2Bdecided wrote:
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)

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
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.