New Baby = New Camera

[woodman1999]

So my wife is due with baby #1 in October and would like a new camera for her birthday. Now mind you, neither one of us are photo junkies and to be honest we aren't big fans of having our own picture taken. I got her an Olympus something or other about 4 years ago which she keeps in her purse, but we need something a little better. Also, my family is going to chip in a little for the present, so I figure now is a good time to get the camera.

For starters, the budget is going to be $350-$500. I was just taking a look at what's available on the web and needless to say, I am overwhelmed. I feel as though 4 years ago, the amount of Megapixels was the biggest deal next to zoom, but that no longer seems to be the case and I don't know what I should be prioritizing.

Just to kick things off with stuff that looked good to me:

Canon Powershot SX40
Canon S1000
Sony Cybershot (can't remember the model my brother has. Does HD video and is compact)
Nikon Coolpix P300

Am I looking at the right things? I know these are the low end of the budget but at this range I feel like the top end stretches into budget DSLR's which I am not sure are worth it for me.

Any suggestions or requests for further details are more than welcome.

Thanks

 

[IronWing]

Babies like to put everything in their mouth and don't have very good coordination so a waterproof, rugged camera would be best. Something small and light enough for the baby to hold. Auto-focus a must or the baby will get fussy. DSLRs are going to be too much for a baby to handle. Best wait until the child is a toddler before letting it tote an SLR.

 

[radhak]

Babies like to put everything in their mouth and don't have very good coordination so a waterproof, rugged camera would be best. Something small and light enough for the baby to hold. Auto-focus a must or the baby will get fussy. DSLRs are going to be too much for a baby to handle. Best wait until the child is a toddler before letting it tote an SLR.

:biggrin: nice...


Anyway, OP, did you mean the Canon SD1000? I have the SD1100 and love it, but at that price, you should consider the S100, supposedly the best p&s around for some time.

Or you could check out the Elph 300 at BestBuy. Yes, BB, because as a rarity, BB is selling this cheaper than online!

For the others, I don't recommend any Nikon p&s after being burnt thrice over, and the CX40 is far from 'compact'.

 

[woodman1999]

Thanks for the tip there Mr. Wing.

radhak, I defintiely did mean the SD1000. I'll take a look at the S100 and the Elph 300 as well. Thank you for your suggestions.

I know the CX40 isn't compact, but it seems smaller than some of the other cameras out there. Plus, I like the rapid fire shooting mode a little and think it could be fun, especially if the baby drops something and I can catch my wife's look in multiple frames...

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Here's the thing.... the inside is dark. Inside of buildings/houses, that is. Dark dark dark. Any P&S can take great photos outside on a sunny day, but if you want to take photos around the house, you're either going to have to

1) use flash (which could disturb the baby, generally looks unnatural, and takes a little while to recharge); or

2) Get a camera with a "fast" lens. That means that it lets in more light. This is measured by the aperture, which basically measures how wide the lens opens up. Lower numbers mean wider/better. It is usually written as an f-number like f/2.8, and sometimes as a ratio, like 1:2.8. f/2.8 is fairly good, for a P&S zoom. f/3.5 or so is more common, and not as good. Some P&S's now start at f/2.0, which lets in twice as much light as f/2.8, and almost 4 times as much light as f/3.5. Some DSLR lenses are f/1.4, which lets in twice as much light as f/2.0 and 4x as much light as f/2.8, and nearly 8x as much light as f/3.5. If the lens lets in twice as much light, that means that (all else being equal) the shutter speed can be twice as fast, which will make your photo come out sharper.

So, IMO, this should be your top priority. There are a good number of P&S cameras that start at f/2.0 now. (Note: It will only be capable of that fastest aperture when it is all the way zoomed out. Always keep this in mind when shooting.) The Canon S100 is an example. Lenses with f/2.0 will generally not be able to zoom as far as others (they usually top out around a 4x-5x zoom) but IMO it would be worth it.

One other option would be to get a DSLR or another interchangable-lens camera. A good option is Micro 4/3rds cameras, which are made by Panasonic and Olympus. These are usually not much bigger than a large P&S camera, and are capable of giving much better picture quality (especially in low light, and especially if you change the lenses). You can generally find the Panasonic GF2 (with lens) for under $400. There is also a good selection of refurbished Olympus PEN models for $300 or so:

http://www.cameta.com/refurbished-compact-ilc-cameras.cfm

Now, all of these would come with a lens that starts at f/3.5. So, not so great. But, you can save up and get a fast lens like the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 ($350) or the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 (about the same). But, all things being equal, I think that the m4/3 camera with an f/3.5 lens would be able to give better low-light results than a P&S with an f/2.0 lens.

 

[woodman1999]

Thank you very much slash. I honestly had no idea what the f/ numbers meant and now they make sense. I will definitely take a look at the Micro 4/3rds cameras as a new option.

Thank you very much for your explanation and suggestions.

 

[Knavish]

Thank you very much slash. I honestly had no idea what the f/ numbers meant and now they make sense. I will definitely take a look at the Micro 4/3rds cameras as a new option.

Thank you very much for your explanation and suggestions.

This is probably too much information , but...

A lens with a low F/# is called "fast" because it uses a shorter (faster) exposure time: low F/# = more light = shorter exposure; high F/# = less light = longer exposure. Now that 99.9% of people use digital cameras, no one thinks about exposure times.

Fast lenses also give you another favorable characteristic for baby photos: low depth of field. Low depth of field means that you'll see your baby in focus in the foreground, but the background will be more blurry. Photographers like this effect because it brings attention to the subject of your photo. Example from wikipedia:
Low F/#:

High F/#:

 

[woodman1999]

Thanks for the further explanation and samples Knavish. Definitely going to seek out lower no DSLR cameras if the Micro 4/3rds don't work out.

 

[CuriousMike]

Slash has it right.
Babies don't spend much of their first year outdoors riding big-wheels and bicycles. They spend a lot of time inside.

Being a father of three, and having run the gamut on cameras, I supremely wish I would have gone DSLR sooner... particularly for indoor shots.

Example: You can find refurbed Nikon D3100/D5100 and a 35mmf/1.8 lens for close to $400(?).
Even consider the D40 with the 35mm/f1.8.

The downside to the DSLR is their size - the 4/3rds is a good suggestion.

 

[twistedlogic]

The downside to the DSLR is their size - the 4/3rds is a good suggestion.

Yeah but they are harder to lose too, .

Also look into the Sony NEX series. Same size sensor as the Canikon (ASP-C) but in a tiny mirrorless body.

I also recommend budgeting for an external flash with a swivel head so you can bounce light off of the ceiling or walls. Even the fastest lenses + entry level camera will struggle (autofocus and acceptable shutter speed) with indoor lighting w/o flash.

Bonus if you can get a camera body + flash that does wireless metered flash (off camera flash).

 

[woodman1999]

First things first, my brothers camera is a Sony Cyber shot DSC-HX5. Worth looking at? I know there are some people who are not big fans of Sony camera's (based on one of the threads here) but he seems to like it.

TL, not sure I could bounce light off a ceiling if i had a spotlight. My artistic talent is, well, non-existant. We shall see though....

 

[CuriousMike]

I actually read the OP's post this time, and I have to back down on the DSLR suggestion.
Your wife ain't gonna want to lug that around.

The 4/3 or NEX are barely purse-able -- but she'll get better shots.
Bonus will be the video.

 

[notposting]

Here's an alternate suggestion, we ended up getting the ELPH 100 HS since our aging S2 IS just couldn't handle the indoor shots well (our first kid was born fall 2010). Works nicely for that purpose, good outdoor shots as well. Quick to power up and shoot, nice video recording, small enough to go in a pocket (cell phone size). Image stabilization, backlit sensor, good Canon glass, etc. Battery life has been excellent so far, 3-400 shots at least per charge. Check out the reviews on it. We got ours just before this last Christmas, in order to save $10 or so the wife had me get the pink one On the bright side you really can't lose it.

I see they have released some updates to the ELPH line...anyways, don't sell the little cameras short, they are pretty impressive now. I wourd recommend checking out Steves Digicams and the Imaging Resource for reviews, they do some good writeups.

 

[woodman1999]

Thanks for notposting. I'll take a look at those review sites tonight. Seems I have a lot of good options out there right now....

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Nikon P300, Refurbished by Nikon (better than new) for $219 shipped.

http://www.adorama.com/INKCPP300BKR.html

Fast lens and much better LCD than anything else in it's price range (super useful for making sure you got the shot).

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/performance/p300/index.htm

JR

 

[NAC]

Do you have a video camera? If not, you'll probably want a solution which takes good video.

My 8 year old point and shoot Canon takes decent video as long as it is bright enough, and as long as I don't need to zoom in. My 4 year old SLR Canon cannot autofocus well when taking video so it never comes out nicely for me. Others may be able to explain why an SLR (or at least my Ti1 I think) can't keep continous focus when in video mode. My camcorder takes the best video of all.

If you had a larger budget, I would recommend getting a camera and a separate camcorder. But at this point, it might be best to just get the camera, and a year from now try to get the camcorder. The baby wont be moving much, so a decent one should be able to take video in the interim.

 

[CuriousMike]

My Sony HX9V takes remarkable video for a P&S.
It's indoor photos (using it's super iA mode) are decent.

 

[notposting]

And if you get a cheaper camera than the budget, you could put the savings into one of those wifi-SD cards. Save on having to plug into a laptop or take the card out etc. But they are hideously expensive still.

 

[radhak]

First things first, my brothers camera is a Sony Cyber shot DSC-HX5. Worth looking at? I know there are some people who are not big fans of Sony camera's (based on one of the threads here) but he seems to like it.

What are you waiting for? Borrow from him, like, right NOW, and use it for a couple of days (or weeks or - ) and you will know far more than anybody can advise you. Or maybe at least enough to ask more.

I don't like Sony myself, but have heard good things about the HX5. I still think the S95 / S100 / Elph 300 are solid performers, but don't let that stop you from using the HX5 to get some nice baby pics.

Wait-a-sec <scrolls down to check OP>, you are just getting ready for October, right? Lots of time for you to try out and select a nice camera by then!

 

[RU482]

I would advocate getting as good of a camera as you can afford before your first kiddo.

 

[Madwand1]

Am I looking at the right things? I know these are the low end of the budget but at this range I feel like the top end stretches into budget DSLR's which I am not sure are worth it for me.

Babies grow into kids pretty quickly, and there's much more to photograph when they're kids. Think ahead a few years -- if you're spending this much money, you might as well look for something which will last.

I lean towards SLRs personally, and clearly a budget DSLR will get you the longest run. With something like a 50 f/1.8, you could get wonderful shots that often can't be matched by point & shoots, and you get very low shot delay, shooting speed for action, and the ability to extend range down the road with new lenses.

You also get the ability for bounce flash by buying a separate flash, which can be a great for avoiding red eyes. But a 50 f/1.8 could get you many great pictures without a flash using natural light.

Alternatively, you could fool around with this or that compact camera, and end up over the longer run spending more than you would have on the DSLR. To this end, getting a superior P&S like the Canon S100 would be a good choice -- it's good enough that you might not have to worry about buying a newer and better compact P&S next year -- it's about as good as they get.

The next major upgrade would be cameras with 4/3 or bigger sensors, and although the bodies may be sleek, the lenses are generally much bigger and get you back into the situation, as with DSLRs, where the camera is not very pocketable.

 

[notposting]

Don't forget you need to be able to fit said camera somewhere your spawn won't be able to reach. Also hard to sit on the couch with a big ol SLR and keep him/her from noticing it. A little camera you can hide in a pocket or behind your back is convenient. This is from my experience the last year anyway.

Definitely satisfied with the outdoor pics so far, the zoom ain't much obviously but it's far more convenient to me than a big cam would be, between wrestling with diaper bag, some toys, whatever stray sticks he has brought me, and trying to keep him from diving into a river or running into traffic I can only imagine how much fun it would be with an SLR dangling around my neck.

But if you have anyone who will let you borrow one for a day this summer, do it. Try both kinds if possible.

Off to change a poopy diaper and put the kid down for a nap. MWAHAHA your day will come too

 

[Throckmorton]

A Sony NEX with a pancake lens is pretty small http://sonyalphalab.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/110804_099-nex-c3.jpg

But that lens is so small, how much light can it possibly gather? I guess that's why it's only f/2.8

 

[Madwand1]

Don't forget you need to be able to fit said camera somewhere your spawn won't be able to reach.

Smaller cameras will probably be more appealing to kids, as they're more their size and more closely resemble hand-held electronic toys.

My kid had his own DSLR by the time he was 5 at the latest (a hand-me-down 300D), and took pictures of my wife and me in Rome using my 5D II with 24-105 when he was 6. He had to swing it up to get it to his eye, and then he composed, zoomed, and took the shots while amusing onlookers. He still likes to take the occasional shot, but has no special attraction to DSLRs, because of the size.

 

[CuriousMike]

If I understand him correctly, his wife will be using it.

"new camera for her birthday" and "keeps in her purse" should be figured into this topic.

I totally doubt she wants to lug a DSLR around, even though we all agree the photos / features trump P&S's.

Whatever the current Panasonic-Canon 1/1.7" sensor P&S's are should be considered along with the NEX / 4/3'ds.