Sony DSLR (1 Viewer)

With the Sony A200 has IS in the body, can a non-IS or VR lense be used and still get clear pictures.I will be taking images mostly from 300 - 500 range for birding/wildlife.

That is the beauty of a Sony or a Pentax over a Canon or a Nikon. The former 2 have built in vibration reduction systems, which means you can use any compatible lens with the body and get the benefit. If you buy a Canon or a Nikon you have to buy more expensive lenses if you want to have VR.

I think I will buy the A200 today, upgrade from a Panasonic FZ4 with a built in 12 x point and shoot. I found that cam took nice pics, I should be in for a pleasant surprise with this cam. Thats for posting back, much appreciated.

Hi JTF,

I hate to sound like a Sony fanboy, but having used a Canon and being ultra-frustrated with blurry photos, and not wanting to spend $2000 on a stabilized lens, I went for the Sony.

All the photos on my website (link below) have been taken with the Sony Alpha, I also have recently purchased a 600mm Sigma Mirror lens that translates to 900mm on the Alpha, and let me just say the stabilization works wonders!

I get about 1 usable out of every 3 shots at 900mm hand held! :eek!:

Here is an album with all shots hand held using the Sony Alpha + the 900mm Sigma

http://picasaweb.google.com/valzuniga/Apr0408BolsaChicaSigma600mmMirror

Thanks valzungia, good to hear. I'll check out your images.

Sony A-100

I also use an A-100. My previous cameras were all 35mm. (In order from most recent to oldest) Minolta Maxuum 7, Canon A1, Canon Ftb, Minolta SRT. I was sold on the A-100 for three reasons. It uses Minolta Lenses. It has a good 10.2 megapixel sensor, and it has a certain degree of image stabilization built into the body. I am very satisfied with image quality. On bright days I hand hold it, shooting at 500mm, 1/1000 sec. and ISO 100. The problem with using a tripod to reduce vibration is that setting it up scares the crap out of the birds, and often by the time you get it set up it is too late. However, the main drawback with the A-100 is that it has difficulty quickly autofocusing the Tamron 200-500mm lens I use with it. This is a real problem with birds in flight, which I end up needing to focus manually. I plan on getting a A-700 in the near future, and I've read they have redesigned the AF system, etc. If I were you, and I had the extra money of course, I might shy away from A-200, or A-350, and go for the A-700. It is a much more robust and capable camera. My gallery on BirdForum also shows samples of the capability of the A-100

Thanks for the info on the A series, I'll check out your images.

I don't have the Sony-I eventually went the Canon route. I did look at the Sony 100 and was impressed by it. What switched me away (and to Canon) were

1. all the reports indicated high noise levels at anything more than 400 ISO
2. Only 3 shots per second.

If those 2 issues have been addressed I think it will be a very good camera.

Thanks for the feed back david, I am looking at the A200 which is somewhat of an improvement over the 100. So many reviews it's a little over whelming at times but bottom line I guess is cost/what I will use it for. My main hobby is birding, so an IS body would make sense to save a little on lenses that are not IS or VR.

I must admit my wife has got the A100 and had it for just over a year, stunning camera the stablisation is essential (as the meds she is on make her shake), she got and eye for a good picture,we said the only problem is price of lenses but from what we now no and have learnt they are better priced than most and some of the manolta lenses will fit but do your home work and they must be auto focus to work. must not forget the sigma range of lenses very good for the money,

Hi JTF, A200 is a great camera. Although Sony and used Minolta is being sold at premium price, but still there are many third party lenses which are great lens. This includes the best-bang-for-buck Sigma APO 70-300mm which can be bought at less than $250. And the famous Tamron 200-500mm.