Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Baby coming, photos to be taken

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 4, 2005 3:32:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have a Olympus 410mju 4mp camera
http://www.camerastore.com.au/Olympus+mju+410-details.h...

with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
thanks...

More about : baby coming photos

Anonymous
May 4, 2005 3:32:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Pete,
Here's my own experience.. I have steadily moved up the camera ladder in the
past 24 months, buying one, keeping it for 4 or 5 months, then needing to step
up. So I went through some nice Fuji cameras, then to the Olympus C8080,
finally ending up with the Nikon D70.
Here's what I decided: After about 4 megapixels in a typical point and shoot,
the sensor stops being enough to handle the digital noise. So for instance,
outside in the sun, the big C8080 was amazing, but take it inside even at ISO
100 and noise starts to be a factor.

What am I really saying in all this???
That the pictures that come out of this D70 (when properly shot - which takes
some real learn curve) are simply magnificent. Blowing the doors off of ANY of
the point and shoots I had run through. IF though you decide to stick with a
point and shoot, I would say stick to 4, maybe 5 MP and you'll get consistently
wonderful noise-free shots.

But gosh, if you have the money, I can't say enough about the D70. Simply
incredibly.

Tim


"Pete" <Petethem.@mail.com.> wrote in message
news:2p2ee.2666$31.2170@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I have a Olympus 410mju 4mp camera
http://www.camerastore.com.au/Olympus+mju+410-details.h...

with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
thanks...
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 3:32:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pete wrote:
> I have a Olympus 410mju 4mp camera
> http://www.camerastore.com.au/Olympus+mju+410-details.h...
>
> with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
> digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
> better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
> thanks...
>
>
Not worth the expense. Buy lots of diapers, and take your wife out to
dinner once a week for the next year.
For baby pictures, a simple P*S camera with decent flash would work just
as well.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Related resources
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 3:32:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <2p2ee.2666$31.2170@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Pete
<Petethem.@mail.com.> wrote:

> I have a Olympus 410mju 4mp camera
> http://www.camerastore.com.au/Olympus+mju+410-details.h...
>
> with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
> digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
> better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
> thanks...
>
>
Hi Pete,
Here is an article reprinted with permission from NYI Institute of
Photography:
http://www.babymall.com.au/phototips/phototips.htm
It has a lot of good tips for photographing babies, and also a warning
about using the flash:
"One question we're frequently is this: Is there any risk to the eyes
of young babies if I use flash when I shoot their pictures? Since the
experts are divided on this point, we think you should err on the side
of caution: Keep flash use to a minimum. If you do use flash for a few
pictures, stay at a reasonable distance. Our advice: Don't ever use
flash for closeups! And we've already discussed the problem flash
causes with red-eye. So avoid it if you can."
Congratulations,
NB
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 3:32:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pete" <Petethem.@mail.com.> writes:
> with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
> digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
> better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
> thanks...

The two big wins of using a DSLR are no shutter lag and more serious
flash systems. Some of the fancier P/S systems also support external
flash but they're not that far in price from low-end DSLR's these
days. That horrible "snapshot" look we all see so often comes from
the typical P/S on-camera flash pointing straight at the subject. The
problem not just red-eye but the whole pattern of light and shadows.
And, as someone else said, it's bad for the baby's eyes.

The solution is to use an external flash bounced off of a white
ceiling, or some other type of diffusion. See the 80-20 and Big
Bounce examples in:

http://www.lumiquest.com/compare.htm

Even fancier is to use off-camera flash. The Nikon D70 has an amazing
system that lets you control a remote flash without any wires to the
camera (the camera pulses its own flash to send exposure data to the
remote). I'm not sure if Canon has anything directly comparable.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 7:09:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pete <Petethem.?@mail.com.?> wrote:

>with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
>digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
>better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
>thanks...

You may find the shutter lag is a big bugbear, especially when you
try to capture the little blighter smiling. Made me move to a dSLR,
and the pics are a heckofalot better since. (Oly 3040 -> D70)

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 7:38:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Tough wrote:
> Pete <Petethem.?@mail.com.?> wrote:
>
>
>>with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
>>digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
>>better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
>>thanks...
>
>
> You may find the shutter lag is a big bugbear, especially when you
> try to capture the little blighter smiling. Made me move to a dSLR,
> and the pics are a heckofalot better since. (Oly 3040 -> D70)
>
On the newer cameras shutter lag is only slightly longer than a DSLR, in
some cases faster than the older ones. The shutter lag on mine is
shorter than my reflexes so I guess I am the 'lag'. sigh.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 8:32:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

No idea, but a 4 mp $400 camera sounds great to me.Even my cheapo 100 euros
kodak cx 7300 takes excellent pictures, check my account at
www.shuttercity.com .It's not actually the camera that takes the picture,
but the *photographer*.Of course, you will need a minimum of hardware;you
can't use all the time single use cameras or get a HP web camera that uses
batteries and can be used off the computer...

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ï "Pete" <Petethem.@mail.com.> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:2p2ee.2666$31.2170@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> I have a Olympus 410mju 4mp camera
> http://www.camerastore.com.au/Olympus+mju+410-details.h...
>
> with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
> digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
> better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
> thanks...
>
>
May 5, 2005 1:12:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 04 May 2005 11:32:14 GMT, "Pete" <Petethem.@mail.com.> wrote:

>I have a Olympus 410mju 4mp camera
>http://www.camerastore.com.au/Olympus+mju+410-details.h...
>
>with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
>digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
>better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
>thanks...
>
As other people have pointed out, a DSLR really comes into it's own
when they are a bit older and you want to capture them in action. The
combination of fast start up time, no shutter lag, and fast focussing
and focus tracking systems mean you can get shots which you would
otherwise have no chance of getting. When they are newborn these
factors don't make much difference.
May 5, 2005 7:17:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve" <whiteroseofyorkshireNOSPAM@postmaster.co.uk> When they are newborn
these
> factors don't make much difference.

So a point and shoot like the Olympus would do just as good?
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 2:25:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MM <M@g.com> wrote:

>"Steve" <whiteroseofyorkshireNOSPAM@postmaster.co.uk> When they are newborn
>these
>> factors don't make much difference.
>
>So a point and shoot like the Olympus would do just as good?

Depends. I think I was very lucky to get a great pic of our
little guy on his first day (Oly 3040), when he was having his
first bath in the hospital. If I'd had my D70, I'd know I'd
have had several much better to choose from. So I was lucky
to capture that instant. You'll still get good pics, you might
just have got better with a dSLR. [Including better use of low
light and no flash, for much less harsh pictures].

In other words, if you can afford it and are going to get one
anyway, do so upfront. If you can't afford it, go with what
you've got and you'll be happy with what you can do with it.
(Provided you learn how to best get around shutter lag problems,
and work in low light, etc)

--
Ken Tough
May 5, 2005 2:33:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pete wrote:
> I have a Olympus 410mju 4mp camera
> http://www.camerastore.com.au/Olympus+mju+410-details.h...
>
> with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
> digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
> better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
> thanks...
>
>
If you are not an experienced photographer, you may be better off with a point-and-shoot
digicam. It will also take good pictures. If you plan to get serious about photography,
an entry-level DSR may not be adequate. I suggest a 3 MP or 4 MP point-and-shoot camera
for now. It will make pictures that will be good at print sizes up to 8X10".
May 5, 2005 3:54:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:

> "Pete" <Petethem.@mail.com.> writes:
>
>>with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
>>digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
>>better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
>>thanks...
>
>
> The two big wins of using a DSLR are no shutter lag and more serious
> flash systems. Some of the fancier P/S systems also support external
> flash but they're not that far in price from low-end DSLR's these
> days. That horrible "snapshot" look we all see so often comes from
> the typical P/S on-camera flash pointing straight at the subject. The
> problem not just red-eye but the whole pattern of light and shadows.
> And, as someone else said, it's bad for the baby's eyes.
>
There is a third big and arguably the most important win - the
possibility of taking noise free images in available light many times
better than any P&S can deliver.
> The solution is to use an external flash bounced off of a white
> ceiling, or some other type of diffusion. See the 80-20 and Big
> Bounce examples in:
>
> http://www.lumiquest.com/compare.htm
>
> Even fancier is to use off-camera flash. The Nikon D70 has an amazing
> system that lets you control a remote flash without any wires to the
> camera (the camera pulses its own flash to send exposure data to the
> remote). I'm not sure if Canon has anything directly comparable.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 5:07:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 4 May 2005 15:09:49 +0200, in rec.photo.digital , Ken Tough
<ken@objectech.co.uk> in <XG2W9eCdmMeCFwB6@objectech.co.uk> wrote:

>Pete <Petethem.?@mail.com.?> wrote:
>
>>with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
>>digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
>>better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
>>thanks...
>
>You may find the shutter lag is a big bugbear, especially when you
>try to capture the little blighter smiling. Made me move to a dSLR,
>and the pics are a heckofalot better since. (Oly 3040 -> D70)

With a baby on the way he probably does not have the money for a dSLR.
There is pre-school and college tuition to think about. (I am not
exactly sure if that gets a smiley or not.)


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 5:17:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 04 May 2005 11:32:14 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "Pete"
<Petethem.@mail.com.> in
<2p2ee.2666$31.2170@news-server.bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>I have a Olympus 410mju 4mp camera
>http://www.camerastore.com.au/Olympus+mju+410-details.h...
>
>with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
>digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
>better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
>thanks...
>
I will guess this is your first child. (And may your first child be a
masculine child. But I digress.) If so, the question to ask yourself
is whether or not you already know enough about digital photography to
use a digicam. You are going to be sleep deprived for some time and
have no free time for a very long period. This is not the time to take
up a new hobby. If you can pick up a digital camera now and use it and
store and print, then go for it. You will love the ability to send
photos to family and friends as soon as you take them. (Whether or not
they love that ability is a different issue.) But if it will take you
hours to figure this stuff out then forget it. You don't have that
much time available.

That said, if you get a digicam, get the smallest simplest you find
acceptable. You are entering the world of diapers and formula and
wipes and toys and ... You don't need a big camera and lenses and such
now. You want something you can pick up and put in your one spare
pocket. Get one big memory card, you won't have hands to change cards.

And, most importantly, forget the pictures and spend time with your
baby. Pictures are wonderful, but holding and smelling and touching
will make you smile. They grow up so fast you don't want to miss
anything.

Congratulations! I hope you have a healthy happy baby and Mom.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 6:46:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Wed, 4 May 2005 15:09:49 +0200, in rec.photo.digital , Ken Tough
> <ken@objectech.co.uk> in <XG2W9eCdmMeCFwB6@objectech.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Pete <Petethem.?@mail.com.?> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
>>>digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
>>>better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
>>>thanks...
>>
>>You may find the shutter lag is a big bugbear, especially when you
>>try to capture the little blighter smiling. Made me move to a dSLR,
>>and the pics are a heckofalot better since. (Oly 3040 -> D70)
>
>
> With a baby on the way he probably does not have the money for a dSLR.
> There is pre-school and college tuition to think about. (I am not
> exactly sure if that gets a smiley or not.)
>
>
Well, college tuition may be a bit of a long view, but things like
diapers, and food, and clothes certainly are a factor to most young
parents. Get an inexpensive P&S camera, and if it isn't up to your
personal standards, get a DSLR in a couple of years. They will be
better, and cheaper, then.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 6:46:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 May 2005 15:09:49 +0200, in rec.photo.digital , Ken Tough
>> <ken@objectech.co.uk> in <XG2W9eCdmMeCFwB6@objectech.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Pete <Petethem.?@mail.com.?> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me
>>>> buying a digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want
>>>> to know how much better the pics could be with a camera like an
>>>> entry level D SLR? thanks...
>>>
>>> You may find the shutter lag is a big bugbear, especially when you
>>> try to capture the little blighter smiling. Made me move to a
>>> dSLR,
>>> and the pics are a heckofalot better since. (Oly 3040 -> D70)
>>
>>
>> With a baby on the way he probably does not have the money for a
>> dSLR. There is pre-school and college tuition to think about. (I am
>> not exactly sure if that gets a smiley or not.)
>>
>>
> Well, college tuition may be a bit of a long view, but things like
> diapers, and food, and clothes certainly are a factor to most young
> parents. Get an inexpensive P&S camera, and if it isn't up to your
> personal standards, get a DSLR in a couple of years. They will be
> better, and cheaper, then.

What? No grandparents or in-laws? They should be all over this
situation, saving you the bother. Or contributing a couple thou so you
can keep sending "better" pictures.


--
Frank ess
May 5, 2005 11:31:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:17:07 GMT, "MM" <M@g.com> wrote:

>
>"Steve" <whiteroseofyorkshireNOSPAM@postmaster.co.uk> When they are newborn
>these
>> factors don't make much difference.
>
>So a point and shoot like the Olympus would do just as good?
>
Well it may suffice. But a DSLR is always going to give you better
performance. This does not just mean higher resolution, better
colours etc. it also means less shutter lag, better and faster
focusing etc. All these factors enable you to get better pictures.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 11:31:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:17:07 GMT, "MM" <M@g.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Steve" <whiteroseofyorkshireNOSPAM@postmaster.co.uk> When they are newborn
>>these
>>
>>>factors don't make much difference.
>>
>>So a point and shoot like the Olympus would do just as good?
>>
>
> Well it may suffice. But a DSLR is always going to give you better
> performance. This does not just mean higher resolution, better
> colours etc. it also means less shutter lag, better and faster
> focusing etc. All these factors enable you to get better pictures.
>
>
IF one knows how to use a camera, and IF one has time to learn to use
the special features of a DSLR, and IF buying one won't strain the
budget. Lots of ifs. Time will be at a premium for a while, as will
sleep, and probably money.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
May 6, 2005 3:00:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 05 May 2005 14:50:44 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Steve wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:17:07 GMT, "MM" <M@g.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Steve" <whiteroseofyorkshireNOSPAM@postmaster.co.uk> When they are newborn
>>>these
>>>
>>>>factors don't make much difference.
>>>
>>>So a point and shoot like the Olympus would do just as good?
>>>
>>
>> Well it may suffice. But a DSLR is always going to give you better
>> performance. This does not just mean higher resolution, better
>> colours etc. it also means less shutter lag, better and faster
>> focusing etc. All these factors enable you to get better pictures.
>>
>>
>IF one knows how to use a camera, and IF one has time to learn to use
>the special features of a DSLR, and IF buying one won't strain the
>budget. Lots of ifs. Time will be at a premium for a while, as will
>sleep, and probably money.

What the hell does this lot mean then?
May 6, 2005 3:24:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 04 May 2005 15:38:10 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Ken Tough wrote:
>> Pete <Petethem.?@mail.com.?> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
>>>digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
>>>better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
>>>thanks...
>>
>>
>> You may find the shutter lag is a big bugbear, especially when you
>> try to capture the little blighter smiling. Made me move to a dSLR,
>> and the pics are a heckofalot better since. (Oly 3040 -> D70)
>>
>On the newer cameras shutter lag is only slightly longer than a DSLR, in
>some cases faster than the older ones. The shutter lag on mine is
>shorter than my reflexes so I guess I am the 'lag'. sigh.

Define 'newer camera'. Define 'slightly longer'.

The time it takes to take a photo from 'seeing the moment' is:

reaction time+shutter lag

therefore even if your reflexes aren't that great it doesn't take a
genius to conclude that you will have a better chance if either of
these two parameters are as short a time as possible. Maybe slightly
longer is too long eh? After all, especially with moving subjects
like kids, we're often only talking about milliseconds between getting
that shot or missing it arent we?

I love it here...
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 4:15:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 14:50:44 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:17:07 GMT, "MM" <M@g.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Steve" <whiteroseofyorkshireNOSPAM@postmaster.co.uk> When they are newborn
>>>>these
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>factors don't make much difference.
>>>>
>>>>So a point and shoot like the Olympus would do just as good?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well it may suffice. But a DSLR is always going to give you better
>>>performance. This does not just mean higher resolution, better
>>>colours etc. it also means less shutter lag, better and faster
>>>focusing etc. All these factors enable you to get better pictures.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>IF one knows how to use a camera, and IF one has time to learn to use
>>the special features of a DSLR, and IF buying one won't strain the
>>budget. Lots of ifs. Time will be at a premium for a while, as will
>>sleep, and probably money.
>
>
> What the hell does this lot mean then?
Look at the subject, and read the previous messages. I am sure you will
figure it out, eventually.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 4:18:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2005 15:38:10 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Ken Tough wrote:
>>
>>>Pete <Petethem.?@mail.com.?> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
>>>>digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
>>>>better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
>>>>thanks...
>>>
>>>
>>>You may find the shutter lag is a big bugbear, especially when you
>>>try to capture the little blighter smiling. Made me move to a dSLR,
>>>and the pics are a heckofalot better since. (Oly 3040 -> D70)
>>>
>>
>>On the newer cameras shutter lag is only slightly longer than a DSLR, in
>>some cases faster than the older ones. The shutter lag on mine is
>>shorter than my reflexes so I guess I am the 'lag'. sigh.
>
>
> Define 'newer camera'. Define 'slightly longer'.
>
> The time it takes to take a photo from 'seeing the moment' is:
>
> reaction time+shutter lag
>
> therefore even if your reflexes aren't that great it doesn't take a
> genius to conclude that you will have a better chance if either of
> these two parameters are as short a time as possible. Maybe slightly
> longer is too long eh? After all, especially with moving subjects
> like kids, we're often only talking about milliseconds between getting
> that shot or missing it arent we?
>
> I love it here...
Well, the camera I had before often gave me trouble with getting the
picture because of shutter lag. I have yet to miss one with my current
camera for this reason. The difference may be on the order of a couple
of tenths of a second. If you need to respond faster than that, perhaps
you should be shooting movie film at 35 mm and 300FPS.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 7:26:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Tough <ken@objectech.co.uk> wrote:

: You'll still get good pics, you might
: just have got better with a dSLR. [Including better use of low
: light and no flash, for much less harsh pictures].

This brings up one other concideration. Newborns eyes are particularly
sensitive to flashes. So for the first month or so it is recommended that
only available light be used for photography. The ability of the eye to
adjust quick enough to prevent damage to the eyes with a sudden bright
flash is not fully functioning in newborns. So a camera with good ambient
light capabilities for the first month is your best bet (even if you just
borrow one for that time period).

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 7:26:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randy Berbaum wrote:
> Ken Tough <ken@objectech.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : You'll still get good pics, you might
> : just have got better with a dSLR. [Including better use of low
> : light and no flash, for much less harsh pictures].
>
> This brings up one other concideration. Newborns eyes are particularly
> sensitive to flashes. So for the first month or so it is recommended that
> only available light be used for photography. The ability of the eye to
> adjust quick enough to prevent damage to the eyes with a sudden bright
> flash is not fully functioning in newborns. So a camera with good ambient
> light capabilities for the first month is your best bet (even if you just
> borrow one for that time period).
>
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL
>
Or, you can avoid taking pictures 'full face'. Take them from the side,
and preferably with a camera the adjusts the flash to the conditions.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 7:43:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I don't know that you would require an SLR for baby photos. I have a
five month old at the moment and the only saving grace for using an SLR
is shooting low light without a flash. I haven't made any prints larger
than 8x10/8x12 and a 4mp camera would be fine for that.


If you do shots with more light than I have been using then you
shouldn't have a problem.


--
JamieAU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JamieAU's Profile: http://thephotostation.net/forums/member.php?userid=40
View this thread: http://thephotostation.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1223...
May 6, 2005 9:53:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 14:50:44 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:17:07 GMT, "MM" <M@g.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Steve" <whiteroseofyorkshireNOSPAM@postmaster.co.uk> When they are
>>>>> newborn these
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> factors don't make much difference.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So a point and shoot like the Olympus would do just as good?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well it may suffice. But a DSLR is always going to give you better
>>>> performance. This does not just mean higher resolution, better
>>>> colours etc. it also means less shutter lag, better and faster
>>>> focusing etc. All these factors enable you to get better pictures.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> IF one knows how to use a camera, and IF one has time to learn to use
>>> the special features of a DSLR, and IF buying one won't strain the
>>> budget. Lots of ifs. Time will be at a premium for a while, as will
>>> sleep, and probably money.
>>
>>
>>
>> What the hell does this lot mean then?
>
> Look at the subject, and read the previous messages. I am sure you will
> figure it out, eventually.


There are lots of people using SLR cameras. I don't know why you say
there is a deeper learning curve for DSLR, just because it's digital?
They hves lots more options but they can still be used it as P&S in the
beginning and one can learn new techniques gradually. It's undeniable
that a DSLR produces vastly better picture quality. I upgraded from
Olympus 3000 to Canon 20D. It's simply amazing. It's a big expense but
well worth it if you treasure photography. Price/Value is subjective.
People buy expensive cars. People pay through the roof for the privilege
to live in Manhattan. Why do you put your own value and financial
situation on other people?
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 9:53:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

leo <someone@somewhere.net> writes:
> There are lots of people using SLR cameras. I don't know why you say
> there is a deeper learning curve for DSLR, just because it's digital?
> They hves lots more options but they can still be used it as P&S in
> the beginning and one can learn new techniques gradually.

DSLR's are a lot more cumbersome than PS cameras and somewhat more
intimidating to use. You're correct that the total-automation modes
are pretty simple.

> It's undeniable that a DSLR produces vastly better picture
> quality. I upgraded from Olympus 3000 to Canon 20D. It's simply
> amazing.

True. I highly suggest buying an external flash though. Bounce lighting
looks infinitely better than direct flash.

Another thought is to buy a video camera, perhaps to complement the
digicam. That takes care of the whole shutter lag issue.
May 6, 2005 10:37:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xekckq4h6.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
>
> True. I highly suggest buying an external flash though. Bounce lighting
> looks infinitely better than direct flash.

Can you get one for the Olympus P&S?
>
> Another thought is to buy a video camera, perhaps to complement the
> digicam. That takes care of the whole shutter lag
issue.

I have a panasonic video camera that is great so I have that base covered:-)
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 10:37:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pete" <Petethem.@mail.com.> writes:
> > True. I highly suggest buying an external flash though. Bounce lighting
> > looks infinitely better than direct flash.
>
> Can you get one for the Olympus P&S?

Generally speaking, big P/S cameras can use external flash while small
ones cannot. Look for a flash shoe on top of the camera. These days
though, entry level DSLR's encroach on the markets of big P/S's.

I'm not real familiar with the Olympus line any more. I do still have
an Olympus E-100RS, which supports the FL-40 dedicated flash (I don't
know if that's still made). But it seems to me that Canon has P/S's
figured out better than Olympus does. Actually, taking a quick look
at bhphoto.com, the only Olympus model I see with a flash shoe is the
C-770, which looks like a nice camera in other regards too. I think
I'd go with Canon. The Olympus still uses the XD picture card which
seems to be going the way of Smart Media and other dumb formats.

Keep in mind either way that a good dedicated flash made by the camera
maker these days is in the $200+ range, just so you don't fall over
when you price one. You want a nice powerful one that can both bounce
and swivel--pay no attention to the simpler models. There are some
3rd party ones (Sunpak, Sigma, Vivitar) that might cost less.

Take a look at www.lumiquest.com (I think I mentioned this) for some
nice accessories and examples of lighting effects.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 10:53:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:

> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
>> With a baby on the way he probably does not have the money for a dSLR.
>> There is pre-school and college tuition to think about. (I am not
>> exactly sure if that gets a smiley or not.)
>>
>>
> Well, college tuition may be a bit of a long view, but things like
> diapers, and food, and clothes certainly are a factor to most young
> parents. Get an inexpensive P&S camera, and if it isn't up to your
> personal standards, get a DSLR in a couple of years. They will be
> better, and cheaper, then.


OTOH, this may be his last chance to blow some cash on goodies before
getting overwhelmed. DSLRs are a relatively mature technology & priced
within reach now. Because of the high cost of the larger sensors and the
need for a larger sensor for decent quality high ISO shooting, I don't
think they will get much less expensive.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:21:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve <whiteroseofyorkshireNOSPAM@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:

>Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>>Ken Tough wrote:
>>> You may find the shutter lag is a big bugbear, especially when you
>>> try to capture the little blighter smiling. Made me move to a dSLR,
>>> and the pics are a heckofalot better since. (Oly 3040 -> D70)

>>On the newer cameras shutter lag is only slightly longer than a DSLR, in
>>some cases faster than the older ones. The shutter lag on mine is
>>shorter than my reflexes so I guess I am the 'lag'. sigh.

>Define 'newer camera'. Define 'slightly longer'.

The biggest problem is focus time + shutter lag. On the Oly 3040
it's possible to half-press and set exposure and focus, but that's
no good if the subject is moving and you're sitting poised for your
little one to do the thing you want to capture. P&S tend to be
slower on the focus, and are not as easy to set quick manual focus
if your subject isn't moving much.

But, I haven't tried a lot of new cameras, though every one I have
tried still suffers greatly from lag.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:22:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>Well, the camera I had before often gave me trouble with getting the
>picture because of shutter lag. I have yet to miss one with my current
>camera for this reason. The difference may be on the order of a couple
>of tenths of a second. If you need to respond faster than that, perhaps
>you should be shooting movie film at 35 mm and 300FPS.

What is your current camera?

By the way Ron, could you please edit your quoted material, to clip
out all the unnecessary stuff? I always have to page down down down
to see your comments.


--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:36:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Tough wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Well, the camera I had before often gave me trouble with getting the
>>picture because of shutter lag. I have yet to miss one with my current
>>camera for this reason. The difference may be on the order of a couple
>>of tenths of a second. If you need to respond faster than that, perhaps
>>you should be shooting movie film at 35 mm and 300FPS.
>
>
> What is your current camera?
>
> By the way Ron, could you please edit your quoted material, to clip
> out all the unnecessary stuff? I always have to page down down down
> to see your comments.
>
>
No. I barely have time to read and reply. Clipping is a time-consuming
thing. Just press the 'end' key. It's much more economical.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:38:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

leo wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 14:50:44 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:17:07 GMT, "MM" <M@g.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Steve" <whiteroseofyorkshireNOSPAM@postmaster.co.uk> When they
>>>>>> are newborn these
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> factors don't make much difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So a point and shoot like the Olympus would do just as good?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well it may suffice. But a DSLR is always going to give you better
>>>>> performance. This does not just mean higher resolution, better
>>>>> colours etc. it also means less shutter lag, better and faster
>>>>> focusing etc. All these factors enable you to get better pictures.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IF one knows how to use a camera, and IF one has time to learn to
>>>> use the special features of a DSLR, and IF buying one won't strain
>>>> the budget. Lots of ifs. Time will be at a premium for a while, as
>>>> will sleep, and probably money.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What the hell does this lot mean then?
>>
>>
>> Look at the subject, and read the previous messages. I am sure you
>> will figure it out, eventually.
>
>
>
> There are lots of people using SLR cameras. I don't know why you say
> there is a deeper learning curve for DSLR, just because it's digital?
> They hves lots more options but they can still be used it as P&S in the
> beginning and one can learn new techniques gradually. It's undeniable
> that a DSLR produces vastly better picture quality. I upgraded from
> Olympus 3000 to Canon 20D. It's simply amazing. It's a big expense but
> well worth it if you treasure photography. Price/Value is subjective.
> People buy expensive cars. People pay through the roof for the privilege
> to live in Manhattan. Why do you put your own value and financial
> situation on other people?
In the hands of a person who knows how to use it, and is competent, a
DSLR will make better pictures than an average P&S camera. In the hands
of a novice, I doubt you will see much improvement. Certainly not
enough to merit spending money on the camera, rather than on more
practical things.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:39:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pete wrote:
> "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
> news:7xekckq4h6.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
>
>>True. I highly suggest buying an external flash though. Bounce lighting
>>looks infinitely better than direct flash.
>
>
> Can you get one for the Olympus P&S?
>
>>Another thought is to buy a video camera, perhaps to complement the
>>digicam. That takes care of the whole shutter lag
>
> issue.
>
> I have a panasonic video camera that is great so I have that base covered:-)
>
>
High end P&S cameras often have either a plug for an external flash, or
a 'hotshoe' to attach one to the camera.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:42:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Tough wrote:
> Steve <whiteroseofyorkshireNOSPAM@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>>
>>>Ken Tough wrote:
>>>
>>>>You may find the shutter lag is a big bugbear, especially when you
>>>>try to capture the little blighter smiling. Made me move to a dSLR,
>>>>and the pics are a heckofalot better since. (Oly 3040 -> D70)
>
>
>>>On the newer cameras shutter lag is only slightly longer than a DSLR, in
>>>some cases faster than the older ones. The shutter lag on mine is
>>>shorter than my reflexes so I guess I am the 'lag'. sigh.
>
>
>>Define 'newer camera'. Define 'slightly longer'.
>
>
> The biggest problem is focus time + shutter lag. On the Oly 3040
> it's possible to half-press and set exposure and focus, but that's
> no good if the subject is moving and you're sitting poised for your
> little one to do the thing you want to capture. P&S tend to be
> slower on the focus, and are not as easy to set quick manual focus
> if your subject isn't moving much.
>
> But, I haven't tried a lot of new cameras, though every one I have
> tried still suffers greatly from lag.
>
You might check the specs for the Kodak DX7590, and the new Ricoh
camera. I forgot the model number. Both have good specs for shutter
lag. I suffered much from shutter lag on my old camera, never have had
a problem with it on my newer one. A lot depends on what you
photograph, and how you go about it.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 9:17:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Apparently Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>Ken Tough wrote:
>> By the way Ron, could you please edit your quoted material, to clip
>> out all the unnecessary stuff? I always have to page down down down
>> to see your comments.
>>
>>
>No. I barely have time to read and reply. Clipping is a time-consuming
>thing. Just press the 'end' key. It's much more economical.

'Next' (message) is even easier.

--
Ken Tough
May 7, 2005 12:20:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 06 May 2005 00:15:48 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Steve wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 May 2005 14:50:44 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:17:07 GMT, "MM" <M@g.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Steve" <whiteroseofyorkshireNOSPAM@postmaster.co.uk> When they are newborn
>>>>>these
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>factors don't make much difference.
>>>>>
>>>>>So a point and shoot like the Olympus would do just as good?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well it may suffice. But a DSLR is always going to give you better
>>>>performance. This does not just mean higher resolution, better
>>>>colours etc. it also means less shutter lag, better and faster
>>>>focusing etc. All these factors enable you to get better pictures.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>IF one knows how to use a camera, and IF one has time to learn to use
>>>the special features of a DSLR, and IF buying one won't strain the
>>>budget. Lots of ifs. Time will be at a premium for a while, as will
>>>sleep, and probably money.
>>
>>
>> What the hell does this lot mean then?
>Look at the subject, and read the previous messages. I am sure you will
>figure it out, eventually.


Sorry still none the wiser. Your post doesn't make sense. Maybe it's
just to cryptic for me I don't know, after all, i'm just a humble
photographer.

You see I don't understand how time, sleep and money will be at a
premium IF the things you speak of take place.

I just don't get it. Sorry. I'd love you to explain it in plain
english but I suppose you think you're above that. Oh how judgemntal
of me please forgive me.

Now - IF you'll excuse me i'm off to take some photos of my Son
running round the garden like a raving loony with my DSLR.
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 1:33:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve" <whiteroseofyorkshireNOSPAM@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3dgn71pdbpm8ev3fnm179ta4hcfk506jcj@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>Well it may suffice. But a DSLR is always going to give you better
>>>>>performance. This does not just mean higher resolution, better
>>>>>colours etc. it also means less shutter lag, better and faster
>>>>>focusing etc. All these factors enable you to get better pictures.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>IF one knows how to use a camera, and IF one has time to learn to use
>>>>the special features of a DSLR, and IF buying one won't strain the
>>>>budget. Lots of ifs. Time will be at a premium for a while, as will
>>>>sleep, and probably money.
>>>
>>>
>>> What the hell does this lot mean then?
>>Look at the subject, and read the previous messages. I am sure you will
>>figure it out, eventually.
>
>
> Sorry still none the wiser. Your post doesn't make sense. Maybe it's
> just to cryptic for me I don't know, after all, i'm just a humble
> photographer.
>
> You see I don't understand how time, sleep and money will be at a
> premium IF the things you speak of take place.
>
> I just don't get it. Sorry. I'd love you to explain it in plain
> english but I suppose you think you're above that. Oh how judgemntal
> of me please forgive me.
>
> Now - IF you'll excuse me i'm off to take some photos of my Son
> running round the garden like a raving loony with my DSLR.

My $0.02

Kids are notoriously difficult to photograh anyway due to their constant
movement and short attention spans. A dSLR gets more "keepers" due to the
faster focussing, lower shutter lage etc, etc...

Plus the pictures look better. (Comparing my Nikon D70 to my wife's Canon
digital Ixus whatever-the-latest-model-number-is)

If you expect to be taking lots of kid photos in the next few years and the
cost and size is not an issue, buy a dSLR package (the kit lens will be fine
for almost all kid pics)
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 1:43:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>
>>> With a baby on the way he probably does not have the money for a dSLR.
>>> There is pre-school and college tuition to think about. (I am not
>>> exactly sure if that gets a smiley or not.)
>>>
>>>
>> Well, college tuition may be a bit of a long view, but things like
>> diapers, and food, and clothes certainly are a factor to most young
>> parents. Get an inexpensive P&S camera, and if it isn't up to your
>> personal standards, get a DSLR in a couple of years. They will be
>> better, and cheaper, then.
>
>
>
> OTOH, this may be his last chance to blow some cash on goodies before
> getting overwhelmed. DSLRs are a relatively mature technology & priced
> within reach now. Because of the high cost of the larger sensors and the
> need for a larger sensor for decent quality high ISO shooting, I don't
> think they will get much less expensive.
>
>
Electronics items ALWAYS get better, and cheaper. Name something in the
area that hasn't.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 1:43:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Tough wrote:
> Apparently Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Ken Tough wrote:
>>
>>>By the way Ron, could you please edit your quoted material, to clip
>>>out all the unnecessary stuff? I always have to page down down down
>>>to see your comments.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No. I barely have time to read and reply. Clipping is a time-consuming
>>thing. Just press the 'end' key. It's much more economical.
>
>
> 'Next' (message) is even easier.
>
Feel free. Or you can add my name to your killfile, and save that
trouble too.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 1:46:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve wrote:
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 00:15:48 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 14:50:44 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Steve wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 03:17:07 GMT, "MM" <M@g.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Steve" <whiteroseofyorkshireNOSPAM@postmaster.co.uk> When they are newborn
>>>>>>these
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>factors don't make much difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So a point and shoot like the Olympus would do just as good?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well it may suffice. But a DSLR is always going to give you better
>>>>>performance. This does not just mean higher resolution, better
>>>>>colours etc. it also means less shutter lag, better and faster
>>>>>focusing etc. All these factors enable you to get better pictures.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>IF one knows how to use a camera, and IF one has time to learn to use
>>>>the special features of a DSLR, and IF buying one won't strain the
>>>>budget. Lots of ifs. Time will be at a premium for a while, as will
>>>>sleep, and probably money.
>>>
>>>
>>>What the hell does this lot mean then?
>>
>>Look at the subject, and read the previous messages. I am sure you will
>>figure it out, eventually.
>
>
>
> Sorry still none the wiser. Your post doesn't make sense. Maybe it's
> just to cryptic for me I don't know, after all, i'm just a humble
> photographer.
>
> You see I don't understand how time, sleep and money will be at a
> premium IF the things you speak of take place.
>
> I just don't get it. Sorry. I'd love you to explain it in plain
> english but I suppose you think you're above that. Oh how judgemntal
> of me please forgive me.
>
> Now - IF you'll excuse me i'm off to take some photos of my Son
> running round the garden like a raving loony with my DSLR.
>
>
Never been a house with a new baby, have you? Or are you one of those
guys who sleeps through the noise and lets your wife do everything with
the baby? Does she also have to earn the money for the diapers, and
other necessities for a baby? That way, you can spend the money on a
DSLR, and just take pictures of the baby.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
May 7, 2005 1:02:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 6 May 2005 21:33:40 +0100, "adm" <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>
>"Steve" <whiteroseofyorkshireNOSPAM@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3dgn71pdbpm8ev3fnm179ta4hcfk506jcj@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well it may suffice. But a DSLR is always going to give you better
>>>>>>performance. This does not just mean higher resolution, better
>>>>>>colours etc. it also means less shutter lag, better and faster
>>>>>>focusing etc. All these factors enable you to get better pictures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>IF one knows how to use a camera, and IF one has time to learn to use
>>>>>the special features of a DSLR, and IF buying one won't strain the
>>>>>budget. Lots of ifs. Time will be at a premium for a while, as will
>>>>>sleep, and probably money.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What the hell does this lot mean then?
>>>Look at the subject, and read the previous messages. I am sure you will
>>>figure it out, eventually.
>>
>>
>> Sorry still none the wiser. Your post doesn't make sense. Maybe it's
>> just to cryptic for me I don't know, after all, i'm just a humble
>> photographer.
>>
>> You see I don't understand how time, sleep and money will be at a
>> premium IF the things you speak of take place.
>>
>> I just don't get it. Sorry. I'd love you to explain it in plain
>> english but I suppose you think you're above that. Oh how judgemntal
>> of me please forgive me.
>>
>> Now - IF you'll excuse me i'm off to take some photos of my Son
>> running round the garden like a raving loony with my DSLR.
>
>My $0.02
>
>Kids are notoriously difficult to photograh anyway due to their constant
>movement and short attention spans. A dSLR gets more "keepers" due to the
>faster focussing, lower shutter lage etc, etc...
>
>Plus the pictures look better. (Comparing my Nikon D70 to my wife's Canon
>digital Ixus whatever-the-latest-model-number-is)
>
>If you expect to be taking lots of kid photos in the next few years and the
>cost and size is not an issue, buy a dSLR package (the kit lens will be fine
>for almost all kid pics)
>
Precisely what i'm trying to say. It's such a relief we're on the
same wavelength.
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 1:19:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2005 21:33:40 +0100, "adm" <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>>"Steve" <whiteroseofyorkshireNOSPAM@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:3dgn71pdbpm8ev3fnm179ta4hcfk506jcj@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>>>>Well it may suffice. But a DSLR is always going to give you better
>>>>>>>performance. This does not just mean higher resolution, better
>>>>>>>colours etc. it also means less shutter lag, better and faster
>>>>>>>focusing etc. All these factors enable you to get better pictures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>IF one knows how to use a camera, and IF one has time to learn to use
>>>>>>the special features of a DSLR, and IF buying one won't strain the
>>>>>>budget. Lots of ifs. Time will be at a premium for a while, as will
>>>>>>sleep, and probably money.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What the hell does this lot mean then?
>>>>
>>>>Look at the subject, and read the previous messages. I am sure you will
>>>>figure it out, eventually.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry still none the wiser. Your post doesn't make sense. Maybe it's
>>>just to cryptic for me I don't know, after all, i'm just a humble
>>>photographer.
>>>
>>>You see I don't understand how time, sleep and money will be at a
>>>premium IF the things you speak of take place.
>>>
>>>I just don't get it. Sorry. I'd love you to explain it in plain
>>>english but I suppose you think you're above that. Oh how judgemntal
>>>of me please forgive me.
>>>
>>>Now - IF you'll excuse me i'm off to take some photos of my Son
>>>running round the garden like a raving loony with my DSLR.
>>
>>My $0.02
>>
>>Kids are notoriously difficult to photograh anyway due to their constant
>>movement and short attention spans. A dSLR gets more "keepers" due to the
>>faster focussing, lower shutter lage etc, etc...
>>
>>Plus the pictures look better. (Comparing my Nikon D70 to my wife's Canon
>>digital Ixus whatever-the-latest-model-number-is)
>>
>>If you expect to be taking lots of kid photos in the next few years and the
>>cost and size is not an issue, buy a dSLR package (the kit lens will be fine
>>for almost all kid pics)
>>
>
> Precisely what i'm trying to say. It's such a relief we're on the
> same wavelength.

The key phrase "and the cost and size are not an issue" is the important
aspect. Sure, if you have the money, and the size of a DSLR isn't
something that influences you, go for it. Better yet, buy a full size
view camera, and a few tens of thousands of dollars worth of ancillary
equipment, make over a room in the house for a darkroom, and make REALLY
nice pictures of the baby. I'll bet your wife would just LOVE them....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 2:59:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>Ken Tough wrote:
>>>>By the way Ron, could you please edit your quoted material, to clip
>>>>out all the unnecessary stuff? I always have to page down down down
>>>>to see your comments.

>>>No. I barely have time to read and reply. Clipping is a time-consuming
>>>thing. Just press the 'end' key. It's much more economical.
>> 'Next' (message) is even easier.

>Feel free. Or you can add my name to your killfile, and save that
>trouble too.

I have nothing against you or your message contents, just the format.
If, like this post, they're easily readable, I will do so. Like you,
I don't have a lot of time to fart around. My newsreader lets me read
by pressing spacebar for next unread, and I can do it all without
moving off the keyboard.

You don't have time to edit when you type, but expect all the many
more readers to do it for you. Not very fair, in my view.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 2:59:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Tough wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Ken Tough wrote:
>>
>>>>>By the way Ron, could you please edit your quoted material, to clip
>>>>>out all the unnecessary stuff? I always have to page down down down
>>>>>to see your comments.
>
>
>>>>No. I barely have time to read and reply. Clipping is a time-consuming
>>>>thing. Just press the 'end' key. It's much more economical.
>>>
>>>'Next' (message) is even easier.
>
>
>>Feel free. Or you can add my name to your killfile, and save that
>>trouble too.
>
>
> I have nothing against you or your message contents, just the format.
> If, like this post, they're easily readable, I will do so. Like you,
> I don't have a lot of time to fart around. My newsreader lets me read
> by pressing spacebar for next unread, and I can do it all without
> moving off the keyboard.
>
> You don't have time to edit when you type, but expect all the many
> more readers to do it for you. Not very fair, in my view.
>
It takes how long to press 'end' to reach the bottom of a post? My
posts are VERY rarely more in length than a normal display area on a
newsreader, so if you just go to the end, you should see my entire post.
If you will check, you will see that I consistently post in the top
three for the group in number of posts. Consider that I do that for
several different newsgroups and you can get an idea of the total time I
would have to spend editing each post in order to do what you could
accomplish with a single keystroke. So, who is being fair?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 11:21:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pete" <Petethem.@mail.com.> writes:

> I have a Olympus 410mju 4mp camera
> http://www.camerastore.com.au/Olympus+mju+410-details.h...

> with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me
> buying a digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to
> know how much better the pics could be with a camera like an entry
> level D SLR? thanks...

Nope, get a 2nd hand good body with a very good lens. Use real B&W film
and still have photos in 50 years. It is the only way that will last.


--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 2:07:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

prep@prep.synonet.com wrote:
> "Pete" <Petethem.@mail.com.> writes:
>
>
>>I have a Olympus 410mju 4mp camera
>>http://www.camerastore.com.au/Olympus+mju+410-details.h...
>
>
>>with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me
>>buying a digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to
>>know how much better the pics could be with a camera like an entry
>>level D SLR? thanks...
>
>
> Nope, get a 2nd hand good body with a very good lens. Use real B&W film
> and still have photos in 50 years. It is the only way that will last.
>
>
HOGWASH. I have B&W pictures from only 60 years ago that are TERRIBLE.
I have color pictures from only 30 years ago that are fine, and others
that aren't. Much depends on how they are stored. I am quite sure that
my color pictures from yesterday will be quite as good on 100 years as
they are today, stored in digital form. At least I know where they are,
can access any of them in seconds, and I know when they were taken, I
can produce a new print in a couple of minutes, and I don't even have to
leave my house to do it.
Why should I sacrifice 80% of my visual information with B&W when I can
have all of it? You are living in the previous century.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 4:42:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote in message
news:87zmv6vu7l.fsf@prep.synonet.com...
> "Pete" <Petethem.@mail.com.> writes:
>
>> I have a Olympus 410mju 4mp camera
>> http://www.camerastore.com.au/Olympus+mju+410-details.h...
>
>> with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me
>> buying a digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to
>> know how much better the pics could be with a camera like an entry
>> level D SLR? thanks...
>
> Nope, get a 2nd hand good body with a very good lens. Use real B&W film
> and still have photos in 50 years. It is the only way that will last.

What a load of BS. Once you have your photos digitised, there's no reason
they shouldn't be usable at any time in the future. Assuming of course that
you do regularly backup the data.

>
!