Reading mode: Light Dark

good camera for capturing childen? (including indoors, low-light, movement)

Go to last post
U

unclben

Member
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I'm not a "photographer" but I'm about to become a father (of two!) and I would like to buy a solid camera with which to record my soon-to-be-kids' childhoods. Up to this point I have only owned point-and-shoots and smartphone cameras, but I want to step up to something with better image quality (particularly low-light images w/o flash and the ability to have some control over depth of field) and more manual control.

In short, I want the most compact camera that will do a "good enough" job in challenging situations like, for example, twins 3-year-olds sprinting through a poorly-lit house. In my mind, that requires a decent-sized sensor, a reasonably fast lens, and fast autofocus that handles movement well. The reason I'm looking for "relatively compact and good enough" instead of "the bomb diggity" is the old axiom that the best camera is the one you have on you; I don't carry a man-purse, so a full-frame DSLR would be awesome but would spend most of its time collecting dust in my closet.

Here are my initial thoughts on the size vs. capability spectrum:
  • I consider the Sony RX100 to be my "low end" option in terms of making sacrifices for the sake of pocketability.
  • Full-frame DSLR is out of the question, due to both size and cost.
  • I'm willing to sacrifice the excellent lens ecosystem of Canon & Nikon crop DSLRs to gain portability. I don't carry a man-purse and I don't intend to buy more than two lenses (one zoom, one fast prime), so a small-bodied Micro 4/3 or Sony NEX (or similar) seems pretty attractive.
Most camera reviews seem to be exclusively focused (no pun intended) on static photography, and mostly well-lit static scenes at that. I'm at a loss for how to determine the smallest camera that won't result in the photos of my children being useless blurs. I only get one shot at this! :-)

Thanks in advance,

Ben

Edit: I'm not necessarily looking for recommendations for specific cameras at this point. I'm more trying to figure out whether an RX100 will work for me, or if that won't but MFT will, or if MFT won't but APS-C mirrorless will, or if I absolutely need to the AF capabilities of a DLSR.
 
Last edited:
unclben said:
unclben wrote:

Edit: I'm not necessarily looking for recommendations for specific cameras at this point. I'm more trying to figure out whether an RX100 will work for me, or if that won't but MFT will, or if MFT won't but APS-C mirrorless will, or if I absolutely need to the AF capabilities of a DLSR.
Click to expand...
You need the AF capabilities of a DSLR.
 
trekkeruss said:
trekkeruss wrote:
trekkeruss said:
unclben wrote:

Edit: I'm not necessarily looking for recommendations for specific cameras at this point. I'm more trying to figure out whether an RX100 will work for me, or if that won't but MFT will, or if MFT won't but APS-C mirrorless will, or if I absolutely need to the AF capabilities of a DLSR.
Click to expand...
You need the AF capabilities of a DSLR.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I'm a guy who thinks small cameras are quite capable and adequate for many people, but your circumstances call for fast pdaf autofocus. The only mirrorless cameras that offer that to any reasonable degree are the Nikon 1s, but they don't have super image quality in low light and the fast pdaf focusing only works when the light is bright. In moderate to low light they are as slow as any other cdaf system. Only true pdaf and a fast lens/big sensor gives you any chance. However, you'll still fail a lot, so get comfortable with flash. The ability to fully utilize advanced flash features is another reason you need a dslr, maybe even a mid-level one.

Since you've clearly been doing some serious research this shouldn't be a big surprise. A Sony SLT camera is also a possibility, especially if you're going to shoot video, as you probably will want to. They'll be the most comfortable alternatives to a true video camera, able to track moving objects.

I wouldn't ignore the lens ecosystem issue, though I'm not too hung up on it. For people who expect to only have a couple of inexpensive lenses the cost of switching at some later date is not huge, but I wouldn't ignore it totally. Odds are you won't be using this camera for much more than five years. If you buy into one of the popular systems you'll only need to buy a new body to shoot their off-to-school pictures. But it wouldn't be enough to keep me from buying a Pentax or Sony I really liked, especially if the price was right.
 
Look into the Sony A58. Work with the kit lens or couple it with a fast wide angle zoom - total budget around, or above $1000.- ($550.- with kit lens). You will need the cameras ultra fast autofocus and tracking function for the kids moving around. Low light performance of the A58 is very good. The A58 - with ASP-C sensor is a bit bulky, but you will have to accept that for your requirements. Stay away from smaller sensors which produce much noise at low light / high ISO.

Chimere
 
Sony a37 and a 50mm 1.8 (or 1.4 if you want), and if you want it the 35 1.8 is great and cheap. With either of those you can slip camera with lens into a cargo or jacket pocket and its fast and great image quality.
The Sony 85 2.8 is a great cheap lens too but long for indoors. That's my pick for you.
--
Constructive Criticism is always welcome, however please understand that I am not a pixel peeper.
 
And you can buy them cheap as dirt right now. Probably by a body for $300 brand new if you shopped
--
Constructive Criticism is always welcome, however please understand that I am not a pixel peeper.
 
and she seems to think that gingerbread houses are much more effective at capturing children than cameras are.

(Yeah, it's a joke. Get upset if you like.)
 
An 85 mm lens might be too much of a tele for a indoors shoot ? Maybe think of a standard lens instead, 35 mm ? Will be cheaper too.

The A58 has much better IQ, specially at high ISO. The new OLED view finder is also excellent for low light indoors, as it amplifies the image: WYSIWYG function. May be not so dirt cheap but a lot of camera for $550.- And the 18-55 mm Kit lens is said to be of good quality.

The Sony's articulated live preview LCD panel is a special bonus when taking candid shots of your kids.

Chimere
 
Congratulations on the coming children!

I also believe that you need the af capabilities or an SLR type camera. I know the compromise means that you won't have the camera with you all the time but ten years from now you're not going to want thousands of mediocre photos. What you'll want is hundreds of really good shots. At least that is what I'd want.

I think the Sony a37 as suggested by tjwaggoner is a good choice due to it's excellent sensor and small size. However the bargain basement clearance prices for that model are gone since the inventory has largely been cleared. So I think you'll pay $550 for a new one. That's about the same as a Sony a58 but the a58 is considerably larger and heavier.

You might also want to consider the Pentax K30 which you can buy for about $500 now that the K50 is out. It's just slightly larger than the Sony a37 and has the advantage of weather sealing. Both these cameras use the sony 16mp image sensor and should be very good for those indoor, natural light shots, with the Pentax being slightly better. The Sonys, though, will be better if you want to shoot video (or live view) of anything moving.

Slightly smaller is the new Canon Rebel SL1. It's about $100 more. You'll need special Canon lenses for good video and live view. If you mount a prime lens it's not going to be stabilized whereas the Sony and Pentax have in body stabilization.

If you get the Sony or Pentax I'd skip the kit lens and get a Tamron 17-50/2.8. The problem with that on the Canon - again - is that it won't be stabilized. You'll also want to get the manufacturer's 50mm f1.8 prime for the best natural light shots.
 
unclben said:
unclben wrote:

In short, I want the most compact camera that will do a "good enough" job in challenging situations like, for example, twins 3-year-olds sprinting through a poorly-lit house.
Click to expand...
You're right that this is a challenging situation. You need a fast shutter speed to freeze motion of running kids. Looking at several sites and user threads, the consensus seems to be that 1/400 second is needed at a minimum, and this is for children outdoors with a bit of distance from the camera. Shutter speeds need to increase the closer you are in proximity to the subject, and also depends on whether they are moving across the frame or toward the camera. Some sites indicated that 1/1000 second is needed for nearby children running across the frame.

You describe your house as poorly-lit, but even a home interior with average lighting is estimated to be at an EV of 4 (compared to an EV 15 for outdoor, sunny weather). If you used an F/2.8 lens, which happens to be the RX100's maximum aperture at its 35mm equivalent focal length, you'd need to have ISO 25,600 available to get a 1/500 second shutter speed, and even that might not be fast enough to freeze the sprinting kids.

Even without the additional concern of accurate focus, my suggestion is that the goal of blur-free, flash-free, action photos of sprinting children in poor to average domestic lighting is simply an unrealistic expectation. Kids are no less precious when they are sitting still, absorbed in some childhood interest. Besides, who lets their kids run in the house, anyway? Let them run outdoors; it's safer for them, doesn't build bad habits, and there's more light!
 
Chimere said:
An 85 mm lens might be too much of a tele for a indoors shoot ? Maybe think of a standard lens instead, 35 mm ? Will be cheaper too.

The A58 has much better IQ, specially at high ISO. The new OLED view finder is also excellent for low light indoors, as it amplifies the image: WYSIWYG function. May be not so dirt cheap but a lot of camera for $550.- And the 18-55 mm Kit lens is said to be of good quality.

The Sony's articulated live preview LCD panel is a special bonus when taking candid shots of your kids.

Chimere
Click to expand...
No doubt the 58 is technically better. But it's a stretch saying it has "much" better image quality. It's marginally better in a few situations. Don't mislead someone who's trying to but thier first camera please.
I am one of the ones in the camp that thinks the 58 is better than the 57/37 but lets be real. It's a slight improvement that isn't noticable in most scenes and even then not until blown up.
The op wants a small camera. You're steering him/her to a bigger body with the false promise of "much" better image quality. That's misleading
--
Constructive Criticism is always welcome, however please understand that I am not a pixel peeper.
 
Chimere said:
An 85 mm lens might be too much of a tele for a indoors shoot ? Maybe think of a standard lens instead, 35 mm ? Will be cheaper too.

The A58 has much better IQ, specially at high ISO. The new OLED view finder is also excellent for low light indoors, as it amplifies the image: WYSIWYG function. May be not so dirt cheap but a lot of camera for $550.- And the 18-55 mm Kit lens is said to be of good quality.

The Sony's articulated live preview LCD panel is a special bonus when taking candid shots of your kids.

Chimere
Click to expand...
And the evf in the 57/37 amplifies in low light exactly as the one in the 58. The only difference is the 58 uses an oled display vs an LCD. The advantage in an oled display is color, contrast enhancement. Some find them too contrasty and some find the LCD to "tear" when moving your eye around. Neither of these are true for me.
--
Constructive Criticism is always welcome, however please understand that I am not a pixel peeper.
 
I think the RX100 is a great camera for all around pocketability. It's something you can always have on hand and get great images, compared to a cell phone.
But for capturing kids running around in low light you're probably going to need a DSLR.
Have you considered getting something like the RX100 to have at all times and getting a mid ranged DSLR for when you can have one with you?
I don't think that one camera will satisfy all your needs. But if that isn't an option I'd say a mirrorless body will be the compromise. It's more portable than a DSLR but not really pocketable....
 
I don't agree that you need a DSLR. The RX100 is a perfect camera for what you describe. If your kids aren't even born yet it will be a while before they are running around, and even when they are, how many pictures are you really going to take of them in full flight? I have a 4 year old and a 2 year old and I find 1/100 to be fast enough for almost every situation. If you can afford to 2 cameras, get a DSLR as well, but you need the RX100 or something similar. When you are playing with your kids or chasing them around the park, you need a camera you can fit in your pocket or you will miss too many opportunities. A DSLR is just too big and disruptive for a lot of situations with children.
 
NexOffender said:
I don't agree that you need a DSLR. The RX100 is a perfect camera for what you describe. If your kids aren't even born yet it will be a while before they are running around, and even when they are, how many pictures are you really going to take of them in full flight? I have a 4 year old and a 2 year old and I find 1/100 to be fast enough for almost every situation. If you can afford to 2 cameras, get a DSLR as well, but you need the RX100 or something similar. When you are playing with your kids or chasing them around the park, you need a camera you can fit in your pocket or you will miss too many opportunities. A DSLR is just too big and disruptive for a lot of situations with children.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. The RX100 will perform at a level similar to crop DSLRs with just the kit lens. The AF is very fast, faster than the mirrorless cameras I've used (NEX-5R and EOS M) and faster than some DSLRs with slower AF (Nikon D3000 and D3100). Newer Olympus MFT cameras have fast AF, but you'll need to do better than the kit lens to beat the RX100 until you get to the long end of the kit/built-in lens range.

For reference, my kids are 5 and nearly 2 years old. Both move around a ton. I rarely use flash, and of I do it's usually a group shot with the flash bounced.

Story will be different 10 years from now if they're playing soccer or something and you want a ton of reach.
 
I agree with the 'why SLR' camp. I've three grandchildren from 2-6 years old. My Fuji X-E1 is not renowned for focus speed, but it copes with all their activities. They don't hurtle round much indoors at home but even on things like trips to indoor amusements it can keep up.

For some reason on DPR the EXIF shows shutter speeds as (e.g.) 10/1250 rather than as 1/125

7aaf51484c2b4bada2fb363da62e1a70.jpg

408a3fe31b4b4b46a6c08c9a915db5cc.jpg

--
Albert
Every photograph is an abstraction from reality.
Most people are more interested in the picture than the image.
 
Last edited:
jrtrent said:
jrtrent wrote:
jrtrent said:
unclben wrote:

In short, I want the most compact camera that will do a "good enough" job in challenging situations like, for example, twins 3-year-olds sprinting through a poorly-lit house.
Click to expand...
Besides, who lets their kids run in the house, anyway? Let them run outdoors; it's safer for them, doesn't build bad habits, and there's more light!
Click to expand...
You seem to be on to something. I could only allow my children to engage in behavior that I can adequately capture with whichever recording instrument(s) I happen to have on my person at the time. This is a parenting strategy I had not yet considered. ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top