The entry level A200 clearly has the Minolta DNA, controls, menus, A-mount, but it shares on paper a lot in common with the Nikon D80: same ISO range, same sensor, supposed same AF capabilities. The Nikon D80 (that was basically a tuned down, slower and less pro D200) was about to be replaced by the D90 when the A200 came out. You could buy the Nikon body for $600 and the Sony was about the same price with a 18-70 lens. 
The more expensive Nikon D80 was built better, had a very practical top LCD, a pentaprism, and the Nikon controls ergonomic including two dials. 
The less expensive Sony A200 was the bottom of their entry level line of DSLRs.
That doesn't mean it is a bad camera. It is a simple camera but it offers In Body Image Stabilization. And at the time, that was still a huge thing: all the A-mount lenses became magically stabilized. In my experience, I shot on average a 2.5 F-stops slower speed. It works pretty well, and is much more consistent than say the Minolta Maxxum / Dynax 7D stabilization.
Sp, overall, the Nikon D80 is a faster, better made camera, and the Sony has IBIS, but what about image quality? I won't talk about the in camera JPEG engine because I only shoot RAW. From the reviews at the time, that JPEG engine sucked anyways.
Both the D80 and A200 RAW files are 12bits compressed and weigh from 6 to 14MB depending on the photo. It is worth noting that the Sony compression seems much more aggressive: the same photo taken with the D80 is 14MB, and 7MB with the A200. Also, when the RAWs from the D200 and D80 are pretty similar, the color rendering is slightly different on the A200, in part because of different white balance, in part because of different RAW cooking. 
I won't go into which one is better: I actually like both, much more than any CMOS sensor color rendering. (Yes, I know, it's in my head, or in the CFA. I don't care.)
My point here is that the A200 and D80 produce very similar images of the same quality. Even noise is very similar and has quite the pleasant film vibe. 
Today, buying it for a ridiculously low price is not a bad idea if you have some a-mount lenses, or plan to buy some. They are cheaper than Nikon, and some are optically splendid, for just the price of a few cigarette packs. It's a fun inexpensive camera to shoot, giving some nice RAWs to work with.
In the end, the A200 is really quite a cheaper stabilized Nikon D80, or if image quality only matters, a much slower and less pro Nikon D200. It is perfectly usable in 2022 unless you need blazing fast AF tracking, frame rate and huge cropping abilities, and of course have the deep pockets to buy that.

You may also like

Shooting the Nikon D70 in 2022
2004... Jesus, time passes quite fast. I won't review that Nikon D70, the specs sheets and reviews are everywhere on the internet. Only 3 figures are significant anyway: 6.1 megapixel CCD sensor, 1\/8000th second max shutter speed and 1\/500th second x-sync. I decided to buy and shoot this camera again with the Nikkor 18-135. For 20 bucks, what could go wrong?
Shooting the Sony A77 in 2022
If you have some A-mount lenses and want an APSC DSLR that can take them natively, you don’t have many options. Especially if you can’t / don’t want to spend a lot of money.
Shooting the Nikon D2Xs in 2022
During summer 2005, after a very long wait, the Nikon D2X was released. At the time my go to camera was the Minolta 7D that replaced my Nikon film cameras for my digital needs. I also shot the Nikon D70 but I prefered the Minolta. Both cameras were quite slow, and 6MP only. I wasn't really convinced by the Nikon D1/x/h/d2h. Soon after buying the D70, the D2X was announced, making me question that early GAS compulsive buy.
Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD IF Macro
It took me some time to write about that A-mount lens I got NOS for 250 bucks. At that price, you will unlikely find any better F/2.8 telezoom.
Birding with a cheap Sigma 135-400?
When it comes to birding, the common advice is to get a camera with low noise, fast AF, fast burst, big buffer and some long lens, preferably a super fast telephoto. It is indeed good advice, but you'll have to pay thousands of dollars to buy that gear, even on the used market. What if you want to shoot birds on a super tight budget? You'll still need some camera and lens. Maybe consider buying some older inexpensive gear?
Improving cheap flatbed scans
I still shoot film from time to time, not enough to invest in am excellent neg scanner or bother trying to shoot my negs with a camera. I tried that, don't like it. I love the scanning - editing process.
Fun with the DXO ONE in 2023
In 2015, Dxo decided to sell a tiny camera that connected to the iPhone. They used the 1inch 20MP sensor from the Sony RX100 m3 that I really love a lot, 32mm equivalent lens that is pretty bright: F/1.8 and shoots RAW.
Nikkor Plastic 70-300 F/4-5.6 AF-D ED
This Nikkor 70-300 has been one of the most poorly reviewed Nikkor lens ever.
Sigma 500mm F/7.2 AF APO
How good can be a Sigma 500mm F/7.2 AF lens from 1990? Simple answer: definitely worth 89 bucks BUT there are lots of BUT...
Shooting the Olympus OM-D E-M1 in 2023, 2024 and later.
One month ago, I was fed up with travelling with camera gear. Air travel became a miserable experience: arguing with check-in people, Unpack all that expensive shit at security, having gear damaged in the plane when frantic fellow passengers trow their hard cases in the overhead bins. I want to travel light: then a classified caught my eye: EM1, grip, charger, 2 batteries and 45-150 for 300.
Back to Top