-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ How often do you braai?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
Sign up with GoogleD5000 amd Sony A230?
- Thread starter Hemps
- Start date
Found this.
Hope it helps:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D5000-vs-Sony_Alpha_DSLR-A230
Imo if you have the cash buy the D5000.
Hope it helps:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D5000-vs-Sony_Alpha_DSLR-A230
Imo if you have the cash buy the D5000.
Last edited:
Quantum Theory
Executive Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2009
- Messages
- 9,449
Is there even a question? I had a Sony A-100 and now have a Nikon D90.
Do not buy the Sony. My biggest gripe with the entry level Sony cameras, is noise... even at ISO100.
Do not buy the Sony. My biggest gripe with the entry level Sony cameras, is noise... even at ISO100.
I have a Sony A230 and the Nikon D5000.
Now I like both cameras and have had good service from both a quick overview
The Sony is a really fun little camera, it is quite a simple DSLR with some more standard features not available, now as an everyday user I did not miss these features, but as I got more technical these features were nice to haves.
Simply the D5000 may be a slighly older camera but is a overall better camera, it has 12MP as opposed to 10MP of the A230. The Sony does not have Live view nor does it have a swivel screen which the Nikon D5000 does. The Nikon can do video, however it does not autofocus during the filming and is limited to 5 minutes on 720dpi and 20 minutes at lower DPI.
The Nikon has buttons that can be programmed while the Sony has none, this is a very handy feature and I have ISO programmed so I can change it on the fly.
Both cameras offer RAW ( Sony ARW and Nikon NEF ) and jpeg as options and do this to SD.
Personal Experience :
The Sony is a good camera and I have gotten over 500 shots out of a charge which is respectable, colour and picture and more than acceptable , however where the A230/A2xx/A3xx range falls down is low light and medium to high ISO photography. What I mean is that in low light and when you move to 800 ISO and up the SOny image quality starts to show visible granulation.
The Nikon D5000 also can do over 500 images on a charge. The colours are somewhat more subdues and picture quality is very good with some clarity lost to ensure consistency quality, meaning that low light and high ISO is far better than the A230, with 800 ISO still giving better quality images and low light does not have as serious effect on the image quality.
The A230 has a diferent grip to the normal DSLR with the wedge for the button finger missing, this is at first a bit of a problem but once you used to this it no longer matters to much, especially since the A230 is such a small and light camera. The D5000 grip is a tad bulky but very comfortable.
The A230 is a great runner and I still use it even with is little quirks, however the one I consider the better is the D5000.
Oh and if you want this years best value for money camera it is probably the D5100.
Now I like both cameras and have had good service from both a quick overview
The Sony is a really fun little camera, it is quite a simple DSLR with some more standard features not available, now as an everyday user I did not miss these features, but as I got more technical these features were nice to haves.
Simply the D5000 may be a slighly older camera but is a overall better camera, it has 12MP as opposed to 10MP of the A230. The Sony does not have Live view nor does it have a swivel screen which the Nikon D5000 does. The Nikon can do video, however it does not autofocus during the filming and is limited to 5 minutes on 720dpi and 20 minutes at lower DPI.
The Nikon has buttons that can be programmed while the Sony has none, this is a very handy feature and I have ISO programmed so I can change it on the fly.
Both cameras offer RAW ( Sony ARW and Nikon NEF ) and jpeg as options and do this to SD.
Personal Experience :
The Sony is a good camera and I have gotten over 500 shots out of a charge which is respectable, colour and picture and more than acceptable , however where the A230/A2xx/A3xx range falls down is low light and medium to high ISO photography. What I mean is that in low light and when you move to 800 ISO and up the SOny image quality starts to show visible granulation.
The Nikon D5000 also can do over 500 images on a charge. The colours are somewhat more subdues and picture quality is very good with some clarity lost to ensure consistency quality, meaning that low light and high ISO is far better than the A230, with 800 ISO still giving better quality images and low light does not have as serious effect on the image quality.
The A230 has a diferent grip to the normal DSLR with the wedge for the button finger missing, this is at first a bit of a problem but once you used to this it no longer matters to much, especially since the A230 is such a small and light camera. The D5000 grip is a tad bulky but very comfortable.
The A230 is a great runner and I still use it even with is little quirks, however the one I consider the better is the D5000.
Oh and if you want this years best value for money camera it is probably the D5100.
Last edited:
lupedelupe
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 222
I don't know the Sony at all, but can vouch for the D5000. Swivel screen, more lenses available etc, etc.
And I happen to have one for sale ;-), PM me if you want details (CT).
And I happen to have one for sale ;-), PM me if you want details (CT).
Deezil
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2008
- Messages
- 790
Pretty much what DG said ... I own the A230 and yes I love it, especially as a light weight carry around but @ R4000 I don't think it's worth the money. Bought mine at the Sony shop in Menlyn for R2999 about a year ago (I honestly thought the A230 would have been gone by now, selling them for 4k on special is a ripoff!)
The Nikon is the superior camera but if you can find the Sony for cheaper it does produce very decent images at iso 100 & 200 (more than that and you'll need decent post-processing software to start hiding the flaws) ... one thing the Sony does what the Nikon can't is off-camera wireless flash ... combined with the HVL-F42 it really produces awesome pictures on the odd occasion (but that is more an operator limitation than anything else
)
The Nikon is the superior camera but if you can find the Sony for cheaper it does produce very decent images at iso 100 & 200 (more than that and you'll need decent post-processing software to start hiding the flaws) ... one thing the Sony does what the Nikon can't is off-camera wireless flash ... combined with the HVL-F42 it really produces awesome pictures on the odd occasion (but that is more an operator limitation than anything else
)