Best camera to take pictures of toddlers

I don't have personal experience of them, but the Nikon 1 series cameras have a very good reputation for speed.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NIKONV1/NIKONV1A6.HTM


For shooting toddlers a tilting screen and an eye-level viewfinder are both worth having in different circumstances.

The Panasonic FZ1000 bridge and LX100 acompact are good cameras that are very fast focussing. Both have the 4K photo mode, where you can extract a 8mp photo out of the video. This is interesting when you don't want to miss the right moment, when todlers are playing.

The FZ1000 has an articulated screen and a good EVF.

Rudi

Rudi Maes said:

The Panasonic FZ1000 bridge and LX100 acompact are good cameras that are very fast focussing. Both have the 4K photo mode, where you can extract a 8mp photo out of the video. This is interesting when you don't want to miss the right moment, when todlers are playing.

The FZ1000 has an articulated screen and a good EVF.

Rudi

Click to expand...

The FZ1000 is very big, probably as big as the Nikon DSLR with a kit lens.

You need a fast focusing lens and a good AF system that can track them.

So it is both a question of technique and gear.

Entry level cameras are not stellar regarding AF performance. Unfortunately the cameras that are good at tracking are a little large (e.g. Nikon D7100).

Nikon 1 is very fast in comparison with other mirorless offerings and it is very small. It's high ISO is quite weak so it is suitable for outdoor.

Chris R-UK said:

Rudi Maes said:

The Panasonic FZ1000 bridge and LX100 acompact are good cameras that are very fast focussing. Both have the 4K photo mode, where you can extract a 8mp photo out of the video. This is interesting when you don't want to miss the right moment, when todlers are playing.

The FZ1000 has an articulated screen and a good EVF.

Rudi

Click to expand...

The FZ1000 is very big, probably as big as the Nikon DSLR with a kit lens.

--
Chris R

Click to expand...

Yes, but the LX100 is not. The FZ1000 is just big. Some FF DSLRs are very big.

Rudi

I need something that works great in low light too... I know i am asking for a lot. And I am not expecting for all my photos to be great, but i hope they can be a bit more sharp than the ones i am now taking with my AW 110.

I like Panasonic Lumix LX100. Sounds like a good choice. What is your opinion?

I look at this and I am confused:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100/13

I don't want many pixels, I don't shoot photos bigger than 6MP because i take hundreds of photos and send them to the grandparents by email, so I want sharp and good and if I can print it on an A4, i am more than happy (if i want bigger, I go to a professional photographer for the task)... Plus I don't have so much time to post-process all the photos.

Thank you all for your suggestions and for taking the time to help me out!

All cameras mentioned above will be better than the AW110.

But why are you confused about the LX100 review?

Rudi

Panasonic is a nice camera. Extremely overpriced and not very flexible. It has a contrast AF so the tracking will be mediocre at best.

It has a "bright" lens so the low light will be a little better. It seems to have a crop factor of 2.2 compared with the 2 of four-thirds.

If I would look at an APS-C sensor and good AF in small package I would consider Sony A6000 with some fast lens like 35 mm f/1.8. Indoors it is a little bit constrained but outdoors you can have quite good results. The kit lens is not very well regarded but it is small and you can get decent pictures with it.

--
Victor
Bucuresti, Romania
http://picasaweb.google.com/victorpetcu69/
http://picasaweb.google.com/teodor.nitica/
http://picasaweb.google.com/vpreallize/
http://picasaweb.google.com/v.petcu.gci/
http://picasaweb.google.com/vpetcu.gci.arhiva/
http://picasaweb.google.com/v.petcu.poze/
http://picasaweb.google.com/millenia.advisory/
http://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/

because there are a lot of Cons. I don't understand everything there is in there, but i can see there is a long list

Thank you! I will look into that!

Anne2015 said:

because there are a lot of Cons. I don't understand everything there is in there, but i can see there is a long list

Click to expand...

If you look at other reviews, you will see that for every camera there are pros and cons.

No camera is perfect.

Rudi

Rudi Maes said:

Anne2015 said:

because there are a lot of Cons. I don't understand everything there is in there, but i can see there is a long list

Click to expand...

If you look at other reviews, you will see that for every camera there are pros and cons.

No camera is perfect.

Rudi

Click to expand...

Anne,

There are only two "cons" that are likely to affect you:

1. JPEG output is a little disappointing (but probably good enough for what you want to do).
2. It has a separate and inconvenient clip on flash. This may be important if you often use the on-board flash.

The important "pros" for you are likely to be:

1. Excellent image quality.
2. sensor size/lens quality.
3. Fast, responsive behaviour.

When I go back through pictures of my daughters at age 1 to 3, I see the ones my wife and I treasure most are the ones I took using my Sony NEX7. The modern version would be the Sony A6000.

The big factor is I took the pictures being down low on the ground with my kids, or right next to them, doing the shooting looking at the back panel display. The closeness and interaction comes through on the photos. And since I was looking at the back panel display, the kids could see my face and we could interact.

I also have DSLRs, but I found that looking through an optical viewfinder covered up my face and all the interaction between me and my kids was lost. It shows on the photos.

I know that you don't want to hear this, but for keeping up with fast moving toddlers and for shooting in low light a DSLR is still the best. Cameras with an EVF (electronic viewfinder) are not as good at following fast moving subjects as a DSLR, although some are better than others. If you must have something smaller consider the Sony a6000 or one of the Nikon 1 cameras.

A technique that I find useful in shooting fast moving subjects is to shoot a little loose (leave room around them) and then crop. In the old days it was called, "Shoot loose, print tight". Also shoot on their level. Try not to shoot down on them. The same is true for shooting pets.

Have a look at the Sony A6000.

Reasonably compact and gets good reviews and has a viewfinder.

The Sony A6000 is a good and fast system camera. I had one, but I sold it,

because I don't like changing lenses.

Rudi

Rudi Maes said:

The Sony A6000 is a good and fast system camera. I had one, but I sold it,

because I don't like changing lenses.

Rudi

Click to expand...

You need not if you get your walkaround on it.

"keeping up with fast moving toddlers and for shooting in low light a DSLR is still the best"

That is the point I am trying to get across.

DSLRs are best at the usage case of least interest.

My wife and I do not have a single photo of our daughters as fast moving in low light that we treasure.

It is not because I did not have DSLRs. It is because those kinds of photos are not that interesting.

When you buy a DSLR, they do not have good LiveView AF. So you lose the capability to get the kinds of photos we still find charming and interesting years later, one that really show a personality developing.

The other thing you learned as our kids moved from 2/3 years old to 4+ is that toddlers are not all that fast moving. They are active. Non-stop. Exhausting in that they want constant interaction. But that is a whole different matter.

Now if one is the kind of parent that experiences parenthood from distance so to speak, so it feels natural to be standing back looking through an OVF, one is likely to have a different perspective. Now a few years later, whenever my wife talks to friends and family about the early child raising years, she always tells them that I was "the mother" The one that was highly involved with them. So I realize that my perspective is very different than most men. As a result, I want a different camera than most men when it comes to the camera I use with my kids.

For the sake of the OP, I guess I should point out I have three DSLRs. (Pentax K5II, Nikon D7100, Canon 70D.) It is an easy choice for me when I go to my shelf and pull out what camera I think is best suited to the situation. I pick up my Sony A6000 or Olympus EM5. The DSLRs I leave sitting on the shelf when it comes to the kids.

Thank you, Chris!

I guess you are right, all cameras have pros and cons and it is only fair i guess. But for a beginner, it would be great to have just a simple, clear, list.

I saw in there something about needing extra UV filters when shooting outside. That scares me because i don't want to carry extra stuff. I am not the type to shoot on auto, i know a bit about shutter speed and aperture and i am trying to improve, but i feel there should be a difference between consumer cameras reviews and professional cameras reviews. There are a lot of technical stuff in there that makes a lot of sense for a professional, but absolutely no sense to someone who only want to buy a compact camera.