Sony Alpha DSLR-A200 vs Nikon D3000

Winner
Sony Alpha DSLR-A200

100

Nikon D3000

86

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony Alpha DSLR-A200

Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Barely any delay taking photos
Shutter lag
189 ms shutter lag
Great battery life
Battery life
750 shots
Great viewfinder
Viewfinder
Pentamirror
 

Reasons to buy the Nikon D3000

Screen size
Large screen
3"
Startup delay
Almost no delay when powering up
700 ms startup delay
Lens availability
Slightly more lenses available
230 lenses
Size
Really small
Prosumer size (126×97×64 mm)

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Nikon D3000.
Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Sony Alpha DSLR-A200.

competitors

Sony Alpha DSLR-A200 Competitors

Placeholder

Sony a7 III

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$1,876 - $1,998 body only

$2,116 - $2,198 with 28-70mm lens

True resolution Much higher true resolution
Focus points Many more focus points
Viewfinder Has a digital viewfinder
Sony SLT A99

Sony SLT A99

Pro DSLR

$3,198 body only

True resolution Much higher true resolution
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Viewfinder Has a digital viewfinder
Sony Alpha DSLR-A230

Sony Alpha DSLR-A230

Entry-level DSLR

Storage slots Has more storage slots
Size Smaller
Autofocus Slower autofocus

Nikon D3000 Competitors

Nikon D3200

Nikon D3200

Entry-level DSLR

$550 body only

True resolution Much higher true resolution
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Size Significantly larger
Canon EOS Rebel T5

Canon EOS Rebel T5

Entry-level DSLR

$337 with 18-55mm lens

True resolution Much higher true resolution
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Size Much larger
Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$473 body only

$399 with 18-55mm lens

True resolution Much higher true resolution
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Size Significantly larger

discussion

Sony Alpha DSLR-A200
Alpha DSLR-A200
Sony

Report a correction
Nikon D3000
D3000
Nikon

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments