Amazon - amzn.to/3HDJxN9 Slik Tripods - amzn.to/3Um3gZj K&F Filters - amzn.to/4aGQJoF Sony Lenses - amzn.to/3UC2LtL Nikon Lenses - amzn.to/4aT7Fbv Tokina Lenses - amzn.to/49IrVv2 Canon Lenses - amzn.to/3WnD41t Godox Flashes - amzn.to/3xFlbB0 Manfrotto Tripods - amzn.to/3W032YP You can use the affiliate links to Amazon, which help fund the cost of making these videos (at no cost to yourself). This helps quite a lot, as I buy in items to make reviews on Or you can use Patreon to support making these videos - www.patreon.com/mrbazreviews
I'm a beginner and I just bought this camera used today for $150 but it came with three lenses, The flash attachment, two tripods and all the accessories. This is my first actual camera rather than using a phone. It's kind of old and I was nervous to buy it but from what I'm seeing online it's a very good quality camera especially for beginner like me.
Nothing wrong with it even for more experienced users. It won't fall apart of anything just use it and you can get some decent photos with it, I point out areas I like or don't like so people can make up their own minds.
@@MrBazReviews I appreciate the reply. I'm sure I'll be upgrading at some point. The camera I was looking at was the Canon EOS rebel t7. I know that one is very popular. I may get something better than that after I get my chops up on the Sony. Your video was one of the main reasons why I bought the Sony. Got it home last night after work, got it all charged up and figured out for the most part and it works great. Only thing I didn't realize is I need a special card reader for the flash storage card so I guess I'll swing by Walmart today and grab one.
@@danielbell7855 Yup compact flash for this age but it's not a huge issue really. It's good enough to get going with the there are a lot of cheap but good Minota lenses around
Cool. I got into film photography recently and have been picking up a buncha cheap Minolta glass, so finding out that these old Sony DSLRs are compatible (and affordable!) is great news.
Ahhhh my first camera…bought in 2010 for college assignment, chose sony because the grip is much better than d60/ 450d/ 1000d that time. Learnt photography a lot from this camera :D
Love seeing reviews for these older cameras. Just goes to show you don't need the latest and greatest to get amazing images and reminds me that picking up an old a mount camera, in my case I went with likely the best one made the a99, was the correct decision. Thanks.
@@MrBazReviews yea after that the only OVF camera with IBIS was/is the Pentax K-1 I’ve been tempted to get an a900 at some point but the sensor is old …. At least with the a99 the sensor is comparable to a modern non BSI aps-c sensor and for the $600 ish I plaid for it I can’t complain
@@digitalrex5 A900 is quite old it's a shame it didn't get another sensor/update. A99 is good for dynamic range (quite a good upgrade), comparable to other full frame models (Nikon and beats Canon). Low light though is about the same as APS-C, I had an A6300 for a while and they were very close in terms of low light performance. A99II was (and still is used), pretty expensive. I'm not sure it's worth it.
@@MrBazReviews that’s in line with what my research told me. I shoot a lot of film and almost exclusively in black and white so any of these cameras will be better in low light lol. I also wonder if all these new ai powered denoise software available will give these older cameras new life. I’m also not sure how well the old Minolta glass can handle 43mp a99ii, it’ll be a little better than 24 but diminishing returns…. And as you said they are still very expensive, a used a7r3 which they still make is a better value.
Excellent, accurate, and informative review, nice little easter egg in there too... Don' t drop it! It's a good beginner model really. Sony did make an eyepiece magnifier at one point, but trying to find a used one is next to impossible. Looking forward to the three way comparison. I'll reserve my own comments on the three, I've owned them all, still have the A100 (my first ever DSLR, nostalgic reasons).
My first camera. Still my main and only one. Don't use it much anymore but I have several Minolta lenses. Good camera. Takes a good photo and is ergonomically appealing. Dynamic range isn't the best. But a great beginner camera that has a good manual control. Pretty sure it was the same sensor as the a700.
Thanks, A700 was a CMOS sensor. The CCD era ones were lower dynamic range and I miss the Hi 200 settings which was great for dynamic range expansion in Raw, not a bad camera lots of them around. It was a good price got very cheap under 300 I think with a kit lens.
I had a350 which was the same basic body profile, and later the a580 which I think was a progression of this body design. The OVF's were disappointing I felt, I picked up the a700 not long after the a350. I tried to like the a580 since I believe it was the last OVF from Sony, but even though it could edge out the a55 in image quality (same sensor but no SLT) I just couldn't get comfortable with it. I did have my a350 converted to infrared and it served me well for a long time. Watching your videos is making me wish I still have something OVF again!
At the time I remember thinking why are Sony changing the body design? They got bigger (A580 fair bit larger than the KM5D) and thicker bodies. Anything less than the 0.83x magnification was never going to work for me, the A580 was passable (but still smaller), the A300/350 and later variations had the smallest OVF on any APS-C DSLR. I have a D3000 in for testing and review, and that's not that great OVF (0.78x), even that is fair bit bettter! Strange because today Sony rarely change much on their cameras (and IMO that's a mistake don't like the boxy look much) A700 and KM7D both same size OVF and quite decent at that A900 was one of the best even today ranks highly. When Sony were playing around with this live view and making smaller OVF's I knew something was up! I would have been alright with an A700 or A900 with the normal live view. Sony never made a pentaprism DSLR with live view, shame really. If I look at the D780 and imagine it with steadyshot and A mount, what an awesome camera that could have been all round for photos and video. Years down the road makers might regret walking away from OVF cameras, look at the demand for the Fuji X100VI, it's a cash printing machine - yet most of them don't even make compacts anymore. That's a sign of how out of touch the industry can be, people want choices and not being forced into what makers want. I see it in DSLR's too, lot of people like using them.
@@MrBazReviews Yea I do wonder how it could have helped Sony to not move away from OVF's so quickly. I wish there were options for the A-mount besides hunting the used market. I definitely have a love-hate relationship with my mirrorless E-mount cameras. I can adapt so many vintage lenses and it is a ton of fun playing with them but when I want to just do proper photography I still prefer a big comfortable DSLR style camera. I have the a7ii and its a great camera, but I just feel more comfortable on the a99. I wish there were still OVF's available and I wonder how much Sony really saved in the long run by not offering an OVF version of basically the a99 or a99ii. They already had all the pieces sorted out, I know there's engineering and manufacturing costs that can't be ignored, but then again there's a customer cost too. How many customers left the system or were dissuaded from buying into Sony in the first place? There's probably no way to say, but I think its one of those things were these big companies are really out of touch with their users. I am enjoying your Sony/Minolta videos!
@@gregkempchannel Thanks I will be doing more videos over time. With Sony I read in some interview online that they made a loss on A Mount, no profit at all, which to a point surprised me. But in another way I'm not sure it did. When Sony took over they immediately jacked up all the prices on lenses and other items. Quite a bit if I remember. The first batch of bodies did quite well I think, I saw A200's around and some A350's, more then I would have imagined. So I assume they sold well. They sort of messed up the entry models after that, with the bad grip and dumbed down body designs. There were major gaps never filled in the system, the 70-210/200mm F4 was a big one, big seller for Canon nope Sony just ignored it - they did make an E mount one (alarm bells started to ring when I saw E Mount getting the "missing" lenses A mount never did). No 28mm prime, no 24-105mm both of those discontinued. No F4 zooms just expensive 2.8 Zeiss ones. They did some nice lenses, but were well short of building the system up to compete properly with those 2. The premium lenses were as expensive if not more than the Canon/Nikon IS/VR ones, so to me the incentive to invest in A mount wasn't there, being blunt. All my lenses were either Minolta, Tamron, Tokina etc. I don't think I'm alone I know quite a few people who only had any real interest in A mount because they took Minolta AF Lenses! SLT to my eye was a sidestep, must have cost something on R&D, but I supposed less parts saved money? This is why Mirrorless is being pushed so hard, much cheaper IMO to manufacture these cameras, bigger margins. SLT didn't really add anything to A mounts future, and didn't last as long as OVF DSLR's have. Hard to call it a success really. I think overall many camera makers have this "this is what we're giving you take it or leave it" approach, not just Sony either. When they should be listening to people and giving them a choice. I can use EVF's but I like using OVF's. I don't want to invest in any MILC mirrorless system because I lose the OVF option. I found E mount capable tech wise, but left me cold in terms of design/ergos and fun factor. I just didn't enjoy using the cameras crop or Full frame.
I have a200 which I bought to replace my A290. I’ve been very pleased with the A200 though I prefer the power button on the right side. The CF cards are harder to find these days. The CCD colors are more satisfying on the A200
Don't get ripped off with the overpriced smaller CF cards, the SanDisk Extreme 32GB isn't expensive, fast and has lifetime warranty. I have no idea why people pay scalping prices for cards when on the A100, KM5D and A200 even my 64GB CF card works fine! You can also get adapters for micro SD to CF too, might be worth a look. The later A2xx series after the A200 were not a great design IMO they cut them back too much.
These are super cheap, just about everywhere. I'll be doing more videos like this, I have to accept I can't run the channel off flashlights/torches - it's just not viable. I'll take a look at a few though, if I can get hold of any! Thanks for your support
@@MrBazReviews no worries Mr B I tried to watch all your content not just flashlights. I may of missed a few because my wife has been sick and has just passed
im a novice ,im looking for a dslr to take photos of artwork paintings about 2x2ft would you say this cameras ok or howbout canon 450d is that better ?much appreciated
The Canon has live view and somewhat better high ISO, but for taking photos of paintings it's really not going to matter which one you use. Canon takes SD cards that might matter to you.
I bought this camera and it just isn't working for me, Using the 300mm lens I was taking pictures of aircraft and they was just coming out blurry, even though I had steady shot, auto focus and shutter speed all the way up, any tips
I'm not the best person to ask about astro photography, it depends on the amp noise. I might look into longer exposures as I'm working on a video comparing 3 of these cameras.
I don't like them much because they have cut down controls and too much empty space on the top plate, they also take a smaller battery. The only good thing might be SD card v CF, but it's up to you they take photos, I just dislike the designs.
@@MrBazReviews Thank you! One more question, what about super ccd sensor and more megapixels, that a380,390 have, does it produce better image quality than a200? Im just a beginner, looking for a budget set, for taking +- good pics, and i have nikon d100 but its not enough for me, so im looking camera with ccd or super ccd sensor, just to learn and have some fun with it, later im looking for buying mirrorles camera
@@danielmetelskij4622 The A200 series has no live view, but have a decent viewfinder. The A300, 350, 380, 390 have the live view system, but notably smaller optical viewfinders. 10 v 14mp depends what you want to do, the higher resolution is a bit worse in low light. Honestly the A200 is probably the better of the offerings, if you want the live view the A300 is also 10mp, but the A350 is 14mp. I don't rate the later efforts in terms of ergonomics or usability. Stick with the first batch of models
The A200 performs better than the 300 plus series. I don’t find any advantage in the performance quality compared with the higher numbers that follow up until the SLT era of APSC. The A200 has a desrinct image characteristic that is not obtained by the latter releases.
Amazon - amzn.to/3HDJxN9
Slik Tripods - amzn.to/3Um3gZj K&F Filters - amzn.to/4aGQJoF
Sony Lenses - amzn.to/3UC2LtL Nikon Lenses - amzn.to/4aT7Fbv
Tokina Lenses - amzn.to/49IrVv2 Canon Lenses - amzn.to/3WnD41t
Godox Flashes - amzn.to/3xFlbB0
Manfrotto Tripods - amzn.to/3W032YP
You can use the affiliate links to Amazon, which help fund the cost of making these videos (at no cost to yourself). This helps quite a lot, as I buy in items to make reviews on
Or you can use Patreon to support making these videos -
www.patreon.com/mrbazreviews
I'm a beginner and I just bought this camera used today for $150 but it came with three lenses, The flash attachment, two tripods and all the accessories. This is my first actual camera rather than using a phone. It's kind of old and I was nervous to buy it but from what I'm seeing online it's a very good quality camera especially for beginner like me.
Nothing wrong with it even for more experienced users. It won't fall apart of anything just use it and you can get some decent photos with it, I point out areas I like or don't like so people can make up their own minds.
@@MrBazReviews I appreciate the reply. I'm sure I'll be upgrading at some point. The camera I was looking at was the Canon EOS rebel t7. I know that one is very popular. I may get something better than that after I get my chops up on the Sony. Your video was one of the main reasons why I bought the Sony. Got it home last night after work, got it all charged up and figured out for the most part and it works great. Only thing I didn't realize is I need a special card reader for the flash storage card so I guess I'll swing by Walmart today and grab one.
@@danielbell7855 Yup compact flash for this age but it's not a huge issue really. It's good enough to get going with the there are a lot of cheap but good Minota lenses around
Cool. I got into film photography recently and have been picking up a buncha cheap Minolta glass, so finding out that these old Sony DSLRs are compatible (and affordable!) is great news.
It works with all A Mount AF lenses from 1985 onwards, but not the SR/MD mount manual focus ones, different mount.
Ahhhh my first camera…bought in 2010 for college assignment, chose sony because the grip is much better than d60/ 450d/ 1000d that time. Learnt photography a lot from this camera :D
It was a good deal in the day if I remember, that also helped the appeal
Love seeing reviews for these older cameras. Just goes to show you don't need the latest and greatest to get amazing images and reminds me that picking up an old a mount camera, in my case I went with likely the best one made the a99, was the correct decision. Thanks.
I'll be doing more over time, people seem to like them. A99 I always liked, but I wished Sony had done another A900 OVF model
I'll be doing more over time, people seem to like them. A99 I always liked, but I wished Sony had done another A900 OVF model
@@MrBazReviews yea after that the only OVF camera with IBIS was/is the Pentax K-1 I’ve been tempted to get an a900 at some point but the sensor is old …. At least with the a99 the sensor is comparable to a modern non BSI aps-c sensor and for the $600 ish I plaid for it I can’t complain
@@digitalrex5 A900 is quite old it's a shame it didn't get another sensor/update. A99 is good for dynamic range (quite a good upgrade), comparable to other full frame models (Nikon and beats Canon). Low light though is about the same as APS-C, I had an A6300 for a while and they were very close in terms of low light performance. A99II was (and still is used), pretty expensive. I'm not sure it's worth it.
@@MrBazReviews that’s in line with what my research told me. I shoot a lot of film and almost exclusively in black and white so any of these cameras will be better in low light lol. I also wonder if all these new ai powered denoise software available will give these older cameras new life. I’m also not sure how well the old Minolta glass can handle 43mp a99ii, it’ll be a little better than 24 but diminishing returns…. And as you said they are still very expensive, a used a7r3 which they still make is a better value.
Excellent, accurate, and informative review, nice little easter egg in there too... Don' t drop it! It's a good beginner model really. Sony did make an eyepiece magnifier at one point, but trying to find a used one is next to impossible. Looking forward to the three way comparison. I'll reserve my own comments on the three, I've owned them all, still have the A100 (my first ever DSLR, nostalgic reasons).
Never found that magnifier, seems it was never that widespread. Yes A100 review will be incoming soon then a 3 way shoot out Clint style ;-)
They had a magnifier??
My first camera. Still my main and only one. Don't use it much anymore but I have several Minolta lenses. Good camera. Takes a good photo and is ergonomically appealing. Dynamic range isn't the best. But a great beginner camera that has a good manual control. Pretty sure it was the same sensor as the a700.
Thanks, A700 was a CMOS sensor. The CCD era ones were lower dynamic range and I miss the Hi 200 settings which was great for dynamic range expansion in Raw, not a bad camera lots of them around. It was a good price got very cheap under 300 I think with a kit lens.
I had a350 which was the same basic body profile, and later the a580 which I think was a progression of this body design. The OVF's were disappointing I felt, I picked up the a700 not long after the a350. I tried to like the a580 since I believe it was the last OVF from Sony, but even though it could edge out the a55 in image quality (same sensor but no SLT) I just couldn't get comfortable with it. I did have my a350 converted to infrared and it served me well for a long time. Watching your videos is making me wish I still have something OVF again!
At the time I remember thinking why are Sony changing the body design? They got bigger (A580 fair bit larger than the KM5D) and thicker bodies.
Anything less than the 0.83x magnification was never going to work for me, the A580 was passable (but still smaller), the A300/350 and later variations had the smallest OVF on any APS-C DSLR. I have a D3000 in for testing and review, and that's not that great OVF (0.78x), even that is fair bit bettter!
Strange because today Sony rarely change much on their cameras (and IMO that's a mistake don't like the boxy look much) A700 and KM7D both same size OVF and quite decent at that
A900 was one of the best even today ranks highly. When Sony were playing around with this live view and making smaller OVF's I knew something was up! I would have been alright with an A700 or A900 with the normal live view. Sony never made a pentaprism DSLR with live view, shame really. If I look at the D780 and imagine it with steadyshot and A mount, what an awesome camera that could have been all round for photos and video.
Years down the road makers might regret walking away from OVF cameras, look at the demand for the Fuji X100VI, it's a cash printing machine - yet most of them don't even make compacts anymore. That's a sign of how out of touch the industry can be, people want choices and not being forced into what makers want. I see it in DSLR's too, lot of people like using them.
@@MrBazReviews Yea I do wonder how it could have helped Sony to not move away from OVF's so quickly. I wish there were options for the A-mount besides hunting the used market.
I definitely have a love-hate relationship with my mirrorless E-mount cameras. I can adapt so many vintage lenses and it is a ton of fun playing with them but when I want to just do proper photography I still prefer a big comfortable DSLR style camera.
I have the a7ii and its a great camera, but I just feel more comfortable on the a99. I wish there were still OVF's available and I wonder how much Sony really saved in the long run by not offering an OVF version of basically the a99 or a99ii. They already had all the pieces sorted out, I know there's engineering and manufacturing costs that can't be ignored, but then again there's a customer cost too. How many customers left the system or were dissuaded from buying into Sony in the first place? There's probably no way to say, but I think its one of those things were these big companies are really out of touch with their users.
I am enjoying your Sony/Minolta videos!
@@gregkempchannel Thanks I will be doing more videos over time.
With Sony I read in some interview online that they made a loss on A Mount, no profit at all, which to a point surprised me.
But in another way I'm not sure it did.
When Sony took over they immediately jacked up all the prices on lenses and other items. Quite a bit if I remember.
The first batch of bodies did quite well I think, I saw A200's around and some A350's, more then I would have imagined. So I assume they sold well. They sort of messed up the entry models after that, with the bad grip and dumbed down body designs. There were major gaps never filled in the system, the 70-210/200mm F4 was a big one, big seller for Canon nope Sony just ignored it - they did make an E mount one (alarm bells started to ring when I saw E Mount getting the "missing" lenses A mount never did). No 28mm prime, no 24-105mm both of those discontinued. No F4 zooms just expensive 2.8 Zeiss ones. They did some nice lenses, but were well short of building the system up to compete properly with those 2.
The premium lenses were as expensive if not more than the Canon/Nikon IS/VR ones, so to me the incentive to invest in A mount wasn't there, being blunt.
All my lenses were either Minolta, Tamron, Tokina etc.
I don't think I'm alone I know quite a few people who only had any real interest in A mount because they took Minolta AF Lenses! SLT to my eye was a sidestep, must have cost something on R&D, but I supposed less parts saved money? This is why Mirrorless is being pushed so hard, much cheaper IMO to manufacture these cameras, bigger margins. SLT didn't really add anything to A mounts future, and didn't last as long as OVF DSLR's have. Hard to call it a success really.
I think overall many camera makers have this "this is what we're giving you take it or leave it" approach, not just Sony either. When they should be listening to people and giving them a choice. I can use EVF's but I like using OVF's. I don't want to invest in any MILC mirrorless system because I lose the OVF option. I found E mount capable tech wise, but left me cold in terms of design/ergos and fun factor. I just didn't enjoy using the cameras crop or Full frame.
I have a200 which I bought to replace my A290. I’ve been very pleased with the A200 though I prefer the power button on the right side. The CF cards are harder to find these days. The CCD colors are more satisfying on the A200
Don't get ripped off with the overpriced smaller CF cards, the SanDisk Extreme 32GB isn't expensive, fast and has lifetime warranty. I have no idea why people pay scalping prices for cards when on the A100, KM5D and A200 even my 64GB CF card works fine! You can also get adapters for micro SD to CF too, might be worth a look.
The later A2xx series after the A200 were not a great design IMO they cut them back too much.
Nice job Mr B always wanted to get a good camera can't afford one really
These are super cheap, just about everywhere. I'll be doing more videos like this, I have to accept I can't run the channel off flashlights/torches - it's just not viable. I'll take a look at a few though, if I can get hold of any! Thanks for your support
@@MrBazReviews no worries Mr B I tried to watch all your content not just flashlights. I may of missed a few because my wife has been sick and has just passed
@@joekasperek1086 I'm very sad to hear that, please take care of yourself 🙏
im a novice ,im looking for a dslr to take photos of artwork paintings about 2x2ft would you say this cameras ok or howbout canon 450d is that better ?much appreciated
The Canon has live view and somewhat better high ISO, but for taking photos of paintings it's really not going to matter which one you use. Canon takes SD cards that might matter to you.
I bought this camera and it just isn't working for me,
Using the 300mm lens I was taking pictures of aircraft and they was just coming out blurry, even though I had steady shot, auto focus and shutter speed all the way up, any tips
Which lens are you using? Steadyshot works to a point but it depends on the shutter speed/how steady you are.
Is this only a photoshooting camera or it can record videos also ?
No video on this one
Camera A100 son A200 .
Test A200 camer night Astro photography 😎👍
I'm not the best person to ask about astro photography, it depends on the amp noise. I might look into longer exposures as I'm working on a video comparing 3 of these cameras.
Hey, what do you think about a380 a390, is better to take one of these?
I don't like them much because they have cut down controls and too much empty space on the top plate, they also take a smaller battery. The only good thing might be SD card v CF, but it's up to you they take photos, I just dislike the designs.
@@MrBazReviews Thank you! One more question, what about super ccd sensor and more megapixels, that a380,390 have, does it produce better image quality than a200? Im just a beginner, looking for a budget set, for taking +- good pics, and i have nikon d100 but its not enough for me, so im looking camera with ccd or super ccd sensor, just to learn and have some fun with it, later im looking for buying mirrorles camera
@@danielmetelskij4622 The A200 series has no live view, but have a decent viewfinder. The A300, 350, 380, 390 have the live view system, but notably smaller optical viewfinders. 10 v 14mp depends what you want to do, the higher resolution is a bit worse in low light. Honestly the A200 is probably the better of the offerings, if you want the live view the A300 is also 10mp, but the A350 is 14mp. I don't rate the later efforts in terms of ergonomics or usability. Stick with the first batch of models
The A200 performs better than the 300 plus series. I don’t find any advantage in the performance quality compared with the higher numbers that follow up until the SLT era of APSC. The A200 has a desrinct image characteristic that is not obtained by the latter releases.
Thanks
No problem
Junk
The material on the body does feel cheap, but I wouldn't say it was junk - unless the steadyshot mechanism broke! That is annoying