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 D200 in 2022
The D200 is a camera I always loved. At the time it came out, it was a hell of a camera for the price Nikon asked. Shooting it in 2019 is still a pleasant experience. 2005 specs? that's outdated, nobody wants that. Photos taken with that camera will be ugly, especially compared to the Sony A9 ($4500), the Nikon D850 ($3000) or the Canon 5D mark whatever ($2700). Or will it not?
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?
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.
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.
Sony RX100 m3: all you need from 24 to 70mm
I got this little camera for $200 a couple years ago and didn't write about it yet.
Shooting the Minolta Maxxum / Dynax 7D in 2022
The short lived most advanced Minolta DSLR was released in late 2004. It became later the foundation for Sony's A-mount cameras. It featured the first in body stabilization in a DSLR, a 6MP CCD sensor and loads of controls. This camera is a photographer's delight. The body feels right, the controls are great and natural: coming from a film SLR, you just feel at home with the Minolta 7D. And You can use all the now often cheap quality Minolta lenses, as well as the more expensive Sony A-Mount lenses.
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?
Tokina 12-24 DX adapted on Micro 4/3
Some sample photos taken with the Tokina SD ATX pro 12-24 F/4 IF DX ASP Nikon F-Mount on the Olympus EM1.
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...
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.
Back to Top