What DSLR Kit for shooting kids indoor?

I would like to upgrade from my P&S a620 to DSLR because I get blurry or yellowish picture shooting low light indoor without using flash. The white balance should be decent so that I don't get yellowish picture.

I understand that I need to raise the ISO to get a sharper image but I got too much noise. That's why I am getting a DSLR with image stabilization

My budget is £500-£600

I am using energy saving bulb in my living room

So my question is,

1. Do I need to get a fast aperture lens?
2. Is that OK to use the bundled lens?

What's the suitable aperture range (with reasonable price)?. Most lens come with kit are f3.5-5.6
3. I assume I need to get a low shutter lag and fast focus DSLR?

Do I have any choice with this price?

Some observations:

A DSLR may or may not be your answer.

The yellow/brownish tint is a white balance issue. It is easy to correct by selecting "Tungsten" instead of relying on "Auto" white balance in your settings menu. You're going to have this problem regardless of the type of camera. In fact, DSLRs in general are actually worse as they do not automatically compensate for incandescent lighting as well as many P&S cameras (by design).

Blurriness is caused by a too slow shutter speed. Your assessments about raising ISO are correct and a DSLR is much better than a P&S in this area, but you still are unlikely to find it will produce acceptable shots on a consistent basis.

Solution: Learn to use the flash on your A620, unless there is some compelling reason you can't. Try using shutter priority mode (Tv) with a shutter speed of about 1/40 sec., ISO at 200, the flash forced on and set to automatically adjust its output. This can result in a nice mix of ambient room lighting and flash output and provide surprisingly pleasing images. You may need to adjust the shutter speed based on the amount of movement by your subjects but you should find that a speed range of 1/30 - 1/60 will work fine, and the flash actually helps to freeze the action.

Rick

Thanks for your suggestions.

I understand that using flash will get a sharp picture but there are two problems using flash.

1. First it takes time to recharge and sometimes I miss the first shot and try to get the second shot be already miss the crucial moment. Kids never wait. The continuous shot is also very slow.

2. I have a 3 years old son and 8 months daughter. My son will run away from me after a few shots with flash and my daughter can only cry. She start closing her eyes when she see my camera .

So without the flash, I can only increase the shutter speed but create a dark picture. So I need to raise my ISO. The only acceptable ISO in a620 is 200. 400 is nearly unsable.

May be there is a better P&S. I have heard fuji F-Series are very good. So I can either get a better P&S or a DSLR

RickS said:

Some observations:

A DSLR may or may not be your answer.

The yellow/brownish tint is a white balance issue. It is easy to
correct by selecting "Tungsten" instead of relying on "Auto" white
balance in your settings menu. You're going to have this problem
regardless of the type of camera. In fact, DSLRs in general are
actually worse as they do not automatically compensate for
incandescent lighting as well as many P&S cameras (by design).

Blurriness is caused by a too slow shutter speed. Your assessments
about raising ISO are correct and a DSLR is much better than a P&S in
this area, but you still are unlikely to find it will produce
acceptable shots on a consistent basis.

Solution: Learn to use the flash on your A620, unless there is some
compelling reason you can't. Try using shutter priority mode (Tv)
with a shutter speed of about 1/40 sec., ISO at 200, the flash forced
on and set to automatically adjust its output. This can result in a
nice mix of ambient room lighting and flash output and provide
surprisingly pleasing images. You may need to adjust the shutter
speed based on the amount of movement by your subjects but you should
find that a speed range of 1/30 - 1/60 will work fine, and the flash
actually helps to freeze the action.

Rick

Click to expand...

--

25 years as a freelancer,(news,magazine, wedding photography) camera equip. over the years: Practica MLT, Canon A1, Minolta 9xi, 7xi, Dimage Z1,Fuji 5200,Canon S2,Pentax K100D,Olympus 380(see my Z1 shots at http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Buckl/ the COMMUNITY album was done with the Z1, and most of the photos in the album:Other were w/the Z1)

Replace the energy-saving bulbs in your room with photoflood bulbs (for photo time only). Use the highest wattage that will safely fit the sockets. The photofloods equal more light, which equal a faster shutter speed, which equal greater motion-stopping abillity. I'm making a couple of assumptions. First, that the bulbs are replaceable. The photoflood bulbs will generate considerably more heat, so make sure there is adequate space around the bulbs to eliminate any fire hazzard. If you can't properly white balance in the camera, seek out an appropriate lens filter. If I ruined your plan to buy a new camera, don't despair. More light will help with any camera you buy, P&S or DSLR.

awe said:

Thanks for your suggestions.

I understand that using flash will get a sharp picture but there are
two problems using flash.

1. First it takes time to recharge and sometimes I miss the first
shot and try to get the second shot be already miss the crucial
moment. Kids never wait. The continuous shot is also very slow.

2. I have a 3 years old son and 8 months daughter. My son will run
away from me after a few shots with flash and my daughter can only
cry. She start closing her eyes when she see my camera .

So without the flash, I can only increase the shutter speed but
create a dark picture. So I need to raise my ISO. The only acceptable
ISO in a620 is 200. 400 is nearly unsable.

May be there is a better P&S. I have heard fuji F-Series are very
good. So I can either get a better P&S or a DSLR

Click to expand...

--

The only thing you have to do is to use the flash A LOT, the kids will get to a point that they will ignore it & your attempt to take a photo. Last month I took about 30 portraits of a 7 month old, I started by playing w/the flash & after a few(10 flashes) she became accustomed to it & started playing w/her brother & sister.

25 years as a freelancer,(news,magazine, wedding photography) camera equip. over the years: Practica MLT, Canon A1, Minolta 9xi, 7xi, Dimage Z1,Fuji 5200,Canon S2,Pentax K100D,Olympus 380(see my Z1 shots at http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v104/Buckl/ the COMMUNITY album was done with the Z1, and most of the photos in the album:Other were w/the Z1)

Use the flash.

To be honest you're expecting a lot from any camera. Indoors (i.e. close), continuous and on fast moving targets that don't stay still. A basic DSLR will give you a better in-built flash and faster AF and that's all that will realistically help. Have a look at a Pentax K100D, Nikon D40, etc. They all do basically the same thing. None of them will give you perfect shots every time. You can probably do as well by learning basic techniques and applying them to your compact - panning, pre-focus and using S mode to get a good shutter speed. Even with a DSLR you won't get consistent shots without these.

--
StephenG

Pentax K100D
Fuji S5200
Fuji E900
PCLinuxOS

No worry, you're not ruining my plan (my wife is not reading the forum, so I can still convince her). I still can wait half a year before buying a DSLR as I am waiting for new DSLR coming out in PMA2008.
I will still use the a620 for sometime.

Changing light bulb may sounds like a good idea but unfortunately the wiring in my living room is a bit strange. I've got one switch that turn on 12 light bulbs. The light bulb were tungsten and it has burnt two switches for the last years because the maximum capacity of the switch is 500w. So I changed the bulb to energy saving bulb. Also it is a bit weird to change the bulb in their bed room everytime I need to talk picture. You see by the time I finish changing the bulb they might be gone (apart from my daughter that does not walk yet).

So I still have some reason to buy DSLR hehe ;-)

awe said:

My budget is £500-£600

I am using energy saving bulb in my living room

Click to expand...

A couple of observations if I may...

Firstly, all the talk of using flash ignores one key feature of basic flash-lit images, and that is that they don't look very good! All those thousands of pictures on flickr taken in parties and the like - burned out nose and cheeks, black background etc... they may capture a moment but they're not going to win any prizes for artistic merit!

I'd say pretty much any modern DSLR will help you begin to solve your problems, though with your budget I'd suggest you'll not be able to do it all at once...

In-body stabilisation will be a benefit - it will allow you to get better results with cheaper lenses (i.e. not having to pay for IS/VR in the lens and will also work with second hand lesnes). This would cut out Canon and Nikon bodies, but I believe everyone else (maybe not Sigma) is going with in-body stabilisation these days.

A fast lens will help - f/2,8 would be the aperture to look for in a zoom, there are fixed focal length lenses with faster apertures too, but they tend to be expensive and less flexible when you're starting out. Such lens may have to wait unless you can find a deal with a body and 18-50/2.8 lens within your budget.

That brings me on to another point... a DLSR is a system, not a camera. When you buy a compact you get the whole lot - you might add an external flash but not much more. I've had SLRs and now DSLRs for about 30 years, and I'm still buying, selling, changing my kit from time to time. Don't expect to get everything you ever want on day 1.

An external flash would probably be a good idea - I know I wasn't too complimentary about flash earlier, but with a decent external flash and a DSLR you open up possibilities of bouncing the flash off walls and ceilings to soften the light, maybe using a diffuser to achieve the same result. Again though, an external flash will cost a bit, so may have to wait for your budget to catch up.

Finally, you can shoot RAW with your DSLR. This will give you the option of choosing the white balance later - this takes a lot of pressure off you to have to get it right when you taklke the picture. I have a shot of an iguana taken under weird lights at a zoo a while back... I spent ages trying to get the white balance right without success before it occurred to me to shoot raw and woirry about it later. When I got home, it took a couple of seconds to sort it out and get lovely, natural looking colours despite the green mess that I was getting at the zoo!

In summary, a DSLR is more than just a camera. It offers the most flexible, extensible route in photography but it does cost money.

I'd advise you to start with an entry level DSLR (prices are well under £400 including a kit lens for a few of them now) and see how you get on with the kit lens. You'll work out pretty quickly if it's all you need, or whether ytou need more speed, different focal lengths etc. and you can address those things later.

--
Cheers,

Dave
http://purpledog.smugmug.com

'Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur'

I recommend reading Arthur Elgort's Camera Ready: How to Shoot your Kids (available used or perhaps through inter-library loan). His recommendation is for an SLR with a fast, normal lens. Though he wrote assuming a film camera would be used, his techniques and advice remain sound. I would take a good look at the Canon XT, still available and at good prices with excellent higher ISO image quality, coupled with Canon's 35mm F/2 lens, currently the lowest-priced fast, normal lens I can find. Get used to the idea of using manual white balance for shots under artificial light; it's really pretty simple, and you don't have to re-set it for every shot you take.

I don't know UK pricing these days, but That sounds like entry level territory to me. A few thoughts.

awe said:

I understand that I need to raise the ISO to get a sharper image but
I got too much noise. That's why I am getting a DSLR with image
stabilization

Click to expand...

Yes, this will be a huge step up, As, for the most part, the DSLRs shooting at its max ISO is going to have similar noise to a P&S shooting at 200-400, which is pretty low. The IS may or may not help. It can (and does) stop camera shake, but it doesn't do anything to stop movement in your subject. I've found that I can handhold (with a short lens) most of the stabilized systems down to about 1/15 of a second shutter speed, although at that speed, people can blur, even if they are just sitting.

awe said:

I am using energy saving bulb in my living room

Click to expand...

You might add more. I have a lamp from Target (big discount retailier in the states) that has 5 bulbs on individual goosenecks, where you can turn on 2, 3 or all 5 and aim them as you please. I bought it because it looks cool, but it is a pretty good photo tool too. It was about 30 dollars. Yes a good camera and lens help, but adding light to the room helps too. Also, consider an external flash. I'm not real keen on flash photos, but a good external flash that can bounce is a revelation. They aren't cheap, but a good flash with a pivot head gives very non flash looking flash pictures.

awe said:

So my question is,

1. Do I need to get a fast aperture lens?

Click to expand...

I sure would. Whatever system you buy, look for a 50 mm with a 1.7 or 1.8 aperture (varies by brand which they use). These lenses are fast, sharp, and cheap. Again, I don't know UK prices, but in the US, the nikon and canon ones are between 100-120 new, and less on the used market. I believe pentax has one in this range too. Sony doesn't (they only have a 1.4 which is relatively more expensive) but apparently minolta made a 1.7 and it is cheap and would work.

The fast aperture gets you faster shutter speeds which help not only with camera shake, but also subject movement. Downside is that you have less depth of field to work with, good for portraits, but a little trickier to focus.



This was shot with a nikon 50 1.8, wide open, at night in a pretty dim apartment with me on my belly. FWIW, I took a bunch to get a few useable ones. It helps to have a still cat...

awe said:

2. Is that OK to use the bundled lens?
What's the suitable aperture range (with reasonable price)?. Most
lens come with kit are f3.5-5.6

Click to expand...

Which is pretty slow. I'd get the kit lens because they are all at least passable, and tend to be useful focal lengths, and the bundled price usually makes them pretty cheap (I've seen some specials where the kit lens only added like 40 bucks over a body only price). They'll be good outdoors, harder to use indoors. I was shooting around the house the other day with my kit lens and no flash, just messing around, and was getting some usable shots at 3.5, but this was with a bunch of natural light coming in.

awe said:

3. I assume I need to get a low shutter lag and fast focus DSLR?

Click to expand...

The entry level ones are all pretty similar in this regard. The shutter lag is negligible on all of them (only noticeable when you compare to the pro cameras) and the AF is typically faster than most P&S cameras, though there is some variablility.

awe said:

Do I have any choice with this price?

Click to expand...

Sure. Pentax K100 comes closest to your original spec. They are pretty cheap, at least here, decent camera, have Shake reduction in the body. I can't tell if pentax has a 50 1.8 or not (B&H doesn't seem to have one) so that would be a limitation.

The sony A100 might also be a contender. Price keeps dropping, and it is a nice camera overall. You would need to look for a used minolta lens for a fast aperture on a budget, as the 1.4 version is around 300 dollars.

I'd consider the Canon rebel XT if you can find one. Doesn't have stabilization in body, but cheap, a good system, and their 50 1.8 is nice, cheap, and easy to get. Gut feeling is that these are discontinued (my store sold out and isn't getting any more it looks like) but I'm sure they are still around.

I'd skip nikon here, as much as it pains me. The d40 is a nice enough camera, but doesn't AF with any of their affordable fast lenses.

Awe,
I also have a 3 yr old and an 8 month old....

I have the Olympus E-500 with the twin lens kit and the Fl-36 flash and it was great.

I just upgraded to the 50-200mm lens and the more powerful Fl-50. Olympus usually is lagging in the low light arena, but I don't regret my purchase at all!
--
-Anthony

http://cadguru.smugmug.com

awe said:

1. Do I need to get a fast aperture lens?

Click to expand...

It would certainly help!

awe said:

2. Is that OK to use the bundled lens?

Click to expand...

Sure, but then you'll need to shoot with a flash. An external flash will produce better results, especially if it tilts and swivels so you can bounce it off the ceiling. Light looks more natural when it is coming down from above, instead of a beam form your forehead. Unless you are a coalminer, in which case you may prefer the look that you get when you light something with a beam from your forehead.

awe said:

3. I assume I need to get a low shutter lag and fast focus DSLR?

Click to expand...

That's pretty much true with any DSLR.

awe said:

Do I have any choice with this price?

Click to expand...

Tons. If you really want to save money you could get a Canon 350D with 50mm f/1.8, or Pentax or Sony with similar lenses. You could get the 350D + 50/1.8 in the US for under $500. Don't know how much it would cost on the other side of the pond.

But I don't recommend a 50mm lens on an APS-C sensor. For chasing kids, that's a bit too long. For a bit more money go for a fast 28mm, 30mm or 35mm lens. Canon has the 2/1.8 and 35/2. Nikon has a 35/2. Sigma has a 30/1.4 that's available for all DSLR systems.

If you want a Nikon, be aware that the D40 and D40x will not autofocus with most inexpensive fast primes. They will with the Sigma 30/1.4, though.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

Dave,

The whole point to my post was to offer some insight into techniques for getting decent looking flash shots. It can be done, as I and many others here do it all the time. They really don't have to look like the "parties on Flickr pages" you alluded to.

Rick

Dave Farmer said:

Dave Farmer said:

My budget is £500-£600

I am using energy saving bulb in my living room

Click to expand...

A couple of observations if I may...

Firstly, all the talk of using flash ignores one key feature of basic
flash-lit images, and that is that they don't look very good! All
those thousands of pictures on flickr taken in parties and the like -
burned out nose and cheeks, black background etc... they may capture
a moment but they're not going to win any prizes for artistic merit!

Click to expand...

----- snip -----

I have flash-lit images problem as well. This normally happen when my kids trying to come close to my camera because they are oftenly curious about it. My eight month daughter will sometimes raise her hand to grab my camera as she is teething (you know they like to bite anything).

I have found that I can adjust the flash output to reduce this problem but it depends on the distance between the camera and my kids. It's good when they stay still on the floor but if they are runing and playing, then it's hard to adjust the flash settings.

I assume people shooting indoor sports will have the same problem. I am wondering how they can take good picture in this case as the flash may not able to reach that distance.

I have thank you for all of your suggestions. I am very surprised to get so much valuable advice for my first post.

Look at the Sony A-200 (just hit the street) - it might be within your budget. This can be used effectively at high ISO. You can also pick up a Minolta AF 50mm f1.7 on e-bay for cheap - under $100 US. This is a nice indoor no-flash lens - fast to focus and nice bokeh.

--
AEH
http://aehass.zenfolio.com/

It's perfectly possible to get good photos of babies without flash with some practice & the right gear. I have no pretensions to being any kind of class photographer, but after a while (6 mos.) of working at it (need a dSLR with shake-reduction of some sort, good peformance @ ISO 800 & 1600, and a good fixed-focal length lens, or a decently-fast zoom with more light in the room, and using RAW or custom-WB if wanting to stick w/JPG), I'm confident in making this statement.

More importantly, if you know that babies don't like something, why spend time & money trying to find ways to minimize the effect so they don't notice it as much? Not only will you not annoy the kid so much, you'll get more natural poses, action, etc, because they won't be distracted while they're trying to do something, so you'll actually be able to capture something interesting/important rather than worrying about whether you should have bounced the flash a little more in one direction...

for what it's worth, I use the Pentax K100d, and usually the DA 40 f/2.8 Limited lens. No problem at ISO 800 whatsoever, and very often no problem at ISO 1600.

My main problem is that my three year old would rather be taking the photos.
He says daddy you sit here. mommy you sit here....baby AJ you sit here.
then he counts 1, 2, 3 and pushes the shutter.

Everytime I take the camera out he wants it.
--
-Anthony

http://cadguru.smugmug.com

CadGuru said:

Everytime I take the camera out he wants it.

Click to expand...

So... get him a camera. A cheap old P&S will do just fine.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

JChristian said:

It's perfectly possible to get good photos of babies without flash
with some practice & the right gear. I have no pretensions to being
any kind of class photographer, but after a while (6 mos.) of working
at it (need a dSLR with shake-reduction of some sort, good peformance
@ ISO 800 & 1600, and a good fixed-focal length lens, or a
decently-fast zoom with more light in the room, and using RAW or
custom-WB if wanting to stick w/JPG), I'm confident in making this
statement.

More importantly, if you know that babies don't like something, why
spend time & money trying to find ways to minimize the effect so they
don't notice it as much? Not only will you not annoy the kid so
much, you'll get more natural poses, action, etc, because they won't
be distracted while they're trying to do something, so you'll
actually be able to capture something interesting/important rather
than worrying about whether you should have bounced the flash a
little more in one direction...

for what it's worth, I use the Pentax K100d, and usually the DA 40
f/2.8 Limited lens. No problem at ISO 800 whatsoever, and very often
no problem at ISO 1600.

Click to expand...

I can take picture with a620 without flash using ISO 400, the only problem I have is the noise. So I know DSLR will suite me as you've said you have no problem at ISO 800.

So I think I need to consider the following camera body based on the few advice here:

Pentax K100D, DA 40 f/2.8
Nikon D40,35/2
Canon 350D,50mm f/1.8, 2/1.8 and 35/2
Sony A200,AF 50mm f1.7
Olympus E510

I might also wait to see what entry level cameras that will be out at PMA 2008.

May be Canon 450D, Pentax 200D and Nikon D60. I am sure even I don't buy this, it will bring down prices for other old models.