DSLR 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.

"2Bdecided" wrote in message
...
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.

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

P.s. The viewfinder is better for getting sharp pictures

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?

Cheers,
David.

["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

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"
wrote:
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.

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 2008-01-18, 2Bdecided wrote:
On 18 Jan, 14:54, "Eric Miller"
wrote:
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.

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.

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.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

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

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

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.