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

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

"wiyum" wrote in message
...

snip

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.

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)

2Bdecided wrote:

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

On 2008-01-18 08:30:46 -0800, Whiskers said:


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.

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.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2008-01-18 02:58:14 -0800, 2Bdecided said:


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

Several things possible he
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.




--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:

On 2008-01-18 08:30:46 -0800, Whiskers said:

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.

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.

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.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

"dwight" wrote in message
. ..
"wiyum" wrote in message
...

snip

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.

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)


Many will only ever buy a D-SLR with the kit lens and that is all they need,
they get the advantages of a D-SLR and will probably only ever shoot in
program mode or use auto or the scene modes and never need any more. It is
the equivalent of the old film SLR where many only bought the 50mm standard
lens and never needed anything else, sounds like a perfectly reasonable plan
to me. My wife still only ever uses my old Pentax KM film camera with 55mm
F1.8 lens, meets her needs perfectly.

Cheers.

Pete

"Pete D" wrote in message
...

"dwight" wrote in message
. ..
"wiyum" wrote in message
...

snip

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.

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)


Many will only ever buy a D-SLR with the kit lens and that is all they
need,
they get the advantages of a D-SLR and will probably only ever shoot in
program mode or use auto or the scene modes and never need any more. It is
the equivalent of the old film SLR where many only bought the 50mm
standard
lens and never needed anything else, sounds like a perfectly reasonable
plan
to me. My wife still only ever uses my old Pentax KM film camera with 55mm
F1.8 lens, meets her needs perfectly.

Cheers.

Pete

I bought the Pentax ZX-M, which came with a 35-80mm kit lens. I also used an
old 50mm f/2 off of our old K1000, but couldn't wait to shell out for a
telephoto zoom lens. About the time I was considering even more lenses for
the film camera, digitals were becoming more than mere curiosities.

My wife started all of this photo nonsense by bringing home that K1000, and
for a couple of years, that camera and the 50mm lens was all she/we used.
But as soon as I took a stronger interest in the hobby, our collection of
lenses began. That 50mm, for what it is, is a sweet little lens, but I can't
imagine having that as my one and only.

In 2005, we bought the Rebel XT with the kit lens - very comparable to the
one on the ZX-M, but it took only about 3 months for me to start looking at
alternatives.

To me, and aside from all of its other qualities, the biggest draw of the
DSLR is the ability to change lenses. That's why I can't imagine that "many"
will buy one and be satisfied with the kit lens for an extended period of
time.

Maybe that's just me.

dwight

On Jan 20, 5:30*am, "dwight" wrote:
"Pete D" wrote in message

...





"dwight" wrote in message
...
"wiyum" wrote in message
....

snip

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.

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)

Many will only ever buy a D-SLR with the kit lens and that is all they
need,
they get the advantages of a D-SLR and will probably only ever shoot in
program mode or use auto or the scene modes and never need any more. It is
the equivalent of the old film SLR where many only bought the 50mm
standard
lens and never needed anything else, sounds like a perfectly reasonable
plan
to me. My wife still only ever uses my old Pentax KM film camera with 55mm
F1.8 lens, meets her needs perfectly.

Cheers.

Pete

I bought the Pentax ZX-M, which came with a 35-80mm kit lens. I also used an
old 50mm f/2 off of our old K1000, but couldn't wait to shell out for a
telephoto zoom lens. About the time I was considering even more lenses for
the film camera, digitals were becoming more than mere curiosities.

My wife started all of this photo nonsense by bringing home that K1000, and
for a couple of years, that camera and the 50mm lens was all she/we used.
But as soon as I took a stronger interest in the hobby, our collection of
lenses began. That 50mm, for what it is, is a sweet little lens, but I can't
imagine having that as my one and only.

In 2005, we bought the Rebel XT with the kit lens - very comparable to the
one on the ZX-M, but it took only about 3 months for me to start looking at
alternatives.

To me, and aside from all of its other qualities, the biggest draw of the
DSLR is the ability to change lenses. That's why I can't imagine that "many"
will buy one and be satisfied with the kit lens for an extended period of
time.

Maybe that's just me.

dwight

Trust me, I'm with you. I have four lenses for my Canon system, and
just bought a Mamiya RZ and couldn't bear to have only one lens, so I
got two. But the original poster sounds different. While I think that
his reluctance to change lenses is a bit silly, that he has that fear
shows that he and I are very different in our approach. And if he's
only shooting his kids, i think a normal prime lens (a 28 or a 35) is
all he'll need and he'll get great pictures. If he wanted to get a
camera to become a "photographer," I'd think differently. He's buying
a camera to capture the memories of his children, and that's a
different need entirely, and one that is filled by a modest kit.

Will

"2Bdecided" wrote in message
...


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