1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sony a200 - inaccurate framing?

Discussion in 'Sony Chat' started by ffg, Apr 28, 2012.

  1. ffg

    ffg Member

    I've had a Sony a200 for about 3 years and am mostly pleased with it - a lot of camera for the price.

    Lately I've started noticing that the framing through the viewfinder differs significantly from the photograph - the photo is aimed higher (landscape) than the viewfinder. I THINK this is a new thing - fairly sure I would have noticed it before if not.

    the lens is the 18-50 SAM lens.

    My question is - is there any possible fault scenario that would produce this effect? Misaligned mirror?

    thanks
     
  2. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    If the reflex mirror was misaligned, the image in the viewfinder would be out of focus when "live view" says in focus, and vice versa.

    The Sony a200 has in-body image stabilisation, yes? Is the image stabilisation still working? The reason I ask is that in-body IS works by moving the sensor up/down, left/right with respect to the camera body, one possible cause is that the movement has stuck at one extreme position. I'm not a Sony user but there might be someone out there who has suggestions for unjamming the motion - trying switching the IS off and on again would be a sensible, harmless option, it probably won't work but it costs nothing to try.
     
  3. Steve52

    Steve52 Well-Known Member

    Do you shoot in 3:2 or 16:9 aspect ratio? If you shoot in 16:9, you will have to point the camera sightly 'upwards' in order to get the subject in the frame. It gives a sort of 'letterbox' effect.
     
  4. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    To my knowledge, the A200 does not have Live View - the OP is probably talking about the resulting picture
     
  5. ffg

    ffg Member

    Thanks for the responses. The camera doesn't have Live view, this problem is apparent using the viewfinder, then comparing the photo. I tried with another lens (Sony 70-300) - same problem.

    Also tried turning Steady-shot off - no difference.

    I have uploaded a couple of test shots to Picasaweb, I'd be grateful if anyone has any other ideas.

    https://picasaweb.google.com/113009...id=eW1ybdN3XBNV-4w9Sqpy2w#5736468737234642306

    (paste into browser if split)
     
  6. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

  7. ffg

    ffg Member

  8. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    All makes and all model are subject to failures ... just one of the facts of high-tech equipment. :(
     
  9. ffg

    ffg Member

    I'm sure you're right - on the other hand barely 2 years light use isn't a great recommendation for the brand...
     
  10. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    I thought you'd had it 3 years? Anyway it seems you've had bad luck. On the other hand I've had my a900 since they were released, it's not been cosseted, and it's not has any problems at all (tempting fate!).

    However, if you don't have a large investment in lenses you won't lose out changing brands. What are you think of getting?
     
  11. ffg

    ffg Member

    Quite right Rog, it was three years this month, my bad. Still not great though is it? I have the 18-50 SAM lens which was a replacement for the original 18-70 which broke (my fault, I dropped it) and the 70-300, which isn't a great lens, bad AF but good value for money. Next time I will get an 18-200, probably a Sigma, and not bother with the standard 18-50. Probably get a 50mm prime too.

    Can't decide whether to ditch the a200 and put the (maybe) £120 repair towards a new camera, or get it mended. I go on holiday in 2 weeks which might decide it... I would quite like to have something which can shoot HD video through a good lens... damn, I'm talking myself into a new camera...

    My daughter has an EOS 7D which is very nice and my son has an EOS 600 which I thought felt a bit flimsy (specially after holding the EOS 7!) but both take very nice pictures - somewhat sharper than my Sony's...

    What camera would you get if you were starting again?
     
  12. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    I'm very happy with the a900 and have no plans to change. Maybe when the a99 (or whatever the a900 successor is called) is released I may be tempted but it will most probably have more bells and whistles than I want or need. It will also probably be too expensive for me :)
     
  13. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    These Canons are newer generation cameras than your Sony, they should be better, you are comparing recent and more costly cameras with a three year old entry level job.

    Don't for one moment think that Sony cameras are the only ones that expire. I had a Nikon D50 as a back up body that failed much earlier than your Sony, the sensor was shot.

    £120 is borderline really on repairing your camera, in that you could likely buy a used body for around that amount.
     
  14. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    The A200 was launched in early 2008 which make the design (electronics etc) 4 years old.

    I have read it might not have had a long production run. Because newer model came quite soon after.

    If you got lenses then sticking with Sony makes sense as you can still pick up quite good performing bodies secondhand or even new.

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sony-Alph...Cameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item4603524073

    Sony A290 is 14MP, clearly a type when you read the full description.

    Sadly it does not support liveview. You could look at a A390 which does support liveview but is around £250 from what I've seen.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2012
  15. ffg

    ffg Member

    Thanks - I wasn't really comparing my a200 with the Canons. I was happy with the a200 until the present problem occurred. The only other issue I have found is a tendency to pick up dirt on the sensor - it had some on when new for which it needed to be returned to Sony, an it has happened again. I don't know whether the Sony design is more prone to this than rival brands.

    What I have to decide is whether to stay with Sony as I already have their 18-55 SAM lens and the 70-300, or jump ship to another brand. I would want to get a camera with HD video next time, and I now feel that n 18-200 lens would be better for me. It's not as if I have a big investment in Sony lenses.

    But if I do stay with Sony, which current model do you guys suggest? I don't necessarily need very big resolution. HD video is needed though. If you weren't tied to Sony, what would you get and why?

    thanks
     
  16. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    An 18-200 lens has more design and performance compromises than zooms with a smaller range. For my money I would probably just buy another Sony body from ebay at this stage. Given the minimal loss that this would cause you can always look at jumping ship at another point. The lenses you have are liikely more saleable with a body anyway. Bodywise, just whichever one suits your needs.
     
  17. ffg

    ffg Member

    Thanks Nimbus - I assumed there would be a downside to such a useful lens!

    Just looking at Sony A65 reviews - although not a true DSLR it looks pretty terrific and the current web price is down to £480 for the body...
     
  18. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    ... it's a SLT and despite the naysayers they actually have advantages. ;)
     
  19. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    I recently took a plunge and bought an A850 and a couple of prime lenses, I wanted a crop frame body as a back-up for several reasons. I bought an A350 with a 70-300, which once the lens is sold will stand me in at about £120, ebay has it's uses.
     
  20. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Just get along to a shop and check you are ok with a EVF.

    Here is AP's take on the that camera. By the way. :)
     

Share This Page