Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Never had a DSLR before....

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
June 30, 2005 2:44:04 AM

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

so which one would you buy as an entry level one to take photos of my new
baby girl?
I have a P&S now 4mp 3xzoom which does the job but am wondering if I can get
better.

More about : dslr

Anonymous
June 30, 2005 2:44:05 AM

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

"Peter" <pt@wellbo.com.> wrote in message
news:UuFwe.9732$oJ.8716@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> so which one would you buy as an entry level one to take photos of my new
> baby girl?
> I have a P&S now 4mp 3xzoom which does the job but am wondering if I can
> get
> better.

If you are on a budget, look into a used 300D. They are going rather cheap
now and are a great value! Of course, be careful who you buy from.
June 30, 2005 2:44:05 AM

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

Peter wrote:

> so which one would you buy as an entry level one to take photos of my new
> baby girl?
> I have a P&S now 4mp 3xzoom which does the job but am wondering if I can
> get better.

The main advantage is this use is the lack of shutter lag.

Go try out a few, see which feel good and ask for some sample prints. Then
consider things like high ISO noise performance and the sensor dust issues
ect then decide for yourself which features are important to you. What some
one else feels is a deal breaker (like a certain brand doesn't have dozens
of lenses avalible) might not be an issue you even care about, a good kit
lens might be much more important factor if you don't plan on buying extra
ones anyway. No model or brand is perfect nor the "best" for every user.
--

Stacey
Related resources
June 30, 2005 2:44:06 AM

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

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:54:28 -0400, "Charles Schuler"
<charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Peter" <pt@wellbo.com.> wrote in message
>news:UuFwe.9732$oJ.8716@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> so which one would you buy as an entry level one to take photos of my new
>> baby girl?
>> I have a P&S now 4mp 3xzoom which does the job but am wondering if I can
>> get
>> better.
>
>If you are on a budget, look into a used 300D. They are going rather cheap
>now and are a great value! Of course, be careful who you buy from.
>


Knowing what I know about raising babies and cameras, I think the
point and shoot will work best for you. Of course the dslr is more
capable but usually the point and shoot camera is quicker to snap a
picture and usually babies don't lie still long unless they are
asleep. I would also recommend a camcorder regardless of what camera
you choose.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 3:52:14 AM

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

"Peter" <pt@wellbo.com.> wrote in message
news:UuFwe.9732$oJ.8716@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> so which one would you buy as an entry level one to take photos of my new
> baby girl?
> I have a P&S now 4mp 3xzoom which does the job but am wondering if I can
get
> better.
>

Lots of compacts do a very good job of baby pics - so you may be better save
your cash to pay for her college education. A DSLR will do a better job in
that you can catch the moment so much better. I use a Canon 350D and am very
pleased with it - someone will be along soon to tell you how they like their
Nikon/Pentax ...

John
June 30, 2005 6:05:55 AM

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

> Knowing what I know about raising babies and cameras, I think the
> point and shoot will work best for you.

> capable but usually the point and shoot camera is quicker to snap a
> picture and usually babies don't lie still long unless they are
> asleep. <snip>


My experience with a baby was quite the opposite. In fact, having a
never-still baby was a very large factor in my purchasing of a DSLR in
the first place. A year later, I have 1,000 more reasons to prefer it.

Point and shoots take forever to focus on anything. Since focus logic
is contrast based, a moving object poses an even more difficult time for
their focusing because motion means no more static contrast. (I was so
sick of that yellow square which is the camera's way of saying, uh, I
don't know, maybe this?) Sometimes you can pan with the object and the
camera will cope, but a moving animal sometimes leaves you no options.
When you are trying to nail an expression or event, a point and shoot
can frequently present quite a challenge.

A DSLR camera focuses very quickly in comparison, *especially* when
using the in-the-lens motors. When you can concentrate your focus point
on a small dot, or small square, this helps immensly too.

Is the light level getting dimmer? If the answer is yes, then that
point and shoot is going to lose 80% of it's ability to focus unless you
shine a flashlight on the subject (a number I just made up with a
guess). Yes, they have built in illumination for autofocus assist, but
they often miss the mark. In any event they burn more battery. Manual
focus is possible but takes a very very long time to set and you have a
measley little LCD screen to go by. Manual focus with a DSLR is
do-able, but for me is irrelevant due to AF being faster than I am and
more accurate than I am.

I can focus with my DSLR in comparatively very dark circumstances
without any kind of auto focus illumination, which I have disabled
anyway.

Depth of field was another big motivation for me. I think I'm nearly
alone on this, but I don't want the childs face in focus right along
with the wall 9 feet behind. I want sharp facial features and blurry
background objects. Point and shoots, with their small sensors force a
very large depth of field no matter what f-stop you choose.

Battery life; I think I got about 180 or so exposures, typically fewer
shots than would fill a 256 card at 1.5MB each. In comparison, I charge
my DSLR battery about once a month, or every 1000 shots or so. The
onboard speedlight is never used, only an external flash if needed, and
that uses rechargeables which were $1.00 each, and with my usage rates,
last about a month as well.

I prefer my glass viewfinder to those LCD screens. After about 1 day, I
never wanted to go back to an LCD for preview.

When your baby is asleep and you want to take a long 20 second exposure
in that darkened room, the SLR photo yields a lot less digital noise, so
that when you review that picture of your sleeping baby 8 months later,
the absence of the digital noise changes your life. :-)
June 30, 2005 11:59:21 AM

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

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:05:55 GMT, Ryan <quakeserver149@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> Knowing what I know about raising babies and cameras, I think the
>> point and shoot will work best for you.
>
>> capable but usually the point and shoot camera is quicker to snap a
>> picture and usually babies don't lie still long unless they are
>> asleep. <snip>
>
>
>My experience with a baby was quite the opposite. In fact, having a
>never-still baby was a very large factor in my purchasing of a DSLR in
>the first place. A year later, I have 1,000 more reasons to prefer it.
>
>Point and shoots take forever to focus on anything.

You got to be kidding??? Probably depends on the camera.

I will concede that I forgot you could buy a dslr and use it in auto
focus in the beginning of the baby's life and later use it in manual
focus. In that case, maybe a dslr is fine for a baby.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 12:48:25 PM

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

Peter wrote:
> so which one would you buy as an entry level one to take photos of my new
> baby girl?
> I have a P&S now 4mp 3xzoom which does the job but am wondering if I can get
> better.
>
>
>

You may not notice much difference. Photographing children is not a
difficult task, especially if you find the 3X zoom adequate now.

SLRs are most useful in difficult shooting. Macro photography needs the
direct optical viewfinding to set plane of best focus properly. Nature
photography allows use of interchangable lenses to get really long focal
length to shoot wildlife. Many SLRs work better in dim available light.
The SLR is not critical for normal shooting of portraits or small
groups of people.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 4:03:26 PM

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

Rob <?@?.?> wrote:

>Knowing what I know about raising babies and cameras, I think the
>point and shoot will work best for you. Of course the dslr is more
>capable but usually the point and shoot camera is quicker to snap a
>picture and usually babies don't lie still long unless they are
>asleep.

For exactly that reason I found the dSLR to be so much better
(it's usually quicker to switch on, focus and shoot without
the lag of p&s cameras). Having good capability in natural
light is also a bonus.


--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 4:06:06 PM

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

Ryan <quakeserver149@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Depth of field was another big motivation for me.

Agree 100% on everything, and DOF was also a big motivation for me,
but not specifically child-shot related. I found DOF was a bugbear
in all kinds of shooting, but especially so for people-shots.

--
Ken Tough
!