View Full Version : A-200 Not so bad

Geoff Chandler
06-25-2005, 05:03 PM
I have had my A-200 nearly half a year now and I have to say that I am very pleased with it. I have had to learn my way round it - but it is very easy to find your way around. I have been quite critical about it - but in actual fact it produces great natural shots all the time and the only thing I found a bit odd was the strange approach to macro - which I am used to and don't have a problem with. Anti-shake is great too.
Now to top it all - I bought a Camera Magazine this week which did a head to head of 4 good Antishake prosumer cameras - including the A-200 - I was curious to see how badly they would slate it and was suprised to see it came out top of the bunch.
Not a bad camera at all then!

06-26-2005, 01:55 PM
Agreed to a point.Looking for a more powerful camera I replaced my S1 IS with the A200 about 6 weeks ago .I have been very pleased with the picture quality when compared with the S1 as you might expect and have not missed the longer zoom at all.In use, with its manual zoom the handling is much nicer.Against that the Movie mode does not compare with the s1 and there do seem to be some sound problems ,clicks ,whistling and sometimes it is out of synch.On balance I am pleased but it is far from perfect.

Geoff Chandler
06-27-2005, 01:33 AM
Good points. I'm not a great user of movie mode, but it's nice to have.
I guess nothing is perfect, and it's a case of finding your own best compromise. I am now very happy with the A-200, but like all other cameras - it's not completely perfect - though, for me, I really find it a breeze to use - and I seem to ge consistantly good results with it.
It's a good point and shoot, or it's great to learn on. For me I find it very good for being able to manipulate the picture to get just what I want.
Nuff said. :cool:

07-04-2005, 05:47 AM
My father-in-law bought one about a month ago and I have to say the A200 is very good camera. I know its of more camera than my Canon A95 but the image quality compared is way better and at times on par with a lot of DSLR results I've seen.

A200 Photo:


Canon 350D/XT - Sigma 18-125mm:


Geoff Chandler
07-04-2005, 10:12 AM
Bluedog - in your example I prefer the Digital Rebel image.
However I reckon the focal lengths might be different and maybe the Fstop as well - The background is more nicely blurred on the Digital Rebel example.
Both great shots though.

Rob vdKam
08-04-2005, 08:32 AM
Geoff, I love your landscape shots of Yosemite especially (on your yahoo site). I also found these on Pbase - a bunch of extremely bright and sharp images from a Howard Katz using an A200 (I assume your Yosemite shots are A200). I am in awe of these shots and wonder if anyone can tell if they have undergone post-processing or if I should expect to take shots like this myself with an A200 (Mr. Katz hasn't responded to my comment on his site yet, and he says in his bio that he is a relative beginner).


Geoff Chandler
08-04-2005, 10:24 AM
My Yosemite shots are mostly A-200 but one or two are C-740UZ which is very sharp and clean.
The A-200 has various in camera adjustments - The basic picture sharpness, however, has 3 settings and I have settled on the sharpest of the 3 - though I may well use the others from time to time. It's more film like than most Point and Shoots - so details tend to be smooth and natural.
For general shots I Use it on Daylight for best colour accuracy, then I have the contrast +1 (out of a possible -5 to + 5) and the saturation on +2, or on a very sunny day +1 - this gives me the best of both worlds - very natural looking shots - but just a hint of punch.
Feel free to grill me some more if you like - for quicker responses send to my e-mail

Rob vdKam
08-04-2005, 10:30 AM
Thanks. As you well know, there's a lot of negative talk about focus problems with the A200. But I also keep hearing that it's not a systematic problem and that the camera has many wonderful capabilities as well. I have a Nikon 6T closeup lense, for example, that I can put in front. I've seen some nice macro shots with setups like that. I just have to convince the wife that a 1.8" LCD is okay compared to the Sony H1 due to the much better EVF...;-)

Geoff Chandler
08-21-2005, 11:43 PM
I have updated my photo site at Yahoo a bit and included a summary of which cameras were used. It shows orig image sizes too - so if you are looking they also give it away.Oh, at 3mp size the Oly is 2048 x 1536 in 4:3 mode - but the A-200 is 2080 x 1560 - just a slight difference. But it helps ID which camera took which pic - anything larger HAS to be A-200 by default. (Unless otherwise stated in the case of scanned pics).
Just like to say while I am on - the more I use the A-200 the more I like it for it's natural almost film like qualities and I love the real camera feel and operation.