I doubt that. He'll really want to take photographs in low artificial
light for which ISO 1600 at f/5.6 isn't really enough. From
experience, ISO 1600 and f/1.8 is barely enough in some situations
like this. Of course, if he decides he only wants to take photos of
the baby outside during the day, he could also use a p&s, but I
guarantee he'll change his mind very quickly.

The basic lens is very slow. I suggest you also get a 50mm f/1.8. This
will allow, for example, a shot at 1/80s where the kit lens would need
1/10s (at 55mm, both the Canon and Nikon 18-55 are f/5.6; I just
checked).  At around 50mm, 1/80s is easily handholdable, 1/10s is
impossible to handhold. The 50mm f/1.8 lenses are quite cheap.

Correct.

If budget isn't a problem get a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens. Verify whether it
will autofocus on a D40, no problem on a D50 or Canon. The kit lenses
will all be too slow to get good images in low light. You really do not
need a zoom lens, only the very expensive zooms are reasonably fast and
with a normal field of view you can capture most anything for family
shots. A 28mm f/2.8 lens is a reasonable compromise for about the same
price for either Canon or Nikon and might be a little more compact than
the Sigma.

The ISO number specifies the light-sensitivity of the camera's sensor. The
higher the ISO number, the less light the camera needs to get a correctly
exposed photo. The lower the ISO number, the more light the camera needs BUT
the cleaner the images are. A high ISO number invariably means more image
noise, ie coloured speckles where there should be a uniform colour. The
amount of noise varies all the way from "not noticeable" to "utterly
horrendous", depending on camera type and sensor technology, and gets worse
the higher the ISO number. To a large extent it can be dealt with by
post-processing the image on a computer, but the best option is to have as
little of it as possible in the first place. And the best way to do that is
to feed the sensor enough light to begin with.

You can increase the amount of light reaching the sensor by opening up the
aperture of the camera lens (but there is a hard limit on how far you can
go, this is built-in to the lens) or by increasing the shutter times (but
there is a pretty hard limit on how long you can hold the camera steady, AND
on how long the subject will remain motionless... for a child this is best
measured in nanoseconds) or by using a flash (but effective flash use is an
art unto itself; nothing is easier than taking a really crappy flash-lit
photo). Some cameras do offer "image stabilization" of various kinds, this
allows you to hand-hold the camera steady for longer periods of time and is
an excellent way of getting images of very sharp furniture with very blurry
people.

So - we are usually left with no option but to increase the ISO number to
get the shot.

ISO numbers are linear. ISO 200 needs only half as much light as ISO 100,
ISO 400 needs half as much as ISO 200 and so on.

In film days, the typical consumer film was something like Kodak colour
negative, 400 ISO. This was good enough for general purpose shooting and
gave decent image quality. Nature photographers often used positive,
"slide", film, at ISO 50. This meant that they needed long exposure times to
let in enough light to the film, but gave superiour image quality.
Photo-journalists could use black-and-white negative film, ISO 1600. This
gave pretty crappy image quality with lots and lots of visible film grain
(though good enough for newspaper use) but allowed them to take pictures
anywhere, any time. If you needed a different light sensitivity you had to
change the film in the camera.

In digital cameras the ISO is freely adjustable, within limits. The best
image quality is found at a low ISO number, just like with film. At ISO 100
any digital camera ever released will (or at least: had better) give you
good images with little or no unwanted noise. At ISO 100 you have to have a
lot of light though - think "direct sunlight shining on the subject" here!

On a compact point-and-shoot camera, image quality typically deteriorates
FAST once you select higher ISO numbers. By ISO 400 quality is usually
pretty crappy, ISO 800 is a bad joke.

Digital SLR cameras have much larger image sensors than the
point-and-shoots, anything up to 10 times the size. And when it comes to
image quality at higher ISO numbers, sensor size matters. Any DLSR camera
worth its salt gives excellent image quality at ISO 400 and anything between
"good" and "excellent" at ISO 800. ISO 1600 should be quite useable. Some
even perform decently at ISO 3200. And at ISO 3200 the sensor needs only
1/32 of the light it needs at ISO 100!

For indoors use, in typical indoors lighting without a flash, I find that
ISO 800 is a minimum - and that with a fast (ie. expensive) lens. ISO 1600
is probably a more realistic starting point. And that means a DSLR or
nothing, I am afraid, although some of the new Fuji compacts look promising
in the high-ISO stakes.

From what I have seen Canon DSLR cameras do a better job at high ISO (800
and higher) than Nikon ones, Canon uses a different sensor technology than
everybody else and this seems to be the thing that their sensors excel at. I
must add though that I haven't used anything newer than a Nikon D70 and
newer Nikon models may well be greatly improved in this regard. (Nothing
beats a Canon 5D or 1DsII of course, but you don't even want to consider the
price-tags of those!)

I've got 4 lenses (85mm, 50mm, 35mm & 17-55 zoom) but I tend to decide on a
lens and use it exclusively rather than swapping lenses while I'm out.  I
don't normally even carry a bag for that matter.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

[]

Were I to get a DSLR, a Nikon D40 with the 18 - 200mm VR would indeed be a
tempting option.  But it does cost and weight somewhat more than a non-SLR
camera and is not something you can slip into the trouser pocket.  Both
have their place.  Oh, and you have lost some of the low-light advantage
of the DSLR by choosing an f/5.6 lens.

David

When you buy a dslr with the kitlens you will not be able to take this
difficult pictures either.
(kitlens f4, most decent compacts f2 or f2,8)
If you use the built in flash it will look just as bad.
When you know how to use the compact is will give you decent pictures.
Use things like pre-focus, fixed iso and fixed aperture and exposure lock.
That will give you a lot of extra speed. (the cam doesn't need to calculate
the whole bunch in this way)
I use both. The most important thing is to know you're gear and especially
the -im-possibilities.
If you know anything about it. Try it and you will see the difference.