Circuit City has the Sony Alpha A200k with a 55-200mm lens, a case, and an extra battery for about $650. I'm not really well versed on DSLR cameras, other than that I want one.

Is this camera recommended, or should I pay more for a Nikon or Canon? I'm not ever going to be a pro photographer, but I want to take better pictures than I can with my little point and shoot.

 

Remember that a camera is just a tool. You can get a job done with cheap inferior tools, but you'll be able to work more efficiently and do better quality work with the best tools.

Look into a crystal ball. Do you see photography as a simply hobby that you'll loose interest in the next 6 months. If so, buy something cheap. If you are the type that enjoys the ease of use gained with good quality tools, the Sony DSLR will be more expensive because you'll get the Sony, then upgrade to a Canon or Nikon in a few months, offsetting the initial Sony brand savings. I've seen many a friend go this path and waste their money. It's best just to buy the best tools you budget can allow IMHO which typically are the Canon and Nikon cameras. That's my $.02 FWIW...

 

I just bought my DSLR (Canon Rebel XSi) last week. I have almost 1000 pictures already (my poor wife, daughter, and pets). The car loves the attention.

I looked at the Sony, but after some time and thought I ended up getting the Canon Rebel XSi. It was 699.00 from Amazon.com. The Canon is a more established name in SLR and there just seems to be more support and gadgets for the Canon. One thing I found when I got my hands on the Alpha was the hot shoe for the flash. It is a non standard connection. Which means you are stuck with limited choices if you decide you want to add an external flash.

There is a wonderful website that will give you more info than anyone coould hope to use. It is www.dpreview.com. This site: http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/ is great for tips. Both sites are free!

I hope this helps.

 

Thanks for the references. DPreview basically says the alpha 200 is as good as the D60, and even offers a couple features (image stabilization) that aren't offered on similarly priced units.

As far as what I want to use it for, I'm basically the guy that has discovered the limits of a cheap point and shoot and would like to have higher quality pictures. I'm never going to be a 'serious' photographer, I have WAY too many other hobbies that take up my time and money.

What got me going down this path is that I was recently in Florida visiting my folks, and we were comparing pictures that we had taken at the same time and place, and the pictures that they took with their Pentax DSLR were light years ahead of what I had in my little point and shoot. And it isn't like they were even doing anything other than shooting on full auto mode, the camera is just that much better.

So I started looking for a better camera, and while there are some nice point and shoots in the $299-$399 range, the DSLR seems like it would have a TON of additional flexibility down the road.

But like all things, I have to find that point on the cost vs. value curve that fits me best. I'm always struggling with those decisions.

 

If I were you and was looking for a good general purpose camera for family oriented stuff I would seriously consider either a Pentax or Olympus DSLR. Both brands have some really cool small lenses. The systems can be super light weight and easy to carry around. Neither of them offer what I would consider to be a full lens line up but they have more than enough for an amateur.

You could also go with Nikon or Canon. The Nikon and Canon systems both provide much more flexability in the long run than any other SLR camera system out their due to the number of lenses made for them. I personally shoot Canon. If you want to go with Canon they make a good camera system that is reasonably affordable.

 

Last year I had to make the same decision on DSLR value proposition. I wanted to get a NIKON because of the quality of their lenses and the experience they have in photography. For me the entry level Nikon D40x was the choice. I talked to some professional photographers and found out that Olympus actually built a digital system from scratch, the new 4:3s. The lens options are limited however it has image stabilization in the camera body, lens cleaner function built in and at the time it was the only camera with a live view function. Based on the options and the price point I decided to buy the 510 dslr with the two lens kit. You can now get a e-420 for sub $600. I think it is a safe bet to see how far you can take your skills without a high cost of entry that can back fire on you. With an investment of $700 (including oympus brand flash) I am set. The kit is more equipment then I can handle to the full capabilities for a long time. If and when my skills outgrow my two lens kit I will have gotten my investments worth, craigslist the set and buy a Nikon. If I ever get there...