Is it mac compatible? Does it work underwater? *giggle* Thank you for having the song in the pod cast. The kids jump up when I blare it in the morning. Although I wish there was a kidzbop version!

please buy them

jomion wrote: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).

It was on a SD under Hot deals, ranging from 170 to 250 at Sears stores. Got it at Mid rivers in Saint Louis. Why would I lie, I wanted to know if a decent end Sony at that price is better then this low end Canon. I dont really care if you believe me.

In for one. I get a new camera for a good price and now my wife will stop bugging me (hopefully) about getting a SLR.

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

That statement is sigworthy in its silliness.

Shooting video from an SLR still cam seethes *N*0*0*B*

rich

michaelvella wrote:save your shekels and buy a Nikon D3100. Or save a few more and get a D5100.

Michel?

tnord wrote:that IS lens must be worth $200 alone.

18-55mm IS Lens is worth about $70.

70-250mm IS Lens is worth $150-$200.

I'm going based on what the market bears (based on research over the last month on Amazon and eBay, and purchases I personally made) rather than by MSRP (which we all know is only for sheeple).

/beginrant

first off, I love how everyone on here is always an expert or professional in whatever product might be for sale.

Second, yes, we all understand that for just *little* more money you can get something better. Its the case for any product, anywhere. For more money you can get more. Simple fact.

/endrant

This is a great camera for someone just wanting to explore the capabilities of an SLR. It's a good price for a new (not refurbished) high quality camera. Perfect for the person who wants the options but doesn't want to go balls deep investing in a more expensive model. In my opinion, if you really end up getting into photography, lenses should be the focus of your investment.

flame away, please.

Don't let the lack of video scare you off of this camera. I think most people that buy a T2i or T3i thinking they'll use it as a video camera too are disappointed by the video. It's a lot different shooting video with an SLR and there are length limitations. The average parent shooting their kid's play is better off with a standard or Flip-style camcorder. (Or let a parent that knows what they're doing shoot it for everyone and put your crappy camera phone down and watch the play).

gimme a Barrels of Crud

rwheadon wrote:That statement is sigworthy in its silliness.

Shooting video from an SLR still cam seethes "Skippy Squirrel"

rich

Tell that to the Magic Lantern community, dedicated to providing independent film producers with the firmware and resources they need to turn $800-$3K cameras (like the 600D and 5D MkII) into video cameras that can compete with hardware that costs over $25,000.

If I'm going to spend $400, I'm willing to spend $500 for one that does video. The T2i (a.k.a. 550D) can be had for $500, WITH the 18-55mm IS Lens, does full HD video, and supports Magic Lantern.

So, I guess I'm just a big silly.

http://www.ajrichies.com/Canon-EOS-Rebel-T3-with-Canon-EF-S-18-55-IS-Lens/p-262

ratbert42 wrote:Don't let the lack of video scare you off of this camera. I think most people that buy a T2i or T3i thinking they'll use it as a video camera too are disappointed by the video. It's a lot different shooting video with an SLR and there are length limitations. The average parent shooting their kid's play is better off with a standard or Flip-style camcorder. (Or let a parent that knows what they're doing shoot it for everyone and put your crappy camera phone down and watch the play).

No length limitations with Magic Lantern (whereby you can choose to do video repeat with a small delay of a couple of seconds between video files of 30 minutes apiece, or you can shoot continuously with an external SSD HDD that supports mini HDMI input).

I get 30 minutes per 4GB with the CBR set to 0.4x at 1080p (30fps). My SD card is a 64GB (Class 10).

rtalwar88 wrote:gimme a Barrels of Crud/blockquote>

Yes please!

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.

A month? Nice job

come on... someone buy the other one

I can't believe after 90-some comments, nobody pointed out that the movie's name is The Dark Knight Rises.......

Always the same camera :0(

agnorath wrote:It was on a SD under Hot deals, ranging from 170 to 250 at Sears stores. Got it at Mid rivers in Saint Louis. Why would I lie, I wanted to know if a decent end Sony at that price is better then this low end Canon. I dont really care if you believe me.

The Sony A390 is also getting a little long in the tooth (like the Canon EOS Rebel XS), but it is a decent camera that would be great as an entry-level DSLR.

Bottom line: $170 for a Sony A390 with a lens is the deal of the century...Good on ya! I would have jumped on that price as well (had I known about it).

Blaire57 wrote:A month? Nice job

I like to put a lot of time and research into purchases that cost over $1000 (accessories included). This was part of a big project I'm working on that includes a fair amount of light box photography, so I really put a lot into making the choice, with so many options available between Canon, Nikon, etc.

Ultimately it was the community-supported firmware options that sold me on the Canon T3i.

KLibecco wrote:As a photographer with a bag full of gear I hate lugging around (and caring for), I don't understand why people want DSLRs. They are big, clunky and you can find cameras that produce high quality photos that are much more user friendly, stylish and portable. For the same amount of cash, I'd much rather purchase a Nikon 1.

Depends on your output really. If all you do is display the shots online, you are correct. I have fairly large prints made of many photos. That's where a dSLR shines. Have a print made from a P&S camera at say, 20x30. Now print the same view as taken with even a low level dSLR with a decent lens and you'll see the difference real quick. I've shot a few weddings and no way would I want the limitations of a smaller P&S.

WiredLlama wrote:

This is a great camera for someone just wanting to explore the capabilities of an SLR. It's a good price for a new (not refurbished) high quality camera. Perfect for the person who wants the options but doesn't want to go balls deep investing in a more expensive model. In my opinion, if you really end up getting into photography, lenses should be the focus of your investment.

+1

jomion wrote:The Sony A390 is also getting a little long in the tooth (like the Canon EOS Rebel XS), but it is a decent camera that would be great as an entry-level DSLR.

Bottom line: $170 for a Sony A390 with a lens is the deal of the century...Good on ya! I would have jumped on that price as well (had I known about it).

Thanks, I am new to DSLRS, I knew Nikon and Canon were the Top dogs but I wanted an entry level and this was to great to pass up.

rwheadon wrote:That statement is sigworthy in its silliness.

Shooting video from an SLR still cam seethes *N*0*0*B*

rich

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/04/09/house-season-finale-filmed-entirely-with-canon-5d-mark-ii/

It bothers me that comments are only considered "worthwhile" by the moderators if they support the sale of the product.

I mean, I can understand WHY, but it's still bothersome. There are plenty of worthwhile comments on this thread that don't help to sell the product. =/

Buy a broken Canon point and shoot for 10 bucks and get the Canon T2i for about the same price by using the Canon Loyalty Program: http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/849344/

KLibecco wrote:As a photographer with a bag full of gear I hate lugging around (and caring for), I don't understand why people want DSLRs. They are big, clunky and you can find cameras that produce high quality photos that are much more user friendly, stylish and portable.

Wait a minute now. Sure, but this is an entry level Canon, which means the body is much smaller than the pro line. My old DSLR is a Rebel XT and it is really not much bigger than the N1. My 7D with L glass is significantly larger than a Rebel. I agree with you that a Rebel may not be the ideal "better than a phone" camera, and that a micro 4/3 or point-and-shoot is a better solution for most people since they are so advanced now, especially the high-quality "enthusiast" point-and-shoots with manual controls and raw format capability.

Also...

KLibecco wrote:For the same amount of cash, I'd much rather purchase a Nikon 1.

That is impossible. This camera is $400. The Nikon 1 is $800.

My friend bought one of these before our trip to India, Nepal and China. It was absolutely fantastic! I didn't even bother pulling out my Nikon Coolpix half the time.

zikzak wrote:This camera is $400. The Nikon 1 is $800.

Yeah, but it'd sure be nice to have one for $400!

I started with the Rebel, then upgraded to the XT, and then to the T2i ... have been very happy with each of them ... also have a point-and-shoot for those times when I don't want to lug the the ol' slingshot bag around ... (and, in a pinch, I've taken photos with my cell phone and tablet as well ... the photos I get with the DSLRs are consistently better than with the P-N-S, which in turn are better than I can get with the phone and tablet ... optics, sensors, processors, etc., all contribute, as do size, portability, ease of use, etc.

Of course, the operator is always the most critical component to getting good photos, which is why I'll never be a really good photographer regardless of how much I spend on gear ... *heavy sigh* ...

EmmetBrown wrote:http://www.petapixel.com/2010/04/09/house-season-finale-filmed-entirely-with-canon-5d-mark-ii/

LMAO... Guess those guys were newbies, right?

Thanks for the assist, Emmett! =D

This is the low-end digital. I picked up the Nikon D5000 (14 megapixel) for $525 with the 18-55mm lens. That camera is amazing. Plus it is easy to learn and has lots of bells and whistles. I'll admit I got a great deal on the Nikon but would actually tell people to save up for that one instead of this one. The difference in long range photos between a 10 MP and a 14 MP is tremendous. I could see Fergy's cottage cheese from 125 yards away during BEP concert!

zikzak wrote:That is impossible. This camera is $400. The Nikon 1 is $800.

*sigh* Sure, I'll clarify... "price range"

Google search indicates average listing price is.... $569. So... yeah... anyway....

If I put two birds in every pot would you vote for me?

We have bounce!

Best price online today with lens (kit) and new. not refurb. Unfortunalty I dont think this model does any video and I really want at least 720p video in my next DSLR... Otherwise if you dont care about video and want a nice DSLR, great buy!

crates wrote:Tell that to the Magic Lantern community, dedicated to providing independent film producers with the firmware and resources they need to turn $800-$3K cameras (like the 600D and 5D MkII) into video cameras that can compete with hardware that costs over $25,000.

If I'm going to spend $400, I'm willing to spend $500 for one that does video. The T2i (a.k.a. 550D) can be had for $500, WITH the 18-55mm IS Lens, does full HD video, and supports Magic Lantern.

So, I guess I'm just a big silly.

I should have spent more time on that one. And not made it so much of an (unintentional) attack.

I am simply saying that your statement about video being a game breaker for a consumer grade still cam isn't terribly valid (IMHO) due to the intrinsic differences between the lenses and aspect of each medium at play. It is very rare for anyone to do any appreciable video capture on still cameras whether it be Canon, Nikon or whatever and their form factor does not lend itself to that type of use... it just isn't a good fit... it's a shallow sales point.

Your flipping over to a comparison using low budget super mods to the camera is likening to some chump car racers beefing up a Lexus to turn out 600+ horsepower on a string budget because they can't afford to build a full blown rail car and it isn't going to apply to the audience here. (or most anywhere for that case.)

And as always... there's nothing wrong with holding the opinion you do and I apologize for being so acerbic.

it's a curse
rich

ratbert42 wrote:Don't let the lack of video scare you off of this camera. I think most people that buy a T2i or T3i thinking they'll use it as a video camera too are disappointed by the video. It's a lot different shooting video with an SLR and there are length limitations. The average parent shooting their kid's play is better off with a standard or Flip-style camcorder. (Or let a parent that knows what they're doing shoot it for everyone and put your crappy camera phone down and watch the play).

This is very true. Not many people realize that most DSLRs cannot autofocus in video mode, and this is a major pain. Those Hollywood productions you see that are done with DSLRs? They are NEVER working with a bare camera. They surround it with a rig, stabilizer, matte box, big external LCD, separate audio capture, and a focus puller guy whose sole job is to turn the focus ring. Not because of the DSLR, but because this is the way they have always used movie cameras.

I own a Canon 7D, but if I was to start over and wanted an affordable camera to primarily use for "large" sensor video I would get the Panasonic GH2 instead.

Ahhh, if this were only an 1100D.... the Rebel XS aka 1000D doesn't seem to be supported by Magic Lantern.

rwheadon wrote:
Your flipping over to a comparison using low budget super mods to the camera is likening to some chump car racers beefing up a Lexus to turn out 600+ horsepower on a string budget because they can't afford to build a full blown rail car and it isn't going to apply to the audience here. (or most anywhere for that case.)

And as always... there's nothing wrong with holding the opinion you do and I apologize for being so acerbic.

it's a curse
rich

Hehe... no worries mate.

I _do_ think the guys around Woot would be the type to try and squeeze more out of less, though. If we had money to blow, we'd pay full price. We are the lifehackers, the modders, the techies, etc.