WootBot


quality posts: 15 Private Messages WootBot

Staff

Cameras & Camcorders

I need photographic evidence! To prove I went to China last year! To prove I once met Michael Madsen in a bar and he was kind of a jerk! To prove that I have friends and do fun things occasionally! Hurry! Before my mind fails me! DOCUMENT MY EXISTENCE!



Quality Posts


inkycatz


quality posts: 105 Private Messages inkycatz

We've all heard "it's the photographer and not the camera" before, but which camera are you looking at to capture your holiday moments this year?

I'm just hanging out, really.

paulw1128


quality posts: 5 Private Messages paulw1128

The EOS Rebel T3 previously on the last woot-off and Sellout.Woot

Both at a dollar less! Woot succumbs to price inflation!!

wait - I did a quality post? When?!?

charliecarroll


quality posts: 105 Private Messages charliecarroll

Canon EOS Rebel T3 Digital SLR and 18-55 IS II Lens Kit Woot New = $400.00

AMAZON = New in box, $499.00 and Free shipping. Also, 2% back in rewards. (not cash back)
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-T3-Digital-18-55mm/dp/B004J3Y9U6

Walmart = New in box, $499.00, free in store pickup but kit includes added Canon Gadget Bag and a 4GB SD Card.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Canon-12.2MP-5157B017/17254377

B&H = New in box, $499.00 and Free shipping. Also, once you view the product in the link below, if you scroll down you will find 366 reviews.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/753766-REG/Canon_5757B002_EOS_Rebel_T3_Digital.html

Seems woot has the best deal as the extras Walmart offers does not add up to $100 worth of extras.

Canon is a leader in innovation and quality including entry level cameras as this is. Canon USA customer support is very good. I know, I have been shooting with Canon equipment for over 40 years.

*Special Note While this is an entry level DSLR there is nothing cheap about it. Repairing or replacing a lens, even just the front optic can be very expensive. So, if you are going to invest in this camera or any by another brand at this level you need to very inexpensively protect your lens. This is done with a filter. That is a piece of optical quality (do not buy a cheap one that is plastic or non-optical grade glass) glass that crews down on the front of your lens. If something contact it hard and breaks or scratches it, it is much cheaper to replace than replace or repair you lens. Hoya is one of several good brands. You would need a UV or Skylight filter for this and either one is fine. The filter size needed for the lens included it this Canon is a 58mm. For this level lens, a lower priced Hoya filter will do nicely. Here is a $13.07 (free shipping) example. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/652130-REG/Hoya_A58UVC_58mm_Ultraviolet_UV_0_Haze.html If you want to go up in quality for this or a more expensive lens this Hoya at $38.99 + $4 (appr) shipping is about as good as you could ever want. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/574271-REG/Hoya_XHD58UV_58mm_Ultraviolet_UV_Haze.html Hope this info is useful to you.

charliecarroll


quality posts: 105 Private Messages charliecarroll

PENTAX 15086 Q 12.4MP Dual Lens Camera Kit - Black or White New = $500 on Woot.

Is this a good deal?
Compared to other vendors one could say yes.
Tiger Direct New = $653.00 http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2436303&SRCCODE=WEBGOO0163C&cm_mmc_o=mH4CjC7BBTkwCjCECjCE&gclid=CJjK9cTesLMCFQeDnQodtmMAJQ

AMAZON New = $496.95 + Shipping http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00604YS3K/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B006C74UXS&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=03GMF7W9FGPANR01PRA8

When you take S&H into account, it seems Woot wins but is this really a good deal? Compared to the Canon T3 being sold on Woot today for $400, I would say, no.

The Canon T3 is a far superior camera that offers more hands down. And the one lens on the Canon gives an equivalent focal length slightly larger than the two lens combined on the Pentax. The Pentax is smaller and lighter but that is the only up side and one that is negligible in my opinion when put up against the Canon. Canon offers a vastly larger quantity of lens that allows it to be expanded much further and it also has along with the view screen an actual view finder. On bright sunny days while one struggles with the Pentax the Canon owner is going to be shooting away. And let's not forget for $100.00 less. In a head to head match up between today's Pentax and today's Canon, The Canon Wins, Hands Down!

ThunderThighs


quality posts: 584 Private Messages ThunderThighs

Staff

paulw1128 wrote:The EOS Rebel T3 previously on the last woot-off and Sellout.Woot

Both at a dollar less! Woot succumbs to price inflation!!



Actually, $399.99 vs $400, so it's a 1¢ difference. We do round numbers on Plus deals for some reason that has yet to be explained to me. I guess it looks prettier.



FORUM MODERATOR
To contact Customer Service, use the SUPPORT form at the top of every woot page
••• ► Woot's Return Policy ◄ ••• ► Did you check your spam/junk folders for a CS reply?
CANCEL?? How to cancel your order in the first 15 minutes!! - except Woot-Offs & expedited orders

CowboyDann


quality posts: 716 Private Messages CowboyDann

I got that tiny camera in my Bucket of Candy I lost it before i got the chance to see how good the pictures are.
Too small!

jeremytheindian


quality posts: 17 Private Messages jeremytheindian

Pentax FTW! They just cut the K-01 down to $350 also.


Wootx16-Winex1-Kidsx13-Shirtx20-Selloutx8-Homex1-BOCx2

pxpaulx


quality posts: 0 Private Messages pxpaulx
jeremytheindian wrote:Pentax FTW! They just cut the K-01 down to $350 also.



Sadly this isn't even a deal. $499 is the new price for the Pentax Q dual lens kit as of 11/1....meaning you can pick it up elsewhere for the same price (and usually free shipping at BHPhoto or Adorama). The new K-01 price is pretty darn good though, under $450 with the 40mm kit.

frostykev


quality posts: 2 Private Messages frostykev

Anyone have the details, like which lens to buy for the "snow conversion"???

youtookmyactualname


quality posts: 1 Private Messages youtookmyactualname
charliecarroll wrote:
*Special Note While this is an entry level DSLR there is nothing cheap about it. Repairing or replacing a lens, even just the front optic can be very expensive. So, if you are going to invest in this camera or any by another brand at this level you need to very inexpensively protect your lens. This is done with a filter. That is a piece of optical quality (do not buy a cheap one that is plastic or non-optical grade glass) glass that crews down on the front of your lens. If something contact it hard and breaks or scratches it, it is much cheaper to replace than replace or repair you lens. Hoya is one of several good brands. You would need a UV or Skylight filter for this and either one is fine. The filter size needed for the lens included it this Canon is a 58mm. For this level lens, a lower priced Hoya filter will do nicely. Here is a $13.07 (free shipping) example. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/652130-REG/Hoya_A58UVC_58mm_Ultraviolet_UV_0_Haze.html If you want to go up in quality for this or a more expensive lens this Hoya at $38.99 + $4 (appr) shipping is about as good as you could ever want. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/574271-REG/Hoya_XHD58UV_58mm_Ultraviolet_UV_Haze.html Hope this info is useful to you.


Oh please. That's utter crap. People tend to overstate the importance of keeping your front lens in immaculate condition. If anything, your photos will be worse off due to the loss of clarity, contrast, etc. The reason your front element of the lens doesn't matter (that is, imperfections don't appear in photos) is that it is so far from the focal plane. A little experiment to prove this point is often performed by getting a roughly 3mmx3mm sticky note piece and putting it on the front of a lens. Look through the viewfinder, and it will be so obscured and out of focus it won't even be visible.

Having said that, yes this hobby does get expensive.


On an unrelated note, the samsung 1080p underwater camera is very tempting. I'll probably pick it up tomorrow.

cornellbigred


quality posts: 6 Private Messages cornellbigred
charliecarroll wrote:PENTAX 15086 Q 12.4MP Dual Lens Camera Kit - Black or White New = $500 on Woot.

Is this a good deal?
Compared to other vendors one could say yes.
Tiger Direct New = $653.00 http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2436303&SRCCODE=WEBGOO0163C&cm_mmc_o=mH4CjC7BBTkwCjCECjCE&gclid=CJjK9cTesLMCFQeDnQodtmMAJQ

AMAZON New = $496.95 + Shipping http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00604YS3K/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B006C74UXS&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=03GMF7W9FGPANR01PRA8

When you take S&H into account, it seems Woot wins but is this really a good deal? Compared to the Canon T3 being sold on Woot today for $400, I would say, no.

The Canon T3 is a far superior camera that offers more hands down. And the one lens on the Canon gives an equivalent focal length slightly larger than the two lens combined on the Pentax. The Pentax is smaller and lighter but that is the only up side and one that is negligible in my opinion when put up against the Canon. Canon offers a vastly larger quantity of lens that allows it to be expanded much further and it also has along with the view screen an actual view finder. On bright sunny days while one struggles with the Pentax the Canon owner is going to be shooting away. And let's not forget for $100.00 less. In a head to head match up between today's Pentax and today's Canon, The Canon Wins, Hands Down!



I don't think it's that great of a deal. I got the same T3 and lens kit for $375ish directly from the Canon website earlier this year.

wingedsurfgirl


quality posts: 25 Private Messages wingedsurfgirl

I bought the Bell Howell keychain camera the last time I saw it on here for the novelty value. I haven't used it, as I imagine my iPhone pics are better, but it is super cute, and looks great with my camera collection. Probably the cheapest thing I've added in quite a while. Hoping it's the lomographic of digitals... Lol.

lalian


quality posts: 9 Private Messages lalian

The dual lens Pentax Q kit is $499.95 now everywhere. It's not a deal at $500. It is a great camera though. The 01 prime lens is especially good.

lalian


quality posts: 9 Private Messages lalian
charliecarroll wrote:PENTAX 15086 Q 12.4MP Dual Lens Camera Kit - Black or White New = $500 on Woot.

Is this a good deal?
Compared to other vendors one could say yes.
Tiger Direct New = $653.00 http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2436303&SRCCODE=WEBGOO0163C&cm_mmc_o=mH4CjC7BBTkwCjCECjCE&gclid=CJjK9cTesLMCFQeDnQodtmMAJQ

AMAZON New = $496.95 + Shipping http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00604YS3K/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B006C74UXS&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=03GMF7W9FGPANR01PRA8

When you take S&H into account, it seems Woot wins but is this really a good deal? Compared to the Canon T3 being sold on Woot today for $400, I would say, no.

The Canon T3 is a far superior camera that offers more hands down. And the one lens on the Canon gives an equivalent focal length slightly larger than the two lens combined on the Pentax. The Pentax is smaller and lighter but that is the only up side and one that is negligible in my opinion when put up against the Canon. Canon offers a vastly larger quantity of lens that allows it to be expanded much further and it also has along with the view screen an actual view finder. On bright sunny days while one struggles with the Pentax the Canon owner is going to be shooting away. And let's not forget for $100.00 less. In a head to head match up between today's Pentax and today's Canon, The Canon Wins, Hands Down!



You aren't taking sensor size into account. The zoom lens on both is effectively the same focal length (about 28-80mm) due to crop factor. The Pentax Q has the advantage in low light situations because the zoom lens is f/2.8-4 where the Cannon is f/3.5-5.6. That means the Pentax zoom is 1 full fstops faster, which means it can operate in half the light.

luvable84girl


quality posts: 0 Private Messages luvable84girl
charliecarroll wrote:Canon EOS Rebel T3 Digital SLR and 18-55 IS II Lens Kit Woot New = $400.00

AMAZON = New in box, $499.00 and Free shipping. Also, 2% back in rewards. (not cash back)
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-T3-Digital-18-55mm/dp/B004J3Y9U6

Walmart = New in box, $499.00, free in store pickup but kit includes added Canon Gadget Bag and a 4GB SD Card.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Canon-12.2MP-5157B017/17254377

B&H = New in box, $499.00 and Free shipping. Also, once you view the product in the link below, if you scroll down you will find 366 reviews.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/753766-REG/Canon_5757B002_EOS_Rebel_T3_Digital.html

Seems woot has the best deal as the extras Walmart offers does not add up to $100 worth of extras.

Canon is a leader in innovation and quality including entry level cameras as this is. Canon USA customer support is very good. I know, I have been shooting with Canon equipment for over 40 years.

*Special Note While this is an entry level DSLR there is nothing cheap about it. Repairing or replacing a lens, even just the front optic can be very expensive. So, if you are going to invest in this camera or any by another brand at this level you need to very inexpensively protect your lens. This is done with a filter. That is a piece of optical quality (do not buy a cheap one that is plastic or non-optical grade glass) glass that crews down on the front of your lens. If something contact it hard and breaks or scratches it, it is much cheaper to replace than replace or repair you lens. Hoya is one of several good brands. You would need a UV or Skylight filter for this and either one is fine. The filter size needed for the lens included it this Canon is a 58mm. For this level lens, a lower priced Hoya filter will do nicely. Here is a $13.07 (free shipping) example. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/652130-REG/Hoya_A58UVC_58mm_Ultraviolet_UV_0_Haze.html If you want to go up in quality for this or a more expensive lens this Hoya at $38.99 + $4 (appr) shipping is about as good as you could ever want. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/574271-REG/Hoya_XHD58UV_58mm_Ultraviolet_UV_Haze.html Hope this info is useful to you.



Best Buy will Price Match! They have a sale on the lenses too.

charliecarroll


quality posts: 105 Private Messages charliecarroll
youtookmyactualname wrote:Oh please. That's utter crap. People tend to overstate the importance of keeping your front lens in immaculate condition. If anything, your photos will be worse off due to the loss of clarity, contrast, etc. The reason your front element of the lens doesn't matter (that is, imperfections don't appear in photos) is that it is so far from the focal plane. A little experiment to prove this point is often performed by getting a roughly 3mmx3mm sticky note piece and putting it on the front of a lens. Look through the viewfinder, and it will be so obscured and out of focus it won't even be visible.

Having said that, yes this hobby does get expensive.


On an unrelated note, the samsung 1080p underwater camera is very tempting. I'll probably pick it up tomorrow.



A good quality UV filter is not going to have a noticeable effect by every day photographers and an excellent one will have virtually no effect with the exception they do indeed help prevent haze under certain conditions. However, there is nothing to say under critical and professional conditions that you could remove the filter for the shot or shots and then replace it. I have done shoots in hard places like NASCAR and the NFL to name just two. Guess what? Everyone around me had a filter on their lens. When you have 3K worth of lens and you are on the sidelines or track side, $30 worth of UV is not just smart is it a must! The same principle would go to the every day photographer. It is not Rocket Science. A few bucks spent to protect your optics is just smart money unless you have a tree that sheds dollars. To say that protecting the lens with a fairly low cost, optical glass filter is "utter crap" is well, UTTER CRAP and certainly not good advice for a novice. It may sound good or fine in the classroom and photography 101, but it is NOT what is practiced in the field and again with the exception of removal for a critical shot or a lens that is only used for that purpose.

BTW, I don't sell camera equipment new or used. So my mention of filters is not to help me or any company that is in the business. It is to help the novice inexpensively protect their investment. With that said, if all you do is point and shoot with a point and shoot camera you have a throw away anyway. Optic problems, no problem. Throw it away and get another point and shoot.

charliecarroll


quality posts: 105 Private Messages charliecarroll
inkycatz wrote:We've all heard "it's the photographer and not the camera" before, but which camera are you looking at to capture your holiday moments this year?



They also say 'give a thousand monkey's a typewriter and one will write a novel'. With that thought in mind there is something amateurs can do emulates the pros and will in the end give those 'home photo' amateurs some great results. When a pro shoots a subject and even if it is just one subject such as a 'still life' he/she does not set up on just one shot as the perfect shot and then go. The pro will take a multitude of shots from all angles, from all distances and with many varying light sources and dimensions. In short, if you take 100 shots at an apple in a bowl, there is a good chance one of them is going to look dang good. lol So, it is your daughters birthday and you want some good pictures of the even. It is not hard and it is even less expensive today with digital medium over film. Film days, you ran out of film you were done. Today's digital, you run out of memory, you can decide to cut out a few and start again or do a fast DL to the computer and have a full and empty card to start over again with. So, take a lot and I mean A LOT of pictures of every scene you think you want to have and keep. You take 80 pictures of that party instead of 8 and you have a lot to choose from and certainly a lot to cull out. Move around, close and more distant, every angle you can take and you will end up with some great shots. The odds are with you if you shoot in the high numbers. ENJOY!

Now pick the camera that you feel is right for you and then, shoot, shoot, and then, shoot even more. You won't write a novel but you will most likely have a great family photo album.

charliecarroll


quality posts: 105 Private Messages charliecarroll
luvable84girl wrote:Best Buy will Price Match! They have a sale on the lenses too.



Run this past Best Buy because it does not work out all that good where I live. Show them the price you have plus shipping, which would be your total out of pocket. Then ask, match that? What you are going to hear back (I believe) is we can match the price and not even charge the shipping but by law we have to charge you sales tax. That is right and it is not their fault but the price match may now not be the same out of your pocket. Bottom line, do the math. If your local store can match what is coming out of your pocket, great. If they can not, regardless of reason, it is not a match to you, now is it?

charliecarroll


quality posts: 105 Private Messages charliecarroll
lalian wrote:You aren't taking sensor size into account. The zoom lens on both is effectively the same focal length (about 28-80mm) due to crop factor. The Pentax Q has the advantage in low light situations because the zoom lens is f/2.8-4 where the Cannon is f/3.5-5.6. That means the Pentax zoom is 1 full fstops faster, which means it can operate in half the light.



Correct and therefore one may consider the C note difference OK. However, that does not take in to account the availability to more lens by Canon (and others) and even more so, the overall ability for the Canon to surpass the Pentax with other on board options as well as expandability.Certainly 2.8 compared to 3.5 is a very admirable advantage in low light but again, every where else, the Canon is still hands down the winner at $100 less!

korpo53


quality posts: 2 Private Messages korpo53
charliecarroll wrote:... but by law we have to charge you sales tax. That is right and it is not their fault but the price match may now not be the same out of your pocket.


If you live and primarily use a product in a state with sales tax, you owe sales tax on it no matter where you bought it and no matter whether the place charged you it or not. Period, exclamation mark.

That you can get away with evading some taxes owed to your state because Woot (or another given merchant) doesn't force you to pay it at purchase isn't a "benefit". If you want to go down that road, Best Buy is always cheaper since you could just five finger it out the door if you want.

vagrant10


quality posts: 12 Private Messages vagrant10
charliecarroll wrote:Correct and therefore one may consider the C note difference OK. However, that does not take in to account the availability to more lens by Canon (and others) and even more so, the overall ability for the Canon to surpass the Pentax with other on board options as well as expandability.Certainly 2.8 compared to 3.5 is a very admirable advantage in low light but again, every where else, the Canon is still hands down the winner at $100 less!



Geez, you're a little righteous in your opinion. I think there are a couple other ways to decide which camera is good for someone. Like do you want to carry around a fairly large pack with you whenever you want to take pictures? Sometimes having a camera that fits in your pocket is just more convenient. And I also think it's less intimidating to whoever you're taking pictures of so it's a bit easier getting natural candids w/ a smaller camera.

Another way to look at this comparison differently is by looking at the strengths of each camera. The Pentax Q has a much smaller sensor which gives it a larger depth of field (where at a given aperture, say f2.8, the Pentax will have a much larger area in focus than the Canon. Sometimes this is good, sometimes it's not. For macro photography, that often can be a good thing. Sometimes at parties, I like to have everyone in the picture in focus. There are times when a larger depth of field is desirable.

Another feature that the Pentax Q has that the canon does not is focus peaking. I've been using my Q with my DSLR lenses via an adapter so I can take advantage of the 5.5 crop factor (a 50mm DSLR lens will then have a field of view of 275mm)... when I'm using an f1.4 lens, it gets a little tricky to focus, so focus peaking will highlight the area that is in focus.

Look, I'm not saying the Pentax Q is always better than the Canon or any other DSLR for that matter. I have and use both the Pentax Q and my DSLR depending on the situation (yes I am a camera junkie).

If anyone wants to see the pics I've taken with the Pentax Q, here's a set f/ my flickr page:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55038128@N00/sets/72157631762031470/

Oh, in regards to lens availability... the Q system has 5 lenses available for it right now with another lens that's about to be released before xmas. So their lenses will have a range in 35mm terms of 17.5 to 247.5mm. Of course if you add the millions of m42 and k mount lenses that you can attach to the Pentax Q, I think most people would find that adequate.

Shinespark


quality posts: 33 Private Messages Shinespark
youtookmyactualname wrote:Oh please. That's utter crap. People tend to overstate the importance of keeping your front lens in immaculate condition. If anything, your photos will be worse off due to the loss of clarity, contrast, etc. The reason your front element of the lens doesn't matter (that is, imperfections don't appear in photos) is that it is so far from the focal plane. A little experiment to prove this point is often performed by getting a roughly 3mmx3mm sticky note piece and putting it on the front of a lens. Look through the viewfinder, and it will be so obscured and out of focus it won't even be visible.

Having said that, yes this hobby does get expensive.


On an unrelated note, the samsung 1080p underwater camera is very tempting. I'll probably pick it up tomorrow.



Well, at least he suggested a decent one, though I don't understand why you wouldn't go like for BW/Heliopan if you drop that much on glass. A well crafted UV filter has next to no effect on flaring, etc.

This of course sidesteps the fact that the front element of any good lens is a tank, hoods are more versatile, and Cokin always made more sense in the first place.


charliecarroll wrote:PENTAX 15086 Q 12.4MP Dual Lens Camera Kit - Black or White New = $500 on Woot.

Is this a good deal?
Compared to other vendors one could say yes.
Tiger Direct New = $653.00 http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2436303&SRCCODE=WEBGOO0163C&cm_mmc_o=mH4CjC7BBTkwCjCECjCE&gclid=CJjK9cTesLMCFQeDnQodtmMAJQ

AMAZON New = $496.95 + Shipping http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00604YS3K/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B006C74UXS&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=03GMF7W9FGPANR01PRA8

When you take S&H into account, it seems Woot wins but is this really a good deal? Compared to the Canon T3 being sold on Woot today for $400, I would say, no.

The Canon T3 is a far superior camera that offers more hands down. And the one lens on the Canon gives an equivalent focal length slightly larger than the two lens combined on the Pentax. The Pentax is smaller and lighter but that is the only up side and one that is negligible in my opinion when put up against the Canon. Canon offers a vastly larger quantity of lens that allows it to be expanded much further and it also has along with the view screen an actual view finder. On bright sunny days while one struggles with the Pentax the Canon owner is going to be shooting away. And let's not forget for $100.00 less. In a head to head match up between today's Pentax and today's Canon, The Canon Wins, Hands Down!



This is like comparing an Acura to a pickup truck. Seriously? It's a toy camera versus an entry level DSLR.

vagrant10 wrote:
Oh, in regards to lens availability... the Q system has 5 lenses available for it right now with another lens that's about to be released before xmas. So their lenses will have a range in 35mm terms of 17.5 to 247.5mm. Of course if you add the millions of m42 and k mount lenses that you can attach to the Pentax Q, I think most people would find that adequate.


Are you seriously suggesting adapting lenses designed for 24/35mm format to a camera with a crop factor of over 5? Even if it didn't look ridiculous, that's highly impractical.

vagrant10


quality posts: 12 Private Messages vagrant10
Shinespark wrote:Are you seriously suggesting adapting lenses designed for 24/35mm format to a camera with a crop factor of over 5? Even if it didn't look ridiculous, that's highly impractical.



Is it? I've done it... it works well. And why does it look ridiculous? Have you ever seen an SLR on the end of a 600 f4 lens? It's a thing of beauty in my eyes. So what's the difference if the camera is the Pentax Q? It's optically stabilized due to sensor shift shake reduction. And the camera has a magnesium body so it can handle the weight (though I usually hold the lens and not the camera with lenses more than 50mm). Look, when I put on my 105 f2.8 macro that's a field of view of 577.5mm w/ a max aperture of f2.8! I don't really give a crap what it looks like if I get the picture that I want...

vagrant10


quality posts: 12 Private Messages vagrant10

If you really want to see how small the Pentax Q is, check out this review's pictures:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/06/pentax-q-shrinks-interchangeable-lens-digicams-to-pocketable-proportions/

And here's a very thorough review, warts and all:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/PENTAXQ/PENTAXQA.HTM

Shinespark


quality posts: 33 Private Messages Shinespark
vagrant10 wrote:Is it? I've done it... it works well. And why does it look ridiculous? Have you ever seen an SLR on the end of a 600 f4 lens? It's a thing of beauty in my eyes. So what's the difference if the camera is the Pentax Q? It's optically stabilized due to sensor shift shake reduction. And the camera has a magnesium body so it can handle the weight (though I usually hold the lens and not the camera with lenses more than 50mm). Look, when I put on my 105 f2.8 macro that's a field of view of 577.5mm w/ a max aperture of f2.8! I don't really give a crap what it looks like if I get the picture that I want...



Perhaps it comes down to need, but I have not once in my life desired a 600mm lens.

vagrant10


quality posts: 12 Private Messages vagrant10
Shinespark wrote:Perhaps it comes down to need, but I have not once in my life desired a 600mm lens.



wildlife (especially birding), sports (from stands), extreme macro, espionage are all places for it.

Talking about ridiculous, I even mounted a 300mm f4 takumar to the Q for a moon shot. The moon almost filled the frame! 300mm on the Q is equivalent to 1650mm. Some users have even started to put laser scopes on the camera to help locate where the lens is pointing... To each, their own I guess.

charliecarroll


quality posts: 105 Private Messages charliecarroll
vagrant10 wrote:Geez, you're a little righteous in your opinion. I think there are a couple other ways to decide which camera is good for someone. Like do you want to carry around a fairly large pack with you whenever you want to take pictures? Sometimes having a camera that fits in your pocket is just more convenient. And I also think it's less intimidating to whoever you're taking pictures of so it's a bit easier getting natural candids w/ a smaller camera.

Another way to look at this comparison differently is by looking at the strengths of each camera. The Pentax Q has a much smaller sensor which gives it a larger depth of field (where at a given aperture, say f2.8, the Pentax will have a much larger area in focus than the Canon. Sometimes this is good, sometimes it's not. For macro photography, that often can be a good thing. Sometimes at parties, I like to have everyone in the picture in focus. There are times when a larger depth of field is desirable.

Another feature that the Pentax Q has that the canon does not is focus peaking. I've been using my Q with my DSLR lenses via an adapter so I can take advantage of the 5.5 crop factor (a 50mm DSLR lens will then have a field of view of 275mm)... when I'm using an f1.4 lens, it gets a little tricky to focus, so focus peaking will highlight the area that is in focus.

Look, I'm not saying the Pentax Q is always better than the Canon or any other DSLR for that matter. I have and use both the Pentax Q and my DSLR depending on the situation (yes I am a camera junkie).

If anyone wants to see the pics I've taken with the Pentax Q, here's a set f/ my flickr page:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55038128@N00/sets/72157631762031470/

Oh, in regards to lens availability... the Q system has 5 lenses available for it right now with another lens that's about to be released before xmas. So their lenses will have a range in 35mm terms of 17.5 to 247.5mm. Of course if you add the millions of m42 and k mount lenses that you can attach to the Pentax Q, I think most people would find that adequate.



Common, righteous has nothing to do with it. If you read my very first post the flaw I saw in picking the Pentax was the C note difference in price in comparison of the two. BTW, while I shoot Canon myself I am not stating this because the DSLR offered is a Canon. I would make the exact same arguments for an entry level Nikon DSLR. Where we do agree would be the size advantage when size matters. Your example of being able to carry in a pocket certainly would be true. However, it kind of ends there because you can purchase some very workable and quality point and shoots for half what the Q costs. the savings alone will get you half way to a decent DSLR with lens. In that case, you would have both. As far as depth of field, the Canon lens will give or kill depth of field more than adequately for the person that takes the time to understand aperture. Of course, that is needed regardless of which camera you use. My bet is (unfortunately for the user) most of the people buying either one of these cameras will using program or auto modes never learning or understanding aperture and how to use it. I really didn't think too many pro's would be looking at either camera so my remarks were for novices in the field in order to point out some things they may not think about. I then, and again mow are becoming wordy so that just does not allow spelling out every scenario possible. But, I will expand on one I already started. If you go with an entry level DSLR such as Canon or Nikon (I prefer Canon as the auto-focus motor is in the lens) and you acquire one or more additional lens, if you decide to step up another level, you can do body only as your lens will still be useful with the new body. That option would open the door to several models ranging from the few hundreds to the few thousands of dollars.

In the end I guess we have to agree to disagree. For me and my advise is, More bang for the buck comes with the DSLR. If size is critical, save around $200 and pick a good point and shoot made by many of the very good companies out there including Pentax. Or, if you currently have a point and shoot that is doing a decent job for you but you still want more, keep the point and shoot you have as your pocket camera and join the world of DSLR and for $100 less. With all that said, there is no argument that the Q is a finely made and functioning camera that packs a wallop from a very, very small package. The question again, Does this small package warrant it's large price tag? I am a camera junkie, I have too many of them and some have not been used in years. I will admit though, when I first saw the Q, I wanted it. Needs and stuff just did not come into my mind. I just saw an attractive very small camera with a retro look that alone intrigued me. It looked very much like my first 35mm, a Yashica Lynx 5000 range finder that I still have. I still look at the Q with an admiring eye but for me, it does not deliver at it's price tag.

cosbyssalafia511


quality posts: 0 Private Messages cosbyssalafia511

he EOS Rebel T3 previously on the last woot-off and Sellout.Woot

Both at a dollar less! Woot succumbs to price inflation!!

vagrant10


quality posts: 12 Private Messages vagrant10
charliecarroll wrote: Where we do agree would be the size advantage when size matters. Your example of being able to carry in a pocket certainly would be true. However, it kind of ends there because you can purchase some very workable and quality point and shoots for half what the Q costs.



One of the main differences between the Pentax Q and a point and shoot is that you can change lenses on the Q depending on the lens characteristics that you need for that particular situation. Need a fast 1.9 aperture lens? It comes with this kit. Need a good walkaround zoom? It comes with this kit too. Want a 550mm w/ a f1.7 aperture for when you go to a indoor basketball game? Get an adapter for $25 and the great Pentax M50 1.7 for around $50. Want some fisheye fun with a 160 degree field of view? The Q has such a lens. A system camera is always going to be more flexible than a fixed lens camera.

And then there's picture quality... the high end point and shoots are really the only cameras that take pictures in the same league as the Q and those range in price from $300 to around $600. But again, you lose the option of changing lenses. That kind of flexibility is worth a premium in my opinion. Just like you were saying earlier, lens choice is important to a DSLR, I would suggest it's important to any camera.

charliecarroll wrote: As far as depth of field, the Canon lens will give or kill depth of field more than adequately for the person that takes the time to understand aperture.



Here's a scenario that I shoot in quite often: indoor dinner party with ok indoor lighting where I will be shooting at f2.4 iso 1600 with shutter speeds of around 1/45th. Let's say my subject distance is 5 feet away and I'm using a 50mm equivalent focal length (35mm on the canon, 8.9mm on the Pentax Q). Most of the time I'm shooting candids so people may be talking in groups of 2 or more and the distance from one person in the picture will probably be 6 or more inches different from the other person in the picture. With the Canon, here is your DOF:
Subject distance 5 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 4.74 ft
Far limit 5.29 ft
Total 0.55 ft

In front of subject 0.26 ft (47%)
Behind subject 0.29 ft (53%)

So if person two is 3 or more inches in front of person one (who you're focusing on), person two will be out of focus.

The depth of field on the Pentax Q is
Subject distance 5 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 4.07 ft
Far limit 6.47 ft
Total 2.4 ft

In front of subject 0.93 ft (39%)
Behind subject 1.47 ft (61%)

So person 2 can be up to a foot in front of person 1 and still be in focus! That's a huge difference!

Now you're right, you can adjust the Canon's aperture to match that level of depth of field... but you'd have to be shooting at f10 to get the same level of in-focus area. So what does that do to your shutter speed or iso? Well the difference between f2.4 and f10 is about 4 stops. So if I'm shooting at 1/45th at f2.4, at f10 I'll need to be shooting at 1/3 of a second. Good luck holding the camera still and don't forget to tell your subjects to not move at all so they don't induce motion blur. Or you could bump your ISO to 6400 in which case you're shooting at a shutter speed of 1/10. Still too slow for most candids and for the focal length you are using, but you're also inducing a lot more grain to the picture.

I often take pictures in social settings and in a lot of cases, the Q is a better tool than my DSLR (but actually, I use both since I have both). But the same issues apply to macro shooting and to long telephoto shots where a larger inherent DOF from a smaller sensor will allow you to have lower iso's and higher shutter speeds.

charliecarroll


quality posts: 105 Private Messages charliecarroll
vagrant10 wrote:Here's a scenario that I shoot in quite often: indoor dinner party with ok indoor lighting where I will be shooting at f2.4 iso 1600 with shutter speeds of around 1/45th. Let's say my subject distance is 5 feet away and I'm using a 50mm equivalent focal length (35mm on the canon, 8.9mm on the Pentax Q). Most of the time I'm shooting candids so people may be talking in groups of 2 or more and the distance from one person in the picture will probably be 6 or more inches different from the other person in the picture. With the Canon, here is your DOF:
Subject distance 5 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 4.74 ft
Far limit 5.29 ft
Total 0.55 ft

In front of subject 0.26 ft (47%)
Behind subject 0.29 ft (53%)

So if person two is 3 or more inches in front of person one (who you're focusing on), person two will be out of focus.

The depth of field on the Pentax Q is
Subject distance 5 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 4.07 ft
Far limit 6.47 ft
Total 2.4 ft

In front of subject 0.93 ft (39%)
Behind subject 1.47 ft (61%)

So person 2 can be up to a foot in front of person 1 and still be in focus! That's a huge difference!

Now you're right, you can adjust the Canon's aperture to match that level of depth of field... but you'd have to be shooting at f10 to get the same level of in-focus area. So what does that do to your shutter speed or iso? Well the difference between f2.4 and f10 is about 4 stops. So if I'm shooting at 1/45th at f2.4, at f10 I'll need to be shooting at 1/3 of a second. Good luck holding the camera still and don't forget to tell your subjects to not move at all so they don't induce motion blur. Or you could bump your ISO to 6400 in which case you're shooting at a shutter speed of 1/10. Still too slow for most candids and for the focal length you are using, but you're also inducing a lot more grain to the picture.

I often take pictures in social settings and in a lot of cases, the Q is a better tool than my DSLR (but actually, I use both since I have both). But the same issues apply to macro shooting and to long telephoto shots where a larger inherent DOF from a smaller sensor will allow you to have lower iso's and higher shutter speeds.





And again, at this price point most of the buyers are not going to understand a word you have said and are going to be shooting in program or auto. For those people which I do believe are the largest buying group we see here on woot, guessed at by the questions they ask the Q is not going to help them much over a very good point and shoot. For those that take the time to learn these things, they most likely will want to step up as their skill and knowledge dictates, from the Q or any entry level DSLR. But, like every camera out there, technology and the acceptance, (purchasing) of the public is the real test. A couple more years of market and the demand or lack of demand will state is the Q (and or it's off springs) worth what it costs.

amarks1


quality posts: 1 Private Messages amarks1

I am simply here to express my excitement.

Just purchased the T3 after analyzing all of the comments from all of the times this camera appeared recently. thanks!

I am entering the world of DSLR and it sounds like this is a great entry point at a good price.

elquesogrande


quality posts: 2 Private Messages elquesogrande

Picked up that dreadful little Bell & Howell 1609534 Keychain Digital Camera in a Bring Our Candidates earlier this year. Took some significant google-fu to get the software to work on our computer. The photos are blurry and so poor that even my 9 year old didn't want it. Save your $5 plus shipping and don't even think about giving these as stocking stuffers.

charliecarroll


quality posts: 105 Private Messages charliecarroll
amarks1 wrote:I am simply here to express my excitement.

Just purchased the T3 after analyzing all of the comments from all of the times this camera appeared recently. thanks!

I am entering the world of DSLR and it sounds like this is a great entry point at a good price.



It is a great entry to what can be a brand new world of photography for you. Look, the camera will do on it's own some pretty darn good stuff with you just making some simple choices but, take the time to learn how to do more than just point and shoot. The more you learn the more you will enjoy your DSLR and you will be able to push your results way past what you can today. Congratulations and have fun!

jyg


quality posts: 2 Private Messages jyg

Not a deal. Look at the latest offerings and you can get something FAR superior for not many more dollars. Some great ILC cameras came out in the past month or so. Look at the Olympus E-PM and E-PL lines. Other good ones from Panasonic too. Better sensors, better kit lenses. from $400-$800. You can do better for $500 if you look around a little.

charliecarroll


quality posts: 105 Private Messages charliecarroll
jyg wrote:Not a deal. Look at the latest offerings and you can get something FAR superior for not many more dollars. Some great ILC cameras came out in the past month or so. Look at the Olympus E-PM and E-PL lines. Other good ones from Panasonic too. Better sensors, better kit lenses. from $400-$800. You can do better for $500 if you look around a little.



Panasonic is a relative new comer to the still image camera scene especially when compared to Olympus. As a brand name while Panasonic makes some fine products they have never reached above to many other companies. Olympus has been around for a long time and back in the 80's was best known for making very small products that competed with their larger counterparts. Also, Olympus was known for great optics. But there has been a gap between Olympus and companies like Canon and Nikon for many years now. While all SLR's are ILC's the reverse is not true. As you point out if you want an ILC to compete with the Canon, you have to pay more. I also believe the models you describe all have a viewing screen only and no optical view finder. Bad, bad, bad! Not a soul on earth is going to be able to use a digital display on a extremely bright sun shinny day to acquire a desired subject and shoot anywhere near as fast or as accurately as someone using a viewfinder. The ILC's you mention because of size and other qualities may have a market but no viewfinder alone takes it off the table for many and certainly is a major con when adding up the pros and cons. I don't believe you are going to see pros give up their equipment with viewfinders anytime soon either. Myself, not going to put out $500 for a camera that does not have one.

pxpaulx


quality posts: 0 Private Messages pxpaulx
charliecarroll wrote:Panasonic is a relative new comer to the still image camera scene especially when compared to Olympus. As a brand name while Panasonic makes some fine products they have never reached above to many other companies. Olympus has been around for a long time and back in the 80's was best known for making very small products that competed with their larger counterparts. Also, Olympus was known for great optics. But there has been a gap between Olympus and companies like Canon and Nikon for many years now. While all SLR's are ILC's the reverse is not true. As you point out if you want an ILC to compete with the Canon, you have to pay more. I also believe the models you describe all have a viewing screen only and no optical view finder. Bad, bad, bad! Not a soul on earth is going to be able to use a digital display on a extremely bright sun shinny day to acquire a desired subject and shoot anywhere near as fast or as accurately as someone using a viewfinder. The ILC's you mention because of size and other qualities may have a market but no viewfinder alone takes it off the table for many and certainly is a major con when adding up the pros and cons. I don't believe you are going to see pros give up their equipment with viewfinders anytime soon either. Myself, not going to put out $500 for a camera that does not have one.



You appear to not know much about micro 4/3 cameras. Yes they do not have optical viewfinders. But every single model except for the original Olympus E-p1 have the ability to use an attachable electronic viewfinder, or have them built in (mostly just panasonic cameras with the exception of the recent Olympus e-m5 which has a built in viewfinder). Basically my point is that for under $400 you can get a number of olympus or panasonic micro 4/3 cameras, including a viewfinder.

shadestalker


quality posts: 0 Private Messages shadestalker
charliecarroll wrote:I don't believe you are going to see pros give up their equipment with viewfinders anytime soon either.



I'm not a pro, but no eye-level viewfinder means no sale. My mind also boggles at non-disposable digital cameras with poor / inaccurate optical rangefinders.