Got a Canon Rebel for my wife for Christmas. Very nice camera. We tested out this model (I ended up springing for a newer model with more bells and whistles) and I've got to say that this is a very attractive price for such a good camera.

If you're a professional, you'd want a better one of course, but this is more than any amatuer should really need.

rwheadon wrote:Optics Optics Optics.

Your 170.00 camera will pale to this one's possibilities.

rich

True the Canon will have more lenses, but the sony has a 10% better image rating plus 2 storage slots, I will not be buying several lense just an extra one with a lot of zoom,

I still dont see the desire for the low end canon. High end is a different story.

sleeper item. time to go for lunch before my bodacious orangutang cookie is ready.

Blaire57 wrote:

Sorry, first timer.
Just wanted say, is that true?

Having invested in 3K worth of lenses and accessories I am at the point that any EOS camera is going to be good for me but I'm totally committed to Canon. I'm in a position that not many starters are in.

The included lens is a fine snapshot quality unit. Once you upgrade to some better optics and you will be amazed. (Same with Nikon and the others that have lens systems)

My only concern with these newer design (smaller) Rebels is the fact that big lens balance may become compromised. Their less expensive and lighter EF lenses are clearly the new corporate focus for these entry level lines.

Entry level or not, this is a nice camera. 10.1MP is plenty.

rich

Blaire57 wrote:Sorry, first timer.
Just wanted say, is that true?

Truly. I think people buy 'more camera' than they really need. When I'm not shooting for work, I toss a lil-from-Woot-point-and-shoot-Panasonic in my purse and rely on that for friends, family, snapshots.

Then again, who am I to tell people what to spend money on...

The biggest set back for this camera is its sensor which only allows a maximum ISO of 1200.

I just sold this camera and ordered the T2i solely for the sensor so I can shoot up to 6400 ISO. Even with an aperture of 1.8 the Digic III just can't give you the light you need in the dark. This was a great camera to learn on and to see if my interest in photography would stay strong/grow. Had I known I would be shooting every weekend and shooting sports photography with press credentials I would of spent the extra money ahead of time...

ANYWAYS....

10.1 MP is more than enough. Don't buy into the hype, unless you specifically need 18MP or something crazy... I generally shoot in the Medium picture setting which gives you a sizable 2300xSomething picture.

This is a GREAT beginner camera for someone who likes to take pictures but doesn't fully understand digital photography but is interested in having more control over their pictures. Probably not the best camera for a newbie who has a strong interest in photography. Ex:

This DSLR will allow you to control aperture, shutter speed, ISO etc... which for a beginner is great. Get the Canon 1.8 50mm Prime lens for this and an average user of average interest in photography will never need anything else.

So if you have a girlfriend/boyfriend or daughter/son that likes to take pictures and wants to step it up a bit, get a bit more 'artsy', or wants that look/sound of an DSLR, this is a great buy. Also great for that person who probably doesn't take many pictures but wants a 'nice' camera for vacations or a family get together.

If they are serious about cameras and know the concepts of aperture, ISO, etc, probably want to step it up to something with Digic IV processor (T3, T2), since they will hit the upper limit of this camera pretty quickly. Someone who spends their weekends running around shooting during the day or night etc.

agnorath wrote:I purchased a Sony Alpha a390 brand new from Sears yesterday for $170 bucks. How is this a good deal?

Had to be body only...No comparison.

This time passing item must be the Woot! version of a SOPA blackout.

These woot-off always seem to happen the day before I get paid and the week that I paid my mortgage.

I want this camera soooo bad. I would take pictures of all kinds of stuff. Mainly cats. And I would post said pictures of cats all over the internet.

I own a similar Canon, about a year older than this one but very similar in most comparisons. It's a lot of camera and maybe one of the best performing cameras I've ever owned. I use mine for almost all types of photography but specifically for astrophotography. The chip is such that it allows extended exposures (5 minutes or more) without any hint of blooming. My camera came with the same lens, which is okay but nothing to write home about. Once again, a great camera if you're looking for a good DSLR...you could hardly do better for the price.

KLibecco wrote:Truly. I think people buy 'more camera' than they really need. When I'm not shooting for work, I toss a lil-from-Woot-point-and-shoot-Panasonic in my purse and rely on that for friends, family, snapshots.

Then again, who am I to tell people what to spend money on...

Another point, when my friends ask me for camera buying advice, I challenge them: 'You can buy an DSLR if you can take a better picture with my DSLR than I can take with your point and shoot.' I always win. Knowing how to use a camera is AT LEAST as important as having the correct gear in your hands. If you don't know how to take good pictures with a "little camera," buying a big one and using "green setting" won't make you a good photographer. I can use manual settings on most point and shoots that produce better shots than auto mode on good cameras. ;) [Read the manuals!]

jomion wrote:Had to be body only...No comparison.

Meaning the Canon or Sony is better?

gill2003 wrote:The biggest set back for this camera is its sensor which only allows a maximum ISO of 1200.

Small point of correction: The maximum ISO on this camera is 1600, not 1200.

Also, to correct my earlier statement that it's the XT's sensor and the XSi's digic chip, it's actually the XTi's sensor.

crates wrote:You don't have to use Canon's software or firmware. I use Mac, Linux and Windows and my Canon T3i works great with all platforms. On a side note, I also use the Magic Lantern custom firmware (which doesn't actually have to be loaded ON the camera... it actually runs off the SD card and gets "uninstalled" if you remove it from the card).

This is true, but I prefer the EOS utility for downloading my multiple canon cameras into established patterns for organizing the files. It's actually become a platform support soapbox for me more than anything.

If my Rebel were to crash and burn tomorrow I wouldn't hesitate to get another Canon... but the backup/extra is a nice-to-have and thus I just keep waiting for them to get their act together.

It's petty, but somewhere deep inside somehow ranks as important.

rich

that IS lens must be worth $200 alone.

agnorath wrote:Meaning the Canon or Sony is better?

Well, that debate could hijack this forum and go on for pages.

I'm just saying that $170 for body-only is not a good price comparison to $400 for body and decent AF lens.

Not a particularly good deal any more than it was when it was the Amazon deal of the day a few days ago. This deal keeps coming up again and again without the price going down further. It should.

This is selling through sense of urgency only- don't be fooled.

Amazon had the T3, a newer and generally superior camera meant to replace this one, for $435 just a few weeks ago and it has been listed for as low as $420.

$300-$350 would be a great deal for this camera as an entry-level. $400 for the Canon T3 or the Pentax k-x would be a great deal. $400 for this one is getting a little tiresome. C'mon, Woot, drop the price, clear out the warehouse, and bring in the T3's!

mitchloft wrote:I'd guess that 99.999% of people would get just as good results from an $89 compact Kodak, Nikon, or Canon that has more features (that STILL probably won't get used) and less monkey business to just take a picture.

Apparently the news that the economy isn't too good hasn't made it to Woot! headquarters.

Did you say monkey?

Owned one of these for over a year and very pleased with it in all respects. Great Camera.

crates wrote:I spent the last month researching these types of cameras-- specifically, the Canon EOS lines against other competing similarly priced lines-- and I can tell you that while this isn't a bad deal for the camera in question, if you're going to spend this much on a camera you would be MUCH better served seeking out a Canon EOS Rebel T2i (which can be had for around $500 on eBay if you are patient).

The featureset on the T2i is far more robust and much more worthwhile if you're going to spend the money. Personally, I ended up going with the T3i but that's mainly because I like the flip-out screen.

But at any rate, the T2i will allow you to record in 1080p full HD at a staggering 18 MegaPixels against this one's 10.1MP with no video capabilities. So... decide for yourself which is the better deal.

I agree with much of what's said here. I have an XS and a T3i. The T2i is clearly a better camera. That said, 18MP on a cropped sensor is a bit of overkill. It really comes down to video or no video. While T2i's may be available on e-bay for around $500, market price for a new one with USA warranty is closer to $550. So if you don't need video the XS is a pretty good option.

gill2003 wrote:The biggest set back for this camera is its sensor which only allows a maximum ISO of 1200.

I just sold this camera and ordered the T2i solely for the sensor so I can shoot up to 6400 ISO. Even with an aperture of 1.8 the Digic III just can't give you the light you need in the dark....

10.1 MP is more than enough. Don't buy into the hype, unless you specifically need 18MP or something crazy... I generally shoot in the Medium picture setting which gives you a sizable 2300xSomething picture.

Terrific point - I mentioned the weakness of the DIGIC III earlier, but apparently there are plenty of people around who think that megapixels, video, articulating displays, and fancy grips mean something other than cash out of your pocket.

The other huge weakness in the sensor is just in the sensor size - I would take an 8 megapixel image shot on an APS-C DSLR sensor (not to mention the full-frame sensors, like the Nikon D700 or Canon 5D MkII... *drool) any day over an 16 megapixel image shot on the average point-and-shoot's miniscule sensor!

I do want one.. but it is a older model , the newer one is a 12 meg. only 70 bucks more, this is a 10. nice camera and good price.. and we proabally dont need 12 meg anyhow.. but I will pass. I really need a woot today,, maybe the Bag of Cuuuuuute! will come along.. I got the tripod for 99cents actually 3 tripods

[quote postid="4805680" user="jomion"]Well, that debate could hijack this forum and go on for pages.

I'm just saying that $170 for body-only is not a good price comparison to $400 for body and decent AF lens.[/quo

It came with a lense, the standard one, 50 mm I believe, Not body only.

I bought this camera during the wootoff before Christmas and I love it. It's fast, which is a necessity when photographing small children!

I think I would LOVE this camera, bad sadly it's too far out of my price range. This may sound dumb, but I'm looking to spend less than $200 on the best camera possible for the money. I mostly take nature pictures, so zoom and panoramic images would be nice, but I would also need a good camera for action shots. Any ideas? Or any opinions on this: http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-FinePix-Digital-Fujinon-Optical/dp/B004HO58NO/

Thanks wooters

Picked this camera up refurbed for $300 with a nice camera bag and a memory card on BF, and added a 55/300 lens for $140. I think it was a good deal at that price, but at this level you might as well spend a few bucks more for a newer model like the T2i.

Just buy it already...take one for the team...

lightknight wrote:Got a Canon Rebel for my wife for Christmas. Very nice camera. We tested out this model (I ended up springing for a newer model with more bells and whistles) and I've got to say that this is a very attractive price for such a good camera.

If you're a professional, you'd want a better one of course, but this is more than any amatuer should really need.

Assuming you're an amateur who doesn't want to take video. Which even the crappy digicams will do these days. Hell, even my PHONE can take video. This model can't.

I would not pay $400 (in the current day and age) for a camera that doesn't shoot video.

Camera has been around since 2008 and is less expensive on other sites. A newer version is Rebel T3

crates wrote:Assuming you're an amateur who doesn't want to take video. Which even the crappy digicams will do these days. Hell, even my PHONE can take video. This model can't.

I would not pay $400 (in the current day and age) for a camera that doesn't shoot video.

Even though you have a point and shoot that does it, as well as a cell phone that is on you at all times.....hmmmmm.

This is an older entery level Canon DSLR with better than initially intruduced kit lens.

I pass it and wait for woot to give Canon T3i for this price, without lens or slightly higher with lens.

sellbuyer92 wrote:Just buy it already...take one for the team...

Could someone please buy all the remaining ones so it gets off from here?

katwil wrote:That said, 18MP on a cropped sensor is a bit of overkill.

MODERATELY cropped. The T2i/T3i isn't full-frame like the 5D Mk II, but it comes damn close.

That's from personal experience with both lines in actual field shooting and light box photography. Biggest shortfall of the T2i/T3i is its poor low-light abilities (with serious degradation occurring anywhere in the 1600+ ISO range).

One positive thing about the T3i is its ability to shoot 60fps in 720p. One cool thing about the T2i (and ONLY the T2i) is a non-digital crop zoom from 1080p to 640x480 which can be kind of neat if you want smaller video files with some wicked zoom.

One positive thing about the EOS Rebel XS is that I didn't buy one.

agnorath wrote:
It came with a lense, the standard one, 50 mm I believe, Not body only.

Well, I have to play the "Baloney Sandwich" card now...Minimum pricing for A390 with Lens is $400-$500. Either you got a return that was sold as "new," or it is a different model than the A390.

As far as my camera preference...I'm neither of these (Sony or Canon).

crates wrote:I would not pay $400 (in the current day and age) for a camera that doesn't shoot video.

Meh, I've got a GoPro Hero 2 for video. Right now I rely on my phone for pictures--the GoPro takes decent pictures for a point and shoot, but the fisheye effect gets tiresome. It'd be nice to have something to take better pictures with.

KLibecco wrote:Truly. I think people buy 'more camera' than they really need. When I'm not shooting for work, I toss a lil-from-Woot-point-and-shoot-Panasonic in my purse and rely on that for friends, family, snapshots.

Then again, who am I to tell people what to spend money on...

True, if I only a a purse,

Far too expensive for me.