DSLR Dilemma!

[nickc]

After a year or so using my girlfriends brothers Sony A200 DSLR and hoping he had forgotten about it (Hey I can hope ) he has finally gotten round to asking for some money for it. He has asked for £100! His Dad has given him a Nikon one and it must have sparked his memory that he gave me the A200.

Now I know that it's not bad at all and easily worth it, but my dilemma comes down to two points -

1) The Selfish Point - For some reason I am slightly reluctant to spend £100 on a camera when he hasn't needed it for well over a year. And the fact that he now has a lovely Nikon.
2) Part of me thinks that I would rather put that £100 into a pot and get myself a much better one like the Nikon D3200/D3100/D5100 or Canon 550D/1100D. I know that these work out at £400-£500 with a basic lens but I do want to take better pictures.

So far I have taken some good pictures with the A200 and know that with a new lens I could improve. Also, I am never going to be an amazing full time photographer so perhaps I'm just being stupid and stubborn and should just pay the £100!

Thoughts please

[Biodoid]

£100 doesnt seem that bad going off the prices on the bay and some 2nd hand camera shops

[Lorem-Ipsum]

A lot of the time you are better off with a good bridge camera than a low cost DSLR.

However, you really have to think about how much photography you care going to do. If you aren't going to turn it into your main hobby then you may as well go for the Sony.

[dugdiamond]

i would save the money for a nikon or canon

the newer sony's are good - the older one's, not so

[nickc]

Yeah even though I don't want to be doing weddings etc lol I do want a good future proof camera. I find the A200 does a good job but when I compare with pictures that have been taken by people on this forum with their new Nikon cameras it does make me want that bit more.

[mac124]

Save the money and get a better camera, if its not all you hoped it would be sell it on, you won't lose a great deal.

I don't use my camera that much, especially as the weather has been so bad of late, but its there if / when i do want to take it out.

Camera hardware ISN'T like pc hardware it holds its value quite well. I got my 50D 2 yearsish ago i think it cost about £600 if i sold it today i would still get £400 for it.

[SilveR_172]

Buy it for £100 sell it on here for £100 put the money towards a nice camera =)

[nickc]

Buy it for £100 sell it on here for £100 put the money towards a nice camera =)

Thanks Mac, this is exactly what I was thinking. I would really like a more up to date camera.

Silver - If I was to buy it for £100 I'd sell it for at least £150 haha.

[ChrisGlobe]

The a200 is/was a nice camera, the fact that image stabilisation is built in to the body is a great feature. It does struggle at high ISO though (or at least mine did).

£100 isn't bad, you could keep it for a bit until the D3000/3100/3200 prices drop (3300 should be out soon?) and pick one of those up quite cheap?

[coiler]

1) The Selfish Point - For some reason I am slightly reluctant to spend £100 on a camera when he hasn't needed it for well over a year. And the fact that he now has a lovely Nikon.

At the end of the day though it is his camera, and he owns it. He could take it off you and sell it on the bay for £200?

If I borrowed someone a camera eventually i'd want to sell it on the bay, or i'd offer a very knocked down rate for friend to keep it, £100 is a great price. To buy it and sell it on straight away would be a bit harsh though.

I hated my Sony A200 and preferred my bridge Fuji S6500. Very un-intuitive long winded menu, making going manual a chore, kit lens left a lot to be desired, i was that unimpressed sold it and havn't got a camera now. So my advice give him the A200 back, and save up for a Nikon D3100. 3200 megapixels too high to warrant the extra cash, 3000 loses a lot of the 3100 new featureset.

I'll be getting the D3100 once i've saved up, nothing else i've found for the price and spec that touches it, but i'll probably ive in and put it on the credit card LOL

[nickc]

Completely agree with all the points above, especially with the ones coiler made.

Mind me asking why you're not looking at the D3200? http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon_D3100

[k3vst3r]

Completely agree with all the points above, especially with the ones coiler made.

Mind me asking why you're not looking at the D3200? http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon_D3100

he said it there I think

3200 megapixels too high to warrant the extra cash

saying D3200 costs too much

[coiler]

he said it there I think



saying D3200 costs too much

concur

for £220 more, i'd only value the extras as worth £30 more value

14.2 mp is way more than most of us will ever need. 3200 ISO is plenty, resolution screen unimportant.

It just seems bang for buck, sweet spot the 3100 has it all.

Advantages of the Nikon D3200
		Significantly better image quality	81.0	vs	67.0		More than 20% better image quality
		More dynamic range	13.2 EV	vs	11.3 EV		1.9 f-stops more dynamic range
		Lower noise at high ISO	1,131 ISO	vs	919 ISO		The D3200 has a slight edge (0.3 f-stops) in low noise, high ISO performance
		Much higher resolution screen	921k dots	vs	230k dots		More than 4x higher resolution screen
		Much higher true resolution	24.1 MP	vs	14.2 MP		Capture around 70% more detail in your photos
		Better color depth	24.1 bits	vs	22.5 bits		Distinguishes 1.6 more bits of color
		Has an external mic jack	Yes	vs	No		Record high quality audio with an external microphone
		Better maximum light sensitivity	6,400 ISO	vs	3,200 ISO		The D3200's maximum light sensitivity is 1 f-stop better
		Shoots faster	4 fps	vs	3 fps

[ChrisGlobe]

The ISO, colour depth and FPS are all excellent improvements. The megapixels are irrelevant if all you want to use is the kit lens.

[coiler]

The ISO, colour depth and FPS are all excellent improvements. The megapixels are irrelevant if all you want to use is the kit lens.

the ISO, colour depth and FPS are improved yes, but not to the extent I could justify an extra £220