DSLR for "full auto" shooting of kids? or Point-and-shoot?

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
2Bdecided wrote:
On 18 Jan, 16:45, Paul Furman wrote:

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

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
2Bdecided wrote:
On 18 Jan, 13:09, "Allowa" . wrote:

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/...ad.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

2Bdecided wrote:

We hated...
* after lots of continuous shooting, the flash suddenly needed a very
long time to recover, and became very sluggish

Try an external flash (or, if you want to go all out, several
units, remote controlled from the master on the camera). Try
indirect flash (flash directed at the ceiling or walls), it
looks 10 times better than just direct flash[1]

* 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

You'll get used to it.

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.

There are many other tools that can do that --- and
personally, I use a card reader, worth USD10, much faster
than the camera.

The supplied lens maybe wasn't pixel sharp, but it was better than
what we were used to.

Almost all fixed focal length lenses beat almost all
zooms in image quality.

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.

Both are OK.

These reviews don't seem to focus on what I really care
about - they didn't mention the fantastic lack of red eye,

With an external flash, that's even much better --- and with
indirect flash, there's sort of no chance of a problem.

But generally, you shouldn't have to worry much.

or the
annoying flash recycle time problem with the 400D for example.

Here also an external unit may help.

How am I to learn about these things before buying the camera? I don't
want to make an expensive mistake.

Ask your local dealer. Try the camera out. Rent the camera
first. So many ways.

I can't imagine wanting to change lenses. The idea of exposing the
sensor to dust doesn't appeal anyway!

Dust is a minor problem --- and any lens that extends in length
has to move air in and out, so you expose the sensor anyway.
Do not worry over dust, worry about dropping the camera.
Always put the strap round your neck.

I have had my camera for 3 years, I change lenses whenever I use
the camera, I am not really careful about dust. I have had to
blow out some dust maybe 4 times, and had to do one wet cleaning.
Counting all the times together, that's maybe 2 or 3 hours and
no problems.

Alternatively, if there's a point-and-shoot which can match the speed

None.

and safe exposure

You can always set the exposure control to -1/3 or -2/3rds or
a stop.

of the 400D, and yet still fit in my pocket and show
me everything on an LCD, I'd like to hear about it.

You'd be back to red eyes.

-Wolfgang

[1] You can add some direct flash light to e.g. get that reflecting
'gleam' into the eye --- that works even with a single flash
unit if you point it at the ceiling and have a small bit of
paper (or an inbuild reflector) reflect a small part of the
light directly from the flash.

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

The viewfinder also works when any monitor will only show grain
and noise due to a lack of light.

Actually live view is nice in the dark, it brightens things up.

Paul Furman wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

The viewfinder also works when any monitor will only show grain
and noise due to a lack of light.

Actually live view is nice in the dark, it brightens things up.

Try that at LV 0 or LV -5 or less ...

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

The viewfinder also works when any monitor will only show grain
and noise due to a lack of light.

Actually live view is nice in the dark, it brightens things up.

Try that at LV 0 or LV -5 or less ...

I have an awfully hard time focusing in the dark with an optical viewfinder.

Paul Furman wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

The viewfinder also works when any monitor will only show grain
and noise due to a lack of light.

Actually live view is nice in the dark, it brightens things up.

Try that at LV 0 or LV -5 or less ...

I have an awfully hard time focusing in the dark with an optical viewfinder.

But no problems at all on a black live view with nothing but
grain on it, right?

-Wolfgang