Ow! Ow! Ow!

[billroper]

The problem with the compact digital cameras is that they take a long time to get a shot off. As many parents have noted, children just don't keep that cute expression on their face for that long.

A good digital SLR doesn't have this problem. Of course, a good digital SLR isn't cheap.

But you only get one chance to get these photos. So that whiff of smoke you smell is coming from my credit card...

And at least I've solved the problem of what daisy_knotwise is getting me for Christmas. (Yes, she knows I was planning to do this.)

Comments

[oreouk.livejournal.com]

Grin - yeah, we used to have that problem. We lived with it until the screen on the problem camera went phut, but the new one is much faster off the mark.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

The new point and shoot models are supposed to be much faster than the old ones, but the SLRs are even better. Plus a lot of the SLRs have a burst mode, where you can take a bunch of pictures in a second or three and pick the best one. Good in situations where things are moving fast. Which often applies when photographing children.

I, on the other hand, am a simple individual with simple tastes, and am prepared to sacrifice all these benefits for a waterproof point-and-shoot. :-)

Congratulations on your new camera, and the reason for it, and may you have many happy photographs together. (you could even post a few of them, hint, hint)

[tollermom]

I can't think of a better reason for a good camera. :-)

I used the same thought process when I justified my D-70 two and a half years ago... except in my case it was a new four-legged child (Drummer... the no-longer-wee-beastie in my default LJ icon) rather than a two-legged one.

I've never regretted it. The shots that I've gotten because I didn't have that damn delay are worth every penny.

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

A big chunk of why I upgraded to the Canon 20d was the fact that it goes from off to on in 0.2 seconds.

The office photography buff

[capplor.livejournal.com]

claims that if you actually RTFM, it says something about pushing the shutter button half-way down to get the exposure and then being able to take a picture quickly. I haven't managed it either, but you might want to try.

Re: The office photography buff

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

?? that's really easy to do and of course it works, but newer cameras really shouldn't need this. The current generation of cameras can take a pic from a full press in well under a second. They're not far from being in line with an autofocus point-n-shoot film camera.

Half press is only useful when you are framing or composing a photo, and waiting for a specific action. With kids, what you want is to be able to pick up the camera, have it power up and take a pic in 2 seconds max. Newer cameras can do that.

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

My newest point and shoot powers up in about 1 second, a fair bit faster than my (older) digital SLR. It has a 6x zoom and is 6 megapixels (the current model is 7 and adds image stabilization). And I can buy 3 or 4 of them for the cost of an SLR.

It's a Canon A700, which I quite like. Unfortunately, so did my daughter, and she just had a birthday, so it's hers now. I'll replace it, after I get done paying for a bunch of other stuff I'm crushing my card with (car repairs, home improvement, a few toys). The A710 is identical but with another megapixel and image stabilization.

Bottom line, once I bought the A700, even though I HAD a digital SLR (admittedly older) I hardly ever used it unless I was going somewhere specifically to take pictures, or I needed a big-ass external flash, or something specific like that.

If I needed a new digital SLR, I'd get a Canon whatever-the-prosumer-one-is-now (not rebel, upgrade from 20D) Ah, looks like it's the 30D. But honestly, the new P&Ss are good enough that if my SLR tanked right now, I'd probably mothball the SLR idea for a few years.

I sure wouldn't buy one just to have a camera that powered up fast. You can get that in a point-n-shoot. And the most important quality of a camera is that it's convenient enough that you have it with you. You can't take pictures if you don't have a camera, and if the camera is so bulky you never carry it, you're not going to get many pictures.

Also, you're going to want video of that kid. I have a camcorder, but I never have it with me unless I'm at berzerker. The A700 shoots DVD-quality video, 640x480 30 FPS with sound. OK, it's not stellar but it's actually pretty good, and again, you shoot with what you have. And I am much more likely to import the video from the digicam to my machine (and get it archived) than that from my camcorder. Actually my only complaint with the video is that the tiny camera tends to shake a lot; the A710 with image stabilization should fix that problem too. I can shoot about 8 minutes at a time (1GB file size limit) which is way more than I EVER shoot at once (again, except at berzerker, waiting for something to happen). I use a 4GB card so I can put a total of about 30 minutes of video on it.

I kind of like the Canon digital Elph line too, they're super tiny and cute and very pocketable, but I decided that I liked rugged and running from AA batteries more, and the 2-AA cell A-series is still pretty compact. Plus the A series can take filters at least.

A lesson: a friend spent $2500 on a Canon GL-1 camcorder when they had their first kid. After about a year he realized he was being silly, sold it, and bought a little JVC from Woot for $100. He likes it a lot better; it takes fine pics and he can put it in his pocket. The other camera was a big clunky beast and people were intimidated when he pulled it out. Nobody gets intimidated by a little P&S digital camera anymore, they're in everyone's pocket.

[drawshad.livejournal.com]

Funny you should post this becase we actually are distressed because we can't find our little point and shoot. It takes pictures just as fast as the SLR (which is only 2 years old), but I don't have to wait for the lens to focus. And it's just so darn convenient to carry around.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

Since you already bought the camera, I won't second-guess your choice, I'll just ask: what'cha get?

[billroper]

Nikon D80. It should be able to use my old Nikon lens, as well.

[madfilkentist]

Nice!

Quick shutter speed is also very helpful when taking cat pictures, and my old Coolpix 775 will sometimes go for seconds before taking the shot, giving me a nice picture of my feet. Now if the WaMu-lans tell me that my mortgage is really somehow paid off 27 years ahead of schedule, I can afford to get a new one.

[hms42]

Good luck with the camera. A friend of mine who shoots a lot of pictures, went digital SLR about 1 1/2 years ago. He tested all of the features out (including the counter reset). He CYCLED the 10,000 picture count at Albacon where he mentioned it started at 0 the year before. (And yes that picture count is accurate. He is regularly part of the photography staff on Worldcons.)

For others responding and thinking about getting a digital camera, someone gave me this link a few years back. -

http://www.dcresource.com


Harold S.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

10000 images in a year isn't that much. I've taken close to 40000 in just under three years since I got my first D-SLR, and I don't get out to good picture-taking locations that much.

[demoneyes.livejournal.com]

Yep, my first digital had that problem - only a second or so of shutter lag but enough to lose that cute expression you wanted to capture. And a prefocus "half-press" that was almost unusable because there wasn't enough differential between that and 'take' pressure on the button.

However, when my first camera screen went phut (only 4 years old, and fixing it would have cost 75% the price of an equivalent new camera) I got a Fuji F710 - for half what the first camera cost! Which apart from having a good compromise of size and optics quality, good manual features, superb screen, 4x optical zoom and generally feeling sturdy rather than "plastic-cy" - all good things - the reviews said its response was extremely quick, especially when prefocused.

And much to my relief, I found indeed it was, and this prefocus easy to use e.g. I have a shot of capturing a marble in mid-fall on Alex's marble run - or Hot Wheels cars in motion just as they're released from the launcher. It really does make the "taking cute pictures" much easier.

Now if only it'd also do the selection, editing and post-processing for me too. I'm only 17 months or so behind on that... *grin*