This review is one of the more ridiculous reviews I've seen. Basing this review on a kit lens is ridiculous, when all you have to do is increasing the sharpening in the camera like you've done in other reviews. This camera has the same or better viewfinder than any in it's class, and so calling it dim or small is silly. You probably don't realize that it is almost the exact same size as the viewfinder in the new Canon Rebel XTs, because of the different sensor size (1.5x vs. 1.6x.) Also, this camera, even with the kit lens, is among the fastest AF in it's class. This is a perfect example of fanboyism. Congrats.

Not sure what the problem with the camera you reviewed is, but other reviews have been much more favorable. Also, your prices seem to be very off, unless you're based in the UK, but then I would think the prices would be displayed in BPS, not USD.

I am shocked at your evaluation of this fine camera. Terry, your article sounds cursory. To base your final conclusions on the lens quality when you grant that it has a fine AF and automatic white balance seems unfair. To be fair I realize that you tried another lens, but the images being posted all over the internet from the a200 are superior to the a100 and the cameras NR and resolution is right up there with the best. I remember your comment of the Pentax k10 and the canon rebel's softness was to simply sharpen in camera. Yet you praised these cameras in your summary paragraph. ChaCHa

Hi Terry,

I feel that the Alpha 200 merits a better review. I just bought an Olympus E-510 twin lens kits and was seriously considering the Alpha 200 twin kit. I was in Malaysia, the RRP cost of the Alpha 200 was between the Oly 410 and the Oly 510 twin lens kits so against Oly, it was price competitive, esp considering that the Olys are now "older" and are selling at promotion price, not "at launch RRP".

For that, you get in the Alpha 200, a body which is much more grippable and comfortable than the Canon 400, Oly 410 and the Alpha 100. The lens focus mechanism is now faster than the Alpha 100 and the camera I believe is cheaper than the Alpha 100 with better design and build.

I don't know how soft the kit lenses are, but for that money the 300mm x 1.6 magnification gives more reach than my Oly 510 150mm x 2.0 - although people say the Oly kit lens are quite sharp. Again, as you say, it is silly to compare this 300mm sharpness to a quality of a pro quality 300mm Carl Zeiss. But remember, the Alpha 200 is targeted at upgraders from the non DSLR point and shoot market - so putting a 300mm lens there is to tide them over from their comfort with their 10x, 12x and 18x zooms. Take the lenses, use it until you get enough cash and then upgrade to Carl Zeiss or something.

The low ISO quality from the Alpha 200 appears to be quite, quite good for such a cheap body, and the buyer needs that given that they have cheap, small aperture lenses.

My forum friend, Vaughan, has fitted a Carl Zeiss 16mm zoom on his Alpha 200 and the quality is amazing - see http://www.flickr.com/photos/mangizmo/sets/72157604051101739/

Your LIKE and DISLIKE:
LIKE - are based on CAMERA features.
DISLIKE - as based on the supplied kitted LENS

What are you actually reviewing - the Camera or the Lens?

Hardly think I'll be referring to this site for any future information or opinions.

Thank you
John

Ananda: Thanks for putting in a word in my defence, even though you think I am wrong.

As you probably know my reviews are based on subjective impressions from using the cameras. I just checked and note that I took 491 photos with the a200. I always assume that if I am not getting good results it is because of something I am doing wrong or that there is some better set of camera settings that I should be trying -- saturation/sharpness/contrast etc. I am not just taking cameras out of the box and looking at them. I try to use them as I think any ordinary photographer would, with a variety of subjects. Occasionally, when results are really bad, I send the camera back and don't review it -- or in the case of the Canon 400D ask for a better lens before I write the review. I wish now that I had done that with the Sony.

After testing a lot of cameras I think I now know what to expect for the money the customer pays. And I also think I can recognise a camera kit designed in the marketing department -- such as a 12 megapixel compact camera with a 14x zoom range or a 70-300mm zoom for $100.

Interestingly there was an objective test of the shorter Sony zoom on the photozone.de site a couple of weeks ago and it seems to have been removed. They were less than flattering in their assessment.

Terry

Ananda: The photozone.de review of the Sony lens is on their site: you go to the home page and look at the list of current lens reviews and the Sony 18-70 is there.

Terry

1:47 PM

Thanks Terry most importantly for responding in a gentlemanly way and in this new world of the web forums, responding to the great unwashed

Huge Grin

I defended you because I can understand where you come from in your outlook and what drives your values. I also dislike when these things they call computers interfere with passionate-as-hell humans who may misinterpret the computer - I do seriously think you need to re-phrase that go-away message that this anti-spam blog comment system chucks up when it gets annoyed with humans.

I have come back on the photo wagon a lot more now - for 10 years I was away from photography - and I do realise that the buying photographer now has more voice on the web, more compadres, more fun because they share the joy of photos across the world when their spouse and parents think their 5R snaps of mum stinks.

More and more, I see the print medium being less important than it used to be - photo prints were of course 100% of the result market in 1975 to 1995. Now, I see myself and others being happy to shoot enjoyable pics and display them on screen on the LCD display PC, some moving to those 42 inch flat panel TV as an output device. Whereas elite photographers would mark their prowess by aiming to display at an exhibition or a gallery, joe bloggs photographers in much greater volume are quite happy to share with an appreciative audience on the web. I can't remember when the last photo print brought me joy but I do remember when the most recent photo on the web brought me joy, it was a few hours ago.

So, the context of the equipment, how it will be used, how much it costs, how much people want from it (i.e. poster sized gallery print vs HDTV display) is so variable now - whilst a photo pro might consider a Carl Zeiss or Leica lens the minimum spec, there are lots of people who hang on the breath of journalists reviews who have a max budget of AUD 1500. Full stop. So in this case is a low quality Lomo like 300mm "good enough" or do they just give up and not play the game at all?

By the way, I've begun to love playing with these gadgets, if you want a second, junior opinion, throw the equipment at me.....

Wow Terry, you've really caused a stir this time!

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, I interpreted the review as one for the complete package. As the title of the article clearly states,"REVIEW—SONY a200 DSL with 18-70mm and 75-300mm lenses".

At this price point much of the intended market would be those who are upgrading from point and shoot and would therefore more than likely rely on their kit lenses for quite some time. Therefore, a review on the entire package is appropriate.

You did distinguish between the worth of camera and lenses throughout and if we are not sophisticated enough to "get" the message of the review then I guess we're just barracking for a brand without any real insight.

Thank you for your honest reviews. I may be disappointed with what you report at times (eg Pixma Pro 9500 - a bit of barracking there from myself) but I always appreciate that the review is impartial, well thought out and based on your own experiences.

Thanks again.

This was probably the most lopsided review I’ve ever seen! I expect a reviewer to give an unbiased, critical and fair review of a camera relative to its competition. I found this review to meet none of these criteria, and the blatantly slanted conclusions raise questions both about Terry’s expertise and objectivity.

This review was so poorly done that it would well serve dpexpert.com to show some photographic expertise, pull this review from the site, and have another review done by someone with a bit more objectivity.

I respectfully disagree with JerseySailor's comments.

We may agree or disagree with Terry's opinion or even methodology but it's impossible to call it a biased review.

Is JerseySailor arguing that the kit lenses really aren't as bad as that? As for the camera itself, Terry clearly thought it was decent performer let down by the kit lenses.

He clearly states it's main competitor to be the Canon 400D amongst other offerings from Nikon, Pentax and Olympus. Cameralabs have also made similar comparisons. Terry rightfully states that Canon offer the purchase of "Body Only" in Australia for the 400D which could be an advantage. I checked B&H Photo's website and it appears the a200 can only be bought with either 1 or 2 kit lenses.

JerseySailor's comment sounds like someone who owns an a200 and loves it but can't accept that others may not. I'm certain that the a200 is probably a very good camera but that doesn't mean that others should feel the same way.

In fact I think that reviews like this one are critical and offer an important point of difference to others that delve deeply into controlled tests and measured criteria. I do agree that those kinds of reviews are very important but I also like the hands-on kind that you will find here and at The Luminous Landscape and from guests at theonlinephotographer.com.

Sorry for the rant but JerseySailor should enjoy his purchase and let others have unfettered opinions.

Just to clarify my comment above about unfettered opinion - of course, I do believe that opinions can be challenged and a robust argument is usually good for everybody involved.

I just don't like it when somebody is called "biased" simply because one doesn't agree with the review.

O My goodness - Terry writes a review that doesnt give top marks to a camera and suddenly his entire integrity is slammed - o wait its a Sony product, that explains everything. How dare anyone critise Sony in any way, shape or form. Start firing up the stakes....
Personally, I have always found Terry to be pretty spot on with his reviews, extremly helpful in his advice, and a thorough gentleman in his journalist endeavours.
And I have absolutely nothing to do with the photographic industry, apart from taking photos...
So my personal bias is less than zero.
Those of you who have bough a A200, congrats now go away and use it. Those that have bought something else, congrats now go away and use it. If you love what you have and it does the job for you, why on earth do you care what other people think of it ???

I picked up the A200 with both lenses and agree that the lenses aren't great. The 75-300 seems to be sharper than the standard 18-70 under similar conditions for some reason. However for the price of $649 for the camera and 2 lenses it's a great upgrade from a P&S.
The steady shot (stabilization) appears to work exceptionally well, colours are reproduced very well and the focus is quite fast. Some low fstop primary lenses at reasonable costs would be nice for low light shots.