What's the best way to spend £550?

[The Masked Unit]

Hi all, I'm hoping I can get some help with something I've been mulling over but don't have the knowledge to resolve personally.

I'm in the market for a new DSLR. We've had a Sony a200 for a few years, which was our first foray into "proper" photography, and generally speaking it's done us well and continues to do so, but we're getting increasingly frustrated with only having one camera between us and want to get a second one, which we'd also like to be a general upgrade from what we've already got.

I've only got one set-in-stone requirement, and that's a camera with an articulating screen, which I find incredibly useful on the a200. I'm happy to spend up to £550 and although my research led me to conclude that I wanted a Sony a65* (hence the budget, as that's the cheapest I can find it for with the standard kit lens), I'm completely open to suggestions and have no brand loyalty. The obvious models in that price range (with an articulating screen) are the Sony a58 and a65, Nikon D5100 and 5200, and the Canon 600D and 700D, the last of which I can find for a bit above my budget at £589, but I can live with that.

My question is two-fold really: firstly, what's the general consensus on whether I'm backing the right horse with the a65 and secondly, would I be better off buying a cheaper camera like the a58 and spending the difference (i.e. £250 or so) on a lens that's going to be better than the kit lens supplied with any of those models?

In terms of what I'm going to be shooting, it's the usual stuff like landscapes, portraits, and then stuff like flowers, statues, architectural details etc (so generally close up-ish but not macro). Nothing to fancy.

And then of course, if the cheaper body with better lens option is better, what lens would you recommend as a general walkabout? I think I'd be happy to go second-hand if I can get one in good nick.

Thanks in advance!

*One of the reasons for going down the Sony path is that I have access to a few Minolta and Sigma lenses which I thought I could use and therefore save money by just buying the body. They do fit/work on the Sony Alpha range but as they were designed to be used on 35mm film SLRs (A Minolta 7000i and 8000i to be precise), I'm guessing there might be some problems with doing so? Any guidance on that would also be really appreciated.

 

[applemint]

You could also look at an A57 if you can find one - around £350 body only and you can get a used Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for around £200 which makes a good walk around lens. (If you need more reach the 18-135mm Sony gets good reviews and was going for £200 to £220 new but seems to have gone up recently). Or if you are happy with a prime the 35mm f1.8 is a decent lens and only around £125 new. For telephoto you can pick up a beercan (Minolta 70-210 f4) for around £80 used or for a similar price new the Tamron or Sony 55-200 (which are much smaller and lighter than the beercan) and surprisingly good image quality for such a cheap lens.

Getting another Sony camera might make sense in terms of sharing lenses and using the Minolta and Sigma lenses you already have. Just try one out first to see how you get on with the evf compared with the ovf on the A200 and on the Canon and Nikon alternatives.

Plenty of Nikon and Canon used lenses around though if you decide to go that route..

Minolta lenses should work fine on the SLT models, Sigma lenses may have issues if they are older (gear stripping on the screw drive ones for example) but the one Sigma lens I have works fine on my A57 and A37.

A58 is a lot of camera for the money but for a similar price the A57 offers a much better screen (but slightly worse evf) and other useful features like a horizon level and a wired remote jack which accepts third party remotes (£2 on ebay) whereas the A58 only currently takes the £50 Sony remote. A57 also has an infra red remote facility (again cheap £1 remote on ebay is all you need to trigger it). If you have any old Sony/Minolta flashes the A58 has the new standard hotshoe whereas the A57, A65 and A200 all have the older Sony/Minolta hotshoe.

If you want the 24mp sensor then the A65 and D5200 will give you that - there are pros and cons to it. The A57 has the 16mp sensor (as does the D5100) and the A58 has the newer 20mp sensor.

Any of the above will be a major upgrade on the A200, although at low isos you probably won't notice that much difference in image quality.

 

[The Masked Unit]

That's really helpful; thank you. On the topic of the old lenses, I've got a Sigma 28-105 F2.8-4 Aspherical IF. I did a quick comparison last night with the kit lens on the a200, photographing a clock at a distance of about 70cm at, if memory serves, 35mm, and to my untrained eye I'd say the results were at least as good and if anything a bit more aesthetically pleasing due to the way the Sigma seemed to focus a bit tighter on the clock, subtly blurring the rest of the image as it spread outwards. I say more aesthetically pleasing rather than "better" because I don't know enough about whether that slightly increased blurring should occur and whether it might be a problem at other focal lengths when out and about. I don't remember the exact thread but I saw one here earlier citing problems with using lenses designed for 35mm film cameras on something with a smaller sensor. Looking through the viewfinder of either of the Minoltas I was absolutely blown away by the size of the window.

 

[kendo1]

Lap dancing club.

Or, to be serious, a D5200 with 18-55 VR for £429 from digital rev

 

[Micehorns]

If you're staying with Sony, keep your eye on the Sony Outlet Store.

https://outlet.sony.co.uk/shop/DSLR-&-SLT-Camera/

I got my Sony a57 and 3 lenses from them and had no troubles. For £565 you could get an a57 (under £300 from the Outlet), Sony 18-135mm (Amazon sometimes drop the price to £200) and a Sony 50mm 1.8DT (£65 from the Outlet). That would be a good kit to compliment the a200.

I'm glad you're keeping the a200, I bought one last week(for £30!) as I loved the handling of the older Sony bodies and jpegs are just so much nicer than modern Sony jpegs (imho).