGP0028.JPG

    Nikon D40

    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ni...w/DSC_0070.JPG

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,545
    I recently took a crack at evaluating the SONY DT 18-70mm 3.5-5.6 versus the TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD and after comparing the two directly on the α700 ... the sharpness loss is so apparent in the 18-70mm, I simply refuse to use it in my photography.

    Therefore, if this image is being shot through a DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens, I am certainly NOT surprised it looks soft. In my opinion (because I've had the displeasure of doing this twice, now and YMMV*), the first thing you do with a "kit lens" is make sure the camera works ... the second thing to do is you immediately remove it from the camera and place it way to the rear of your "glass" shelf. Lastly, you go out and buy a "real" zoom lens from either a third party or the carmera's manufacturer (see list below for some ideas) and, please, do not look back.

    No matter what SONY DSLR camera you put this lens on (α100, α200, α300, α350, or α700), you simply cannot make it work better than it does.

    At worst, consider it an "emergency lens" ... and that's only AFTER the asteroid strike ...

    Name:  asteroid strike.JPG
Views: 3353
Size:  8.6 KB

    and half of the world has been destroyed.

    Cripes, I really condemned that one, didn't I? Well, I have one .. and its IQ is poor, in my opinion. If you have NOTHING else ... then get off your dead rump and buy something! @%&#

    I mean, I really have to ask: "Why in blazes are you even bothering to take images with a DSLR camera body, if this is what you are using?" You can do so much better ... just cough up the change for a decent optic. "Free" or "included" does not mean good. You'll get something that will operate on the front of your camera ... but, when you inspect the results ... you'll begin to fully understand why they give it away. Believe it.


    * YMMV - "Your mileage my vary", but I really doubt it.

    LIST of much better glass:
    • SONY SAL-1680Z - Carl Zeiss® Vario-Sonnar T* DT 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 Zoom Lens <- pricey!
    • TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical <- reasonable cost
    • SIGMA AF 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro HSM <- lowest cost
    Last edited by DonSchap; 02-05-2008 at 01:11 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr® & Sdi

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Livin in a redneck paradise
    Posts
    1,866
    I was a little disappointed. I am considering purchase of a DSLR and the Sony a200 was one of my leading contenders. Fortunately my plans didn't involve the kit lens, but I was hoping to at least use it occasionally. I would as soon not pay an extra $100 for that. In fact, it is a very convincing argument for buying a Canon A720 IS over the A200 (at least with that lens). I also noticed quite a few blown highlights, there are work arounds for those, but still...

    So, I am waiting for the full review, and the one on dpreview which wouldn't use the kit lens.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northern Colorado, USA
    Posts
    2,225
    Quote Originally Posted by raven15 View Post
    I was a little disappointed. I am considering purchase of a DSLR and the Sony a200 was one of my leading contenders. Fortunately my plans didn't involve the kit lens, but I was hoping to at least use it occasionally. I would as soon not pay an extra $100 for that. In fact, it is a very convincing argument for buying a Canon A720 IS over the A200 (at least with that lens). I also noticed quite a few blown highlights, there are work arounds for those, but still...

    So, I am waiting for the full review, and the one on dpreview which wouldn't use the kit lens.
    Blown highlights are the fault of the photographer, not the camera.
    Eric Lund
    Nikon D200
    Nikkors: 17-55mm f2.8, 18-200mm f3.5-f4.5 VR, 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 55mm f2.8 AI-S micro, 105mm f2.8 VR micro
    Other Lenses: Tokina 12-24 f4, Tamron 75-300mm f4-5.6 LD macro
    Stuff: Nikon SB800, Nikon MBD200, Gitzo 1327 Tripod w/RRS BH-55LR Ballhead, Sekonic L-358 meter

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,545

    Red face Easy to tell ... without squintin'

    In a series of duplicatable candids ...

    I decided to shot the box ... with both the SONY 18-70mm & the TAMRON 17-50mm

    The shots were done with the α700, in manual, at the following settings: 50mm - f/5.6 - 1/60 sec - ISO-400 WB = "flash" -1, using the pop-up flash (so no funny stuff) Honestly, just a pair of candids you can do yourself, at the store.

    I'm bracketing the crops with their respective overall shots.
    SONY 17-80mm
    Name:  _DSC1995-reduced.jpg
Views: 3383
Size:  220.3 KB

    SONY 17-80mm crop
    Name:  18-70-crop.jpg
Views: 3340
Size:  226.8 KB

    (Picture in picture ... pretty funny, huh? Ah, go on with ya!)
    TAMRON 17-50mm crop
    Name:  17-50-crop.jpg
Views: 3361
Size:  226.3 KB

    TAMRON 17-50mm
    Name:  _DSC1993-reduced.jpg
Views: 3252
Size:  220.2 KB

    Remember, this is shot a minmum focus distance ... 15 inches, so it is about as sharp as you can get with these lenses. Even this close ... the TAMRON just slaps the horse-snot out of the SONY. When I'm shooting ... I want it sharp. Try as it will, the SONY 18-70 cannot deliver it. Everything will always have the annoying fuzzy aspect (focus softening) to it. Drove me to ... plastic!

    Name:  credit card.jpg
Views: 3370
Size:  3.7 KB
    Last edited by DonSchap; 02-05-2008 at 06:35 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr® & Sdi

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2
    So what you're basically saying is that potential customers of the A200 should budget for a $400 third-party lens as the kit one is a POS? Think this might affect sales somewhat, considering that the output from the competitors' kit lenses, if that example I posted above is anything to go by, is far superior to Sony's.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,545
    You would do better with a 18-250 lens, if a true "kit" is what you want. Just stay away from wasting any money or images trying to use the 18-70mm ... I would have sent mine back, if I felt I'd get my money back. It's effectively a "freebie" ...

    and chosing the camera body based one "freebie" lens is a major mistake.

    You can easily correct a lens problem ... YOU CHANGE IT ... but, you are still stuck with whatever the camera body was that you bought, so buy a quality rig. My suggestion is: If you are in the camera store, already, is to mount their best lens for each camera body and try it out that way. Eliminate the "bad" glass altogether. I mean you're not BUYING the "great" lens, but at least you will have selected the "primo" body based on it and you can save up for better glass to mount on it, later.

    Get the best (most capable) camera you can ... and buy GOOD GLASS to put on it. It's really just that simple.

    Good luck

    Hey, remember: This is a forum ... were not making a dime off this. We just want better images.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 02-06-2008 at 06:01 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr® & Sdi

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2
    Do people still think its worth buying the A200K? Its really come down in price now in the UK but does that suggest its outdated? - A200K best prices

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    788
    Quote Originally Posted by joe_bloggs View Post
    So what you're basically saying is that potential customers of the A200 should budget for a $400 third-party lens as the kit one is a POS? Think this might affect sales somewhat, considering that the output from the competitors' kit lenses, if that example I posted above is anything to go by, is far superior to Sony's.
    Not anymore. The competition's kit lenses used to stink too. Only in the past year or so have Canon and Nikon released the EF-S 18-55IS, and Nikon the 18-55VR. Their prior lenses were as bad as the Sony 18-70, which at least got you a bit more range and IS. But Sony's new 18-55 looks to be much better. Probably still not as good as the Tamron, but useful. My Sony P&S with Carl Zeiss optics took MUCH better images than my $600 A300 with kit lens.

    This would probably be the best use for the Sony 18-70 once you have used it to make sure the camera functions:

    Jason Hamilton
    Selective Frame

    EOS 5D - Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 35 f/2, EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II, EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 (with EOS adapter), 430EX, Canon S90
    Nikon FE - Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI'd, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI, Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI, F to EF adapter, 2xVivitar 285, other lighting stuff
    Mamiya C220 - 80mm f/2.8

    Gear List flickr

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by tidger View Post
    Do people still think its worth buying the A200K? Its really come down in price now in the UK but does that suggest its outdated? - A200K best prices
    Whichever body you buy, you can be sure that you will spend a lot more on lenses.
    You will soon become disillusioned with 18-70 kit lens that comes with the A200.
    For a comparison between this lens and the new 18-55 kit lens see here
    http://artaphot.ch/index.php?option=...=175&Itemid=43

    Add the cost of the 18-55 to the A200+kit and you're not far off the price for the new A230 that already has the new 18-55. £478 at WE
    http://www.warehouseexpress.com/prod...px?sku=1032017

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •