 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Point & Shoot Cameras / January 2008DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?
A terrible thing happened over Christmas. A friend lent me a Canon EOS 400D with the kit lens (I think), after my point and shoot (Canon IXUS 800) died two weeks earlier. We still had our old Fuji F10, but it's cripplingly slow to focus indoors, and very prone to over/under exposing subjects with flash, so pretty useless for taking photos of Christmas day! So, in desperation, we accepted the 400D. The cries of "we'll never be able to use that thing" from both myself and my wife were quickly replaced by us both taking photo after photo - far more than we'd ever taken before (and 250 a day is not unusual around Christmas and birthdays). We loved... * the instant and reliable auto focus * the speed of shooting * the speed of recovery * the long manual zoom range (far further at both ends than we were used to) * the "safe" exposure (most shots were slightly dark but could easily be lightened in software - opposite of the blown highlights we often got with our PnS) * the lack of red eye * the quality of the photos * the narrow depth of field on some shots We hated... * after lots of continuous shooting, the flash suddenly needed a very long time to recover, and became very sluggish * having to look through a view finder - I know that's intrinsic to how almost all DSLRs work, but we really missed the live view on the LCD We also missed the Canon Zoom Browser software, which we use to automatically download the photos from the camera, spin them around, and sort them into dated folders. Windows downloaded the photos, Cpicture automatically spun the around, and I sorted them into folders by hand. The supplied lens maybe wasn't pixel sharp, but it was better than what we were used to. So, my question is, if I'm to take the leap into the world of DSLR, what should I consider? I've looked at the Canon 400D and Nikon D40X on dpreview. These reviews don't seem to focus on what I really care about - they didn't mention the fantastic lack of red eye, or the annoying flash recycle time problem with the 400D for example. How am I to learn about these things before buying the camera? I don't want to make an expensive mistake. I can't imagine wanting to change lenses. The idea of exposing the sensor to dust doesn't appeal anyway! I seem to have enough bad luck with cameras as it is. Alternatively, if there's a point-and-shoot which can match the speed and safe exposure of the 400D, and yet still fit in my pocket and show me everything on an LCD, I'd like to hear about it. I was happy with my IXUS 400, back when I didn't know any better, though the high (!) ISO400 was terribly noisy. I hated my Fuji F10 - great reviews, useless camera for what I want it for. Most recently, I was quite happy with the IXUS 800IS, but it only lasted 3 months. It makes me a little wary of buying Canon in the future. Any helpful advice gratefully received! Cheers, David. >A terrible thing happened over Christmas. A friend lent me a Canon EOS > 400D with the kit lens (I think), after my point and shoot (Canon IXUS [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > Cheers, > David. No point and shoot will compare to a dslr for picture quality but they are big and if that doesn't suit then there are plenty of alternatives. The link below will give you everything about canon you want to know. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42034 P.s. The viewfinder is better for getting sharp pictures > No point and shoot will compare to a dslr for picture quality but they are > big and if that doesn't suit then there are plenty of alternatives. The link > below will give you everything about canon you want to know.http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42034 Thanks, fascinating. Lots to read! > P.s. The viewfinder is better for getting sharp pictures Even if I don't plan to focus them myself? Cheers, David. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.] >> No point and shoot will compare to a dslr for picture quality but they are >> big and if that doesn't suit then there are plenty of alternatives. The link >> below will give you everything about canon you want to know.http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42034 > Thanks, fascinating. Lots to read! >> P.s. The viewfinder is better for getting sharp pictures > Even if I don't plan to focus them myself? A viewfinder has no lag. A monitor has the read sensor-interpret- convert-display cycle, which you'll see if you turn with the camera: the monitor lags behind. AF is also faster and more accurate if you do not have to flip up the mirror (there are a very few cameras that have a secondary sensor for life view), because for AF you either have to flip down the mirror again or you have to use contrast based AF (compact camera type) instead of phase shift AF (SLR type). The viewfinder also works when any monitor will only show grain and noise due to a lack of light. -Wolfgang > We hated... > * after lots of continuous shooting, the flash suddenly needed a very > long time to recover, and became very sluggish Until you switch over to one of those flashes that doesn't use batteries, this problem will continue to plague you. That isn't to say that other cameras might not do "better" in this respect, but likely only because of other trade-offs, like less powerful flash and use of higher ISO's, etc. Remember that you said that you shot more images with this camera; are you comparing apples to apples? Off camera flash or a grip that holds an extra battery will help alleviate the problem. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com On 18 Jan, 14:54, "Eric Miller" <millerericnos...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > We hated... > > * after lots of continuous shooting, the flash suddenly needed a very [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > comparing apples to apples? Off camera flash or a grip that holds an extra > battery will help alleviate the problem. Was it really the battery? I was told it was some kind of safety shut- off that prevents the built-in flash from overheating. Certainly I could wait a minute or so (with the camera switched on) and then hammer it again for just as long until it slowed right down. I wasn't noticing the battery indicator - I just replaced it when told to. I know on other cameras the flash gets sluggish as the battery runs down, but my recollection is that this issue happened with a fresh battery, and was no worse 100 shots later. I could be wrong though: the 400D has gone back to its owner now :-(. Cheers, David. > On 18 Jan, 14:54, "Eric Miller" <millerericnos...@bellsouth.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Cheers, > David. I don't know if it's the case with that particular flash unit, but some have a capacitor that can hold enough charge for several flashes (how many, depending in how much power is used for each flash, which varies with most modern automatic systems). That means that the flash can be ready for the next shot very quickly - but if you take a lot of shots in rapid succession, the capacitor becomes discharged more quickly than the battery can charge it up again and when that happens you have to wait a bit longer than 'usual' for the 'flash ready' indicator to re-appear. The "Canon EOS 400D" is also known in some parts of the world as the "Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi". This review of it might help you work out which of its features you'd like to have in whatever camera you end up with <http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/rebelxti.html> - that site also has a useful 'compare and buy' tool, and has information about a very large number of cameras. <http://www.dpreview.com/> is a comparable resource. If you regularly use flash a lot, it would be worth considering a seperate flash gun (or guns) and a camera that can be synchronised with the external flash; self-contained flash units tend to have 'more power' in all sorts of ways, than the units built into cameras - and they can give much better lighting too.  Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ > I don't know if it's the case with that particular flash unit, but some > have a capacitor that can hold enough charge for several flashes (how [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > battery can charge it up again and when that happens you have to wait a > bit longer than 'usual' for the 'flash ready' indicator to re-appear. It is not just that. Flash strobes will also overheat if you take too many pictures in quick succession. Recycle times become longer to keep you from damaging the flash. So sometimes just letting it cool for a few minutes is all you need to do. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >> I don't know if it's the case with that particular flash unit, but some >> have a capacitor that can hold enough charge for several flashes (how [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > damaging the flash. So sometimes just letting it cool for a few minutes is > all you need to do. Last year I think I smoked a cap on an old thyristor Vivitar. I didn't see the magic smoke, but I sure smelled it. It's still in use, though -- AC operation wasn't affected. SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Blinky: http://blinkynet.net > A terrible thing happened over Christmas. A friend lent me a Canon EOS > 400D with the kit lens (I think), after my point and shoot (Canon IXUS [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > * the long manual zoom range (far further at both ends than we were > used to) Do you really need zoom for family photos though? The reason I ask is a fixed length fast 'prime' lens is really ideal for kids & indoor family shooting: you can shoot without any flash at all and capture the ambiance much better and you can get a faster shutter speed for herky-jerky little kids. Stuff like this: http://edgehill.net/Misc/misc-photos/nick/pg3pc13 > * the "safe" exposure (most shots were slightly dark but could easily > be lightened in software - opposite of the blown highlights we often [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Cheers, > David. > Do you really need zoom for family photos though? It seemed very useful, but I don't know. The idea of changing lenses worries me - I'd break something. > The reason I ask is a > fixed length fast 'prime' lens is really ideal for kids & indoor family > shooting: you can shoot without any flash at all and capture the > ambiance much better and you can get a faster shutter speed for > herky-jerky little kids. > Stuff like this:http://edgehill.net/Misc/misc-photos/nick/pg3pc13 This is something I'm interested in. Let's say a given amount of light (indoors, night, normal-ish lighting) meant the zoom lens needed ISO 1600 and 1/100th. I have no idea what aperture. The result would be noisy, of course. What ISO could I come down to with a fast fixed length lens, still at 1/100th, for a comparably bright picture, with hopefully much less noise? Thanks for the help. Cheers, David. >> Do you really need zoom for family photos though? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > length lens, still at 1/100th, for a comparably bright picture, with > hopefully much less noise? Those shots have the shooting data below each. The linked shot is 1/40 second f/1.2 (crazy fast lens) ISO 400. A kit lens is probably f/3.5 at the wide end. You can get f/2.8 fixed length (or zoom for high price) and that's about a half a stop. A stop is a doubling for shutter speed & ISO, so ISO 1600 one stop relieved is ISO 800 & a half stop is ISO 1200. OK lets make it simpler, assume the kit lens at f/4 not quite zoomed out all the way, here's a chart of full aperture stops (strange math): f/5.6 1/100 ISO 3200 f/4 1/100 ISO 1600 f/2 1/100 ISO 800 f/1.4 1/100 ISO 400 But for indoor light bulbs only, you'll probably struggle to get 1/30 second unless you have really bright lightbulbs: f/5.6 1/30 ISO 6400 f/4 1/30 ISO 3200 f/2 1/30 ISO 1600 f/1.4 1/30 ISO 800 or: f/1.4 1/60 ISO 1600 You could get a 35mm f/2 autofocus for a Nikon D80 ($320 lens): http://www.adorama.com/NK352AFDU.html?sid=1200677506434282 Or a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for $390 which would work on a D40, Canon, etc. but it's a fairly bulky lens. For those, I used mostly manual focus versions on a D200 which probably wouldn't interest you: 20mm f/2.8 (autofocus), 28mm f/2, 35mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2 More examples: http://edgehill.net/Southwest/12-21-07-az/12-22-07-huddlestons/pg2pc6 ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.] >> Do you really need zoom for family photos though? > It seemed very useful, but I don't know. The idea of changing lenses > worries me - I'd break something. Unless you are in the habit of dropping your Ixus, you won't. It's _build_ to be used. >> The reason I ask is a >> fixed length fast 'prime' lens is really ideal for kids & indoor family >> shooting: you can shoot without any flash at all and capture the >> ambiance much better and you can get a faster shutter speed for >> herky-jerky little kids. > This is something I'm interested in. Let's say a given amount of light > (indoors, night, normal-ish lighting) meant the zoom lens needed ISO > 1600 and 1/100th. I have no idea what aperture. The zoom lens would probably have ca. f/4 (short end) or f/5.6 (towards long end) as fastest aperture. > The result would be > noisy, of course. What ISO could I come down to with a fast fixed > length lens, still at 1/100th, for a comparably bright picture, with > hopefully much less noise? If the lens is f/2.0 or better (e.g. Canon 50mm f/1.8, ~ USD100 IIRC, optically sound but all plastics), ISO 400 or ISO 200. If the lens is f1.4 or better (e.g. Canon 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, ...), ISO 200 or ISO 100. -Wolfgang David, I shoot my cousins often, and I couldn't imagine doing so with a point and shoot. If you liked the DSLR just for Christmas, you'll grow to love one after just two weeks of use. Make the investment. The 400D and D40x are wonderful choices, but I'd look at other options, namely from Sony and Pentax. I wouldn't necessarily recommend these options if you were planning on buying into a system, but if you're looking to buy a camera and lens to use for the next five or so years without expanding your system, these options will do fine for your needs. The advantage of these brands is that their cameras are including in-camera shake reduction which will help you shoot indoors without a flash at lower ISOs. I'd look at the Sony A100 / Pentax K100D if you don't need to print bigger than 8x10 and will mostly print at 4x6. If you feel you need the ability to print bigger, look at the new A200 or the (likely to be released soon) K200D. Whichever of the four systems you buy into, I'd skip the kit lens. If you need a zoom, I'd stick to the 18-70 for Nikon, the 17-85 IS for Canon, the 16-45 for Pentax, or the Zeiss 16-80 for Sony (that last one is a bit pricey, but a great lens). If I were you, though, I'd seriously think about how often you're shooting at the wide end of what you're used to and wonder if you could have stepped backwards instead. Similarly, how often have you been zoomed all the way in and not been able to just walk closer? If the answer is "not very often" then you should really look into a 28mm or 35mm prime lens. The pictures I get of my cousins using my Canon 28mm 1.8 lens wide open, without a flash, are better than I'd ever be able to get with any zoom lens, no matter how nice. It could be too limiting for your needs, but shooting in and around the house, as well as duing outings, usually doesn't need more than that fixed length, and soon you won't miss the zoom because the pictures are so good. If not, the four zooms I listed are all pretty great and pretty reasonably priced, and especially with built-in shake reduction (or the Canon 17-85 included in-lens anti shake), will get everything you want. But make the jump to DSLR. You won't look back. Everything you loved will be present with any of these cameras (and with a prime, that narrow depth of field will be very easy to achieve), and in most cases you won't need that flash, so that eliminates one of your two problems. As for live view... you'll get over wanting that. Will >snip< > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > years without expanding your system, these options will do fine for > your needs. Is that even possible? I can't imagine anyone owning a DSLR for five years without ever lusting for a new lens... dwight (now with No. 3 - the 100mm macro) Canon 400D (rebel xti) with kit 18-55mm lens and buy a 50mm 1.8 (430ex flash if you want.) Will kill any P&S for quality and is a budget choice for DSLR's > Any helpful advice gratefully received! It really depends on your uses. I started out with a point and shoot 5 years ago and still use the camera. It is light and fits into the pocket. I use it where I don't want to lug around an SLR. I've had DSLR cameras for several years (latest is the Nikon D200). I use them for kids and pets and shots where I want quality, quick response, etc etc. For example, for Christmas opening presents the DSLR is a must. My old point and shoot seems to take for ever to take a picture...it is the classic Open the present, hold it up, hold the fake surprised/pleased look for an eternity etc etc Get the best camera your budget will allow with a lens. Later add another lens. One thought however....you say your point and shoot was broken or died. Was it something you did? Did you drop it or something? Or did it just fail? Just something to consider before putting a large amount of money into a new camera > We hated... > * after lots of continuous shooting, the flash suddenly needed a very > long time to recover, and became very sluggish Several things possible here: 1) The battery is running down. 2) You have discharged the capacitor so much that it is taking longer to recycle. 3) You have taken so many flash pictures in quick succession that the circuitry is overheating and the recycling time is taking longer in order to allow the unit to cool off. > * having to look through a view finder - I know that's intrinsic to > how almost all DSLRs work, but we really missed the live view on the > LCD Yeah, but your shots are steadier if you hold the camera to your face. You get better pictures if you are using the viewfinder, so that should be your preferred method. Also, that live view introduces a delay as the camera has to process the picture. For example, on the Nikon D300, which has Live View, you press the shutter to raise the mirror and turn on Live View, then press it again to lower the mirror and hold the shutter down until the picture is taken. It takes almost twice as long to take picture with Live View turned on as it does with it off. Nevertheless, live view has its uses, such as when you have the camera on the floor and you don't want to lie down there with it, or when the camera is on a tripod. The D40x and some other cameras are on close-out right now. That is why they are so cheap. Wait a few weeks -- the manufacturers will probably announce new DSLRs at PMA. I would bet we will see some new Nikon and Canon DSLRs that are small, light, and feature live preview. > I can't imagine wanting to change lenses. The idea of exposing the > sensor to dust doesn't appeal anyway! I seem to have enough bad luck > with cameras as it is. That problem is overblown. And almost all the new cameras coming out have some sort of sensor dust control that works with varying degrees of success. > Alternatively, if there's a point-and-shoot which can match the speed > and safe exposure of the 400D, and yet still fit in my pocket and show > me everything on an LCD, I'd like to hear about it. So would I. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > So, my question is, if I'm to take the leap into the world of DSLR, > what should I consider? I've looked at the Canon 400D and Nikon D40X > on dpreview. These reviews don't seem to focus on what I really care > about - they didn't mention the fantastic lack of red eye, or the Red-eye is far less likely to be a problem with any DSLR because the pop-up flash is much farther away from the lens axis. That's what causes red-eye: the flash is too close to the lens axis, which is usually unavoidable with compact cameras because of their small size. So practically all compacts require some sort of red-eye fix, either in the camera or done later in software. DSLRs not only have the advantage of the built-in flash being farther away from the lens axis, but also have provision for mounting an external flash which is better still, in that and several other respects. Most compact cameras don't have the hot shoe for an external flash so you're pretty much stuck with the red-eye problem. > annoying flash recycle time problem with the 400D for example. How am > I to learn about these things before buying the camera? I don't want > to make an expensive mistake. My Nikon DSLRs haven't given me any problem with long recycle times the relatively few times I've used the built-in flash. But it's very possible I just haven't taken as many flash shots that way as you were doing. You had probably run down the camera battery to a considerable degree. Mostly I use an external flash anyway, which saves the camera battery as well as having many other advantages -- more power, fast recycle time, tilt and swivel for bounce light, and a lot of other features. > I can't imagine wanting to change lenses. The idea of exposing the > sensor to dust doesn't appeal anyway! I seem to have enough bad luck > with cameras as it is. That's nothing to be concerned about at first anyway. Later on, you may or may not want to buy one or more other lenses. Many 35mm SLR owners never bought any other lens than the one the camera came with, and I suppose DSLR users may be much the same. Think of it as an option that's there for you if you should want to expand your hobby that way in the future, but not something you're obliged to do. > Alternatively, if there's a point-and-shoot which can match the speed > and safe exposure of the 400D, and yet still fit in my pocket and show > me everything on an LCD, I'd like to hear about it. I doubt very much you'll ever find a point-and-shoot that will give you overall results equal to a DSLR. I have three Nikon DSLRs and several Nikon Coolpix compact cameras, and I love them all -- some of the Coolpixes are much too large to be pocketable and were originally quite expensive, too -- but the DSLRs are just an entirely different breed of cat. I'd go for the D40 or D40x if I were you. (Of course as one of the Nikon faithful I would say that, but one of my DSLRs is a D40 and I really love it. And its kit lens is generally regarded as much superior to Canon's equivalent product.) Neil |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.