Nikon D90 vs Sony Alpha DSLR-A200

Winner
Nikon D90

100

Sony Alpha DSLR-A200

60

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Nikon D90

High resolution screen
Screen resolution
930k dots
Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.63x
Has live view
Live view
Preview your photos
Almost no delay when powering up
Startup delay
300 ms startup delay
 

Reasons to buy the Sony Alpha DSLR-A200

Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Shutter lag
Barely any delay taking photos
189 ms shutter lag
Size
Really small
Prosumer size (131×99×71 mm)
Thickness
Thin
2.8"

galleries

Explore our gallery of 47 sample photos taken by the Nikon D90.
Explore our gallery of 49 sample photos taken by the Sony Alpha DSLR-A200.

competitors

Nikon D90 Competitors

Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$465 body only

$379 - $447 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Low light performance Significantly lower noise at high ISO
Viewfinder size Significantly smaller viewfinder
Nikon D7000

Nikon D7000

Entry-level DSLR

$899 body only

$849 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Autofocus Video autofocus
Shutter lag More shutter lag
Nikon D3200

Nikon D3200

Entry-level DSLR

$300 body only

$396 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
True resolution Much higher true resolution
Viewfinder size Much smaller viewfinder

Sony Alpha DSLR-A200 Competitors

Canon EOS Rebel T1i

Canon Rebel T1i

Entry-level DSLR

$500 body only

Movie format Shoots movies
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Color depth Worse color depth
Sony Alpha DSLR-A500

Sony Alpha DSLR-A500

Entry-level DSLR

Screen size Much larger screen
Live view Has live view
Color depth Worse color depth
Placeholder

Canon EOS Digital Rebel

Entry-level DSLR

$549 body only

$449 - $699 with 18-55mm lens

Lens availability Significantly more lenses available
Sensor type Has a CMOS-family sensor
Screen size Much smaller screen

discussion

Nikon D90
D90
Nikon

Report a correction
Sony Alpha DSLR-A200
Alpha DSLR-A200
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments