Baby coming, photos to be taken

I have a Olympus 410mju 4mp camera
http://www.camerastore.com.au/Olympu...10-details.htm

with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
thanks...

Pete .? wrote:

with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
thanks...

You may find the shutter lag is a big bugbear, especially when you
try to capture the little blighter smiling. Made me move to a dSLR,
and the pics are a heckofalot better since. (Oly 3040 - D70)

--
Ken Tough

No idea, but a 4 mp $400 camera sounds great to me.Even my cheapo 100 euros
kodak cx 7300 takes excellent pictures, check my account at
www.shuttercity.com .It's not actually the camera that takes the picture,
but the *photographer*.Of course, you will need a minimum of hardware;you
can't use all the time single use cameras or get a HP web camera that uses
batteries and can be used off the computer...

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ï "Pete" . Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...
I have a Olympus 410mju 4mp camera
http://www.camerastore.com.au/Olympu...10-details.htm

with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
thanks...

Hi Pete,
Here's my own experience.. I have steadily moved up the camera ladder in the
past 24 months, buying one, keeping it for 4 or 5 months, then needing to step
up. So I went through some nice Fuji cameras, then to the Olympus C8080,
finally ending up with the Nikon D70.
Here's what I decided: After about 4 megapixels in a typical point and shoot,
the sensor stops being enough to handle the digital noise. So for instance,
outside in the sun, the big C8080 was amazing, but take it inside even at ISO
100 and noise starts to be a factor.

What am I really saying in all this???
That the pictures that come out of this D70 (when properly shot - which takes
some real learn curve) are simply magnificent. Blowing the doors off of ANY of
the point and shoots I had run through. IF though you decide to stick with a
point and shoot, I would say stick to 4, maybe 5 MP and you'll get consistently
wonderful noise-free shots.

But gosh, if you have the money, I can't say enough about the D70. Simply
incredibly.

Tim


"Pete" . wrote in message
...
I have a Olympus 410mju 4mp camera
http://www.camerastore.com.au/Olympu...10-details.htm

with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
thanks...

Pete wrote:
I have a Olympus 410mju 4mp camera
http://www.camerastore.com.au/Olympu...10-details.htm

with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
thanks...


Not worth the expense. Buy lots of diapers, and take your wife out to
dinner once a week for the next year.
For baby pictures, a simple P*S camera with decent flash would work just
as well.


--
Ron Hunter

In article , Pete
. wrote:

I have a Olympus 410mju 4mp camera
http://www.camerastore.com.au/Olympu...10-details.htm

with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
thanks...


Hi Pete,
Here is an article reprinted with permission from NYI Institute of
Photography:
http://www.babymall.com.au/phototips/phototips.htm
It has a lot of good tips for photographing babies, and also a warning
about using the flash:
"One question we're frequently is this: Is there any risk to the eyes
of young babies if I use flash when I shoot their pictures? Since the
experts are divided on this point, we think you should err on the side
of caution: Keep flash use to a minimum. If you do use flash for a few
pictures, stay at a reasonable distance. Our advice: Don't ever use
flash for closeups! And we've already discussed the problem flash
causes with red-eye. So avoid it if you can."
Congratulations,
NB

"Pete" . writes:
with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
thanks...

The two big wins of using a DSLR are no shutter lag and more serious
flash systems. Some of the fancier P/S systems also support external
flash but they're not that far in price from low-end DSLR's these
days. That horrible "snapshot" look we all see so often comes from
the typical P/S on-camera flash pointing straight at the subject. The
problem not just red-eye but the whole pattern of light and shadows.
And, as someone else said, it's bad for the baby's eyes.

The solution is to use an external flash bounced off of a white
ceiling, or some other type of diffusion. See the 80-20 and Big
Bounce examples in:

http://www.lumiquest.com/compare.htm

Even fancier is to use off-camera flash. The Nikon D70 has an amazing
system that lets you control a remote flash without any wires to the
camera (the camera pulses its own flash to send exposure data to the
remote). I'm not sure if Canon has anything directly comparable.

On Wed, 04 May 2005 11:32:14 GMT, "Pete" . wrote:

I have a Olympus 410mju 4mp camera
http://www.camerastore.com.au/Olympu...10-details.htm

with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
thanks...

As other people have pointed out, a DSLR really comes into it's own
when they are a bit older and you want to capture them in action. The
combination of fast start up time, no shutter lag, and fast focussing
and focus tracking systems mean you can get shots which you would
otherwise have no chance of getting. When they are newborn these
factors don't make much difference.

Ken Tough wrote:
Pete .? wrote:


with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
thanks...


You may find the shutter lag is a big bugbear, especially when you
try to capture the little blighter smiling. Made me move to a dSLR,
and the pics are a heckofalot better since. (Oly 3040 - D70)

On the newer cameras shutter lag is only slightly longer than a DSLR, in
some cases faster than the older ones. The shutter lag on mine is
shorter than my reflexes so I guess I am the 'lag'. sigh.


--
Ron Hunter

Paul Rubin wrote:

"Pete" . writes:

with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
thanks...


The two big wins of using a DSLR are no shutter lag and more serious
flash systems. Some of the fancier P/S systems also support external
flash but they're not that far in price from low-end DSLR's these
days. That horrible "snapshot" look we all see so often comes from
the typical P/S on-camera flash pointing straight at the subject. The
problem not just red-eye but the whole pattern of light and shadows.
And, as someone else said, it's bad for the baby's eyes.

There is a third big and arguably the most important win - the
possibility of taking noise free images in available light many times
better than any P&S can deliver.
The solution is to use an external flash bounced off of a white
ceiling, or some other type of diffusion. See the 80-20 and Big
Bounce examples in:

http://www.lumiquest.com/compare.htm

Even fancier is to use off-camera flash. The Nikon D70 has an amazing
system that lets you control a remote flash without any wires to the
camera (the camera pulses its own flash to send exposure data to the
remote). I'm not sure if Canon has anything directly comparable.