Anyone have feedback on the 'Sony A300' DSLR Camera?

paul_smith_srcc

Not sure if this is correct section for asking this but I’ve been considering a DSLR camera to take in my bar bag on tour, all the popular options seem fit OK including the Sony, which is one of the larger DSLR models in the entry to mid price ranges. Of those short listed I quite like the look of the Sony A300, a camera it seems is unique camera to Jessops, essentially their A200 but with live view.

As it is for touring I didn’t want to go OTT price wise as I didn’t want to be too precious with it, the Sony seems good value, get reasonable reviews and at £350.00 I would not feel quite as anxious about carrying something nearer £500.00 in a bar bag as I whizz down bumpy country lanes.

I was wondering if any had this camera and what they thought about it? I also liked the Canon 450d, but it seems quite a lot extra for features that I probably wouldn’t need/use, plus in some respects the £150.00 cheaper Sony has features that I would, such as the adjustable live view screen for example.



As you can see from the tours linked to below I do enjoy taking pictures, more of a see a view take a pic' kind of chap than someone who will spend hours composing a shot.In many ways I could get away with one of the new smaller cameras, but I loved my old SLR and wanted a new camera along the same lines, purely as I want and apposed to need one!

I realise asking what I should be considering may open a can of worms, along the "what is better, Shimano or Campganolo?"

Paul_Smith
www.corridori.co.uk

minus9ine

Ha, after always asking advice on this forum, a topic to which I might be able to contribute...

At this price any DSLR will take good pictures so I wouldn't worry too much about the kinds of reviews that claim to divine differences in image quality between the competing Sony/Canon/Nikon/Olympus/Pentax/Samsungs.

I think the key feature that would be a must-have, especially on a cycle tour, is some kind of anti-shake device. It really will, more than any other feature, get you shots you wouldn't have got without it. These are either inside the camera and thus work with any lens (pentax, samsung, olympus and sony have this in their budget DSLRs I think), or are built into the lenses themselves (canon, nikon) The lenses with antishake (or optical stabilisation, or vibration reduction, or any of the other names they use) are reputedly a bit better but are very much more expensive in most cases.

Assuming you're going to stick with the kit lens then differences in the availability of lenses with different focal lengths is less important; for all of them you will get a reasonably good (better than all but the very best compact cameras) kit lens, and for another £100-£200 you could get a telephoto lens for wildlife or distant portraits if that's your thing.

The sony a300 does have image stabilisation built-in, so if that's the one you like the feel of I would recommend you get it.

robthehungrymonkey

My Girlfriend has just bought the A350 (i think for £390). And we've been quite impressed with it. The live view is actually a very useful feature to have in certain situations, even though the viewfinder is still used most of the time.

We thought the extra resolution and other bits and pieces were worth paying the extra £50 for.

infopete

I've carried a SLR for years in my bar bag and for the past few years I carried a Canon 350D. At the moment I'm selling the 350D and will buy the new Canon 500D when the price drops a bit.

But when I cycle I don't bother with a DSLR anymore I use a Canon IXUS 950.... it's so light, so small and honestly for most pictures I prefer it.

Yes, a DSLR gives you more choice, better control, but most of the time the IXUS is ideal.

However, if anyone can tell me how to capture a picture of the Little Owl that sometimes sits in the hole in the tree on my way home I'd love the help. If I carry a camera it's not there. If I don't it sits there in the sunshine waiting for me!

Pete
www.tomtracks.com

trickeyja

I've just got myself one of these: http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/1 ... index.html

I put a lot of thought in before finally buying this compact and it's definitely worth considering if you haven't already. I was looking for something light and portable that I could easily put in my saddlebag, but wouldn't compromise too much in terms of image quality and manual options. The LX3 has very good picture quality, can shoot RAW and has full manual settings and focus. The drawbacks are that naturally a DSLR will have more detail, and the shot to shot times are slower.

If you are interested, I keep a photostream on Flickr - I've only had the camera for a few weeks so only the first couple of pages are taken with my LX3 but you can view original size etc for an idea of quality. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jtrickey/

robthehungrymonkey

I'm planning on cycling to Morroco next year, and i'll definitely be taking an SLR. Even with everything on auto, everything is far superior to what you get from a compact camera.