TCampbell
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2012
- Messages
- 3,614
- Reaction score
- 1,558
- Location
- Dearborn, MI
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
There are a lot of advantages to having a DLSR over a point & shoot type camera. But in the category of parents who mostly want the camera for children, two situations stand out.
1) Due to the way the DSLR is designed (with the reflex mirror in the image path), it is able to bounce light into dedicated focus sensor which are MUCH FASTER to lock focus than using the image-sensor for focusing (which is how point & shoot cameras focus).
A big complaint among many parents who own point & shoot cameras and try to photograph their children is that there's a delay between the time they press the shutter button and the time that the camera actually takes the shot. This is usually due to the time needed to assess and lock-in focus. By the time the camera takes the shot... the child may have moved and the parents either lost the moment or the child moved in such a way that they are no longer accurately focused.
Since DSLRs are MUCH faster at focusing, you end up being fast enough to get the shot.
2) DSLRs have physically larger and more sensitive imaging sensors. There's a generalization that larger sensors are actually more sensitive to light ... they can shoot in lower amounts of light with less "noise" in the image.
3) DSLRs have interchangeable lenses... that's more of a big deal to enthusiasts and professionals. As a parent you'll probably want to get the one good lens that works best for you and stick with it. These cameras are often sold as a "body + lens" kit. That kit lens is usually an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. That's a general purpose lens that's good for just getting started. If you want to shoot in lower light and get a better "look" to your images, you might opt to buy a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens (the lens does not "zoom" but the they collect more light and can create a shallower focus range (which we call "depth of field") which allows us to deliberately blur the background. A nice softly blurred background with a tack-sharp subject tends to be more appealing. At some point as your child grows and perhaps participates in sports, etc. you may want a longer zoom lens and since the lenses are interchangeable... that will be an option for you.
You did mention the V word (video). So I should comment on that.
All DSLRs will shoot video. But DO NOT confuse that with meaning that they work "like a camcorder". If you want camcorder type capabilities then you're better served actually buying a real camcorder. The biggest challenge with DSLR video is that the camera either does not do "continuous autofocus" (like a camcorder can) or if it does... the performance of continuous autofocus is less reliable (the camera does "focus hunt" where you see it test a few focus changes before it finally figures out which way to go to fix the focus as your subject is moving around.) This means they are really best for subjects which are not on-the-move. There is one exception to this... Canon's new 70D has new focus technology on the sensor which allows it to focus much in the same way that a DSLR normally focuses for still shots. It's ability to do continuous auto-focus is exceptionally good for a DSLR. BUT... it's not under your $1000 budget. The "body only" is $1100... and the body with the kit lens (admittedly a better kit lens than the entry-level cameras get) is $1450. It's considered a mid-range camera... not entry-level. It retains all the features of the entry-levels but begins to introduce features normally only found on pro-level bodies (hence mid-range.)
With that said... unless you really can afford that higher price tag, skip the 70D and go with an entry level body because for photographic purposes (everything besides video) you'd be really hard-pressed to tell the difference in the images shot with the entry-level bodies vs. that body.
I shoot Canon but I'm not hung up on brands. Right now I actually think the entry-level Nikon bodies are just a bit ahead of the entry-level Canon bodies... but frankly the cameras on the market today are all so very good that I very much doubt you'd be disappointed with any of them. Do not over-agonize that you'll have some buyer's remorse. When one camera outperforms another in some respect... usually there's some other in way in which the second camera outperforms the first. Nobody wins in every area. Really the BIGGEST difference between a photographer who gets fantastic looking images vs. the ones who don't... aren't the gear ... but rather the fact that one photographer took the time to learn how to capture better shots (skill.) Owning a good camera will not somehow magically cause a person to be a better photographer.
I do tend to suggest either the Canon or Nikon brands over the others (Sony, Pentax, etc.) This is because those two brands own so much of the market and the camera really should be thought of as just one part of an overall camera "system". There is vastly more accessories available and 3rd party product support for Canon and Nikon than there is for anything else.
1) Due to the way the DSLR is designed (with the reflex mirror in the image path), it is able to bounce light into dedicated focus sensor which are MUCH FASTER to lock focus than using the image-sensor for focusing (which is how point & shoot cameras focus).
A big complaint among many parents who own point & shoot cameras and try to photograph their children is that there's a delay between the time they press the shutter button and the time that the camera actually takes the shot. This is usually due to the time needed to assess and lock-in focus. By the time the camera takes the shot... the child may have moved and the parents either lost the moment or the child moved in such a way that they are no longer accurately focused.
Since DSLRs are MUCH faster at focusing, you end up being fast enough to get the shot.
2) DSLRs have physically larger and more sensitive imaging sensors. There's a generalization that larger sensors are actually more sensitive to light ... they can shoot in lower amounts of light with less "noise" in the image.
3) DSLRs have interchangeable lenses... that's more of a big deal to enthusiasts and professionals. As a parent you'll probably want to get the one good lens that works best for you and stick with it. These cameras are often sold as a "body + lens" kit. That kit lens is usually an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. That's a general purpose lens that's good for just getting started. If you want to shoot in lower light and get a better "look" to your images, you might opt to buy a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens (the lens does not "zoom" but the they collect more light and can create a shallower focus range (which we call "depth of field") which allows us to deliberately blur the background. A nice softly blurred background with a tack-sharp subject tends to be more appealing. At some point as your child grows and perhaps participates in sports, etc. you may want a longer zoom lens and since the lenses are interchangeable... that will be an option for you.
You did mention the V word (video). So I should comment on that.
All DSLRs will shoot video. But DO NOT confuse that with meaning that they work "like a camcorder". If you want camcorder type capabilities then you're better served actually buying a real camcorder. The biggest challenge with DSLR video is that the camera either does not do "continuous autofocus" (like a camcorder can) or if it does... the performance of continuous autofocus is less reliable (the camera does "focus hunt" where you see it test a few focus changes before it finally figures out which way to go to fix the focus as your subject is moving around.) This means they are really best for subjects which are not on-the-move. There is one exception to this... Canon's new 70D has new focus technology on the sensor which allows it to focus much in the same way that a DSLR normally focuses for still shots. It's ability to do continuous auto-focus is exceptionally good for a DSLR. BUT... it's not under your $1000 budget. The "body only" is $1100... and the body with the kit lens (admittedly a better kit lens than the entry-level cameras get) is $1450. It's considered a mid-range camera... not entry-level. It retains all the features of the entry-levels but begins to introduce features normally only found on pro-level bodies (hence mid-range.)
With that said... unless you really can afford that higher price tag, skip the 70D and go with an entry level body because for photographic purposes (everything besides video) you'd be really hard-pressed to tell the difference in the images shot with the entry-level bodies vs. that body.
I shoot Canon but I'm not hung up on brands. Right now I actually think the entry-level Nikon bodies are just a bit ahead of the entry-level Canon bodies... but frankly the cameras on the market today are all so very good that I very much doubt you'd be disappointed with any of them. Do not over-agonize that you'll have some buyer's remorse. When one camera outperforms another in some respect... usually there's some other in way in which the second camera outperforms the first. Nobody wins in every area. Really the BIGGEST difference between a photographer who gets fantastic looking images vs. the ones who don't... aren't the gear ... but rather the fact that one photographer took the time to learn how to capture better shots (skill.) Owning a good camera will not somehow magically cause a person to be a better photographer.
I do tend to suggest either the Canon or Nikon brands over the others (Sony, Pentax, etc.) This is because those two brands own so much of the market and the camera really should be thought of as just one part of an overall camera "system". There is vastly more accessories available and 3rd party product support for Canon and Nikon than there is for anything else.
