Why Digital SLR? I always liked the quality offered with film SLR camera, as I already used my dad’s canon SLR back in 1990’s. The funny thing is I used it not on purpose. The point and shoot camera was broken at the time, and the SLR is the only camera available, and I need to use it, so I had no choice. Thank God the camera already has auto mode, including the flash gun, altough the autofocus button still located on the lens body. The usage is simple, but a bit inconvenient to carry it around, I was complaining most of the time. When I had the film developed and printed, I was shocked. The quality of the picture is much much better than a point and shoot camera. Totally worth it to carry big and heavy camera around.

On digital era, it should be similar. Although digital point and shoot cameras are getting better, it will not defeat the quality of a DSLR using same technology. Larger lens and sensor, and higher quality optics which means more light and detail can be captured with the camera using similar sensor technology. It just can defy the law of physics. Unless you use alien technology

First thing is to set the budget, initially I set for body + kit lens and essential tools such as camera bag, memory card, cleaning kit, filter, etc should be nore more than $800. I intends to use this camera just for hobby, and  its highly unlikely I’ll be going into professional photographer sometime in the future. So under $800 seems right for initial investment. After all, my fiance will kill me if I spend too much   . The price range fits right into entry level DSLR and gives me options like Nikon D60, Canon 450D/1000D, Sony A200/A300/A350, Olympus E520, Pentax K20D etc.

I began to read and carefully studied dozens of reviews available on the internet. After a while,  I took D60 out of my option, because it does not have AF motor built in the body, making the lens upgrade choice quite limited and more expensive. After all, the specs/features also lower than its competitors priced within the same range. I also took out Canon 1000D and Olympus E520, because the reviews is not impressive enough.

That leaves me with Canon 450D and Sony A350. I left out Sony A300 and A200 because they are not in the same price range as 450D. 450D and A350 sits about the same price (around $750), whereas A200 is $450 and A300 is $550. 450D and A350 has similar features, but  according to reviews it seems canon wins on low light/high iso noise, and sony won over its live view system and tilting LCD.  Canon seems more popular, but Sony also has the potential because knowledge from Konica Minolta they bought several years ago. I wasn’t able to make up my mind at that time, until I begin to look more information on sony’s cheaper model, A200 and A300.

I found out that the only difference between A300 and A350 the imaging sensor. A300 is (only) 10 MP and A350 is 14MP, the other features are exactly same, from physical size, tilting LCD, etc. A300 has faster burst shot (3 fps instead 2.5 fps on A350) due to smaller files to process, and theoretically it should has lower noise levels than A350 due to lower pixel density. Then my choice begun lean towards to A300 due to  being $200 cheaper than A350 and 450D. A200 is even cheaper by $100 more, has all the features except live view and tilt LCD.

A lot of people says that the optical viewfinder on A300/A350 is much smaller than A200 due to implementation of live view system. Sony took different approach than most of its competitors, adding secondary imaging sensor near the optical viewfinder, reducing room resulting smaller viewfinder. The advantages is, the live view system much more responsive, faster AF, no delayed shutter, etc. I was thinking to go for A200 instead, but after some thinking maybe the live view + tilting LCD will be useful. Especially when shooting at awkward angle (low angle or shooting over the crowds) or when you want someone else to take photos of you who never use a DSLR camera.

In the end, I bought the A300. I choose A300 because I heard good reviews on them, and the price is very good. The only negative issue I heard is just the noise at high ISO since the A300 is using CCD instead CMOS on 450D. But the advantages of CCD is (according to the people on many forums) is very good IQ.  The sony also has in body image stabilization, which makes all lens attached to it has image stabilization, including 20 year old minolta lenses.

The $200 difference also can be saved to upgrade the 18-70mm kit lens in the future. The choice of lens altough quite limited compared to Nikon or Canon but I think its enough for me. I wont buying all those lenses anyway. My initial plan is to buy those super zooms for travelling/all round lens (18-250mm) and fixed/prime (50mm f/1.7) or short zoom (17-50mm f/2.8) with large aperture lens for low-light/indoor stuffs, which all available in sony/alpha /minolta AF mount. Large arpeture tele zooms are just too expensive for me, the good one can cost around $6000!

Well, I can’t prove anything yet, as I haven’t got the camera in my hands. The camera already arrived back at my home in Jakarta, but I haven’t found a way to get it delivered to here. After all, I just received an email that no photograph to be taken on project site unless I have permission from the management, so  goodbye my initial plan to took photos of the project site at night . Oh well, I still able to shoot something else, although the choices are quite limited here. Currently I’m stayed in one of the remotest place in Indonesia, which has most of its nature still untouched, but the area I’m working are surrounded by fences. The only way to get outside this area is using a boat, and of course through security gate. Feels like living in a prison. Out there there is a lot of potential object to shoot. Maybe I can took some photos of it on the way back to Jakarta later. Anyway, I’ll update when I got the camera in my hands.