Need a "faster" camera for kids photos

[NGRhodes]

Pretty much any M4/3 or SLR or Alpha mount will be a noticeable step up in speed/noise and dynamic range from the 200EXR (which i used to have).

If you are set on having a view finder, the A58 is the closest to the A6000 (which is a great camera).

Need to learn to use the settings or you may find you still do not get sharp shots of your kids, auto mode often not good enough for capturing action, sport is often good for capturing fidgety kids, or using shutter priority.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
I would say a camera like the previously recommended Nikon D3400 or any of the mirrorless like the Sony a6000 are usable up to about ISO3200. You go much past that, and things start to get really soft because you're going to be applying a lot of noise reduction. Granted, we all have different tolerance for noise.

Here is a straight out of camera JPEG from D3400 at ISO3200:
https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS6000x4000~sample_galleries/7648199866/8212858010.jpg

Here is one from Sony a6000 at ISO3200:
https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS6000x4000~sample_galleries/7558787527/3761623154.jpg

But if the lighting is poor and you need high shutter speed to freeze movement, and you don't have a fast lens, you may be forced to use ISO higher than that.


These jpg looks "amazing" to me already.

 

[KrisZ]

If you're used to pictures taken by the smartphones, then you will be amazed at the quality jump of the dedicated cameras. And if you like to print pictures, like I do, then the overly processed smartphone photos, which are optimized for digital consumption, simply look terrible. My almost 15 year old Nikon D70s blows them out of the water.

Smartphone cameras have their time and place, but if you want good performance and quality, you have to go dedicated.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Thanks for all the suggestions. A few more things I realized after some researches:

1) Budget hopefully 2) No need for special lens or etc. I think those "kit len" would be good enough.
3) Not planning to blow my photos up to posters, at least not planning to at the moment.
4) Low light, low light, low light. I think this is what I'm focusing on. If I can get low light and moving kids without flash or too grainy of a photo (sometimes it is outdoor during family event, won't have time to "setup" fill flash or other fancy stuff), I'll be happy.
5) I'm biased toward mirrorless due to weight, but they seems to not have many used models for good price like older DSLR.
6) I use a tripod for some family event group photos (so everyone can be in), having a location for tripod mount would be good (almost every camera has it).
7) No need for external accessories like flash, shutter control, etc.


I think you'll be fine with the D3400. If you want to try different angles, the D5500 would also work as you can tilt the display to different angles. It's going to be way better than any phone camera. I primarily use an 18-105 but they have the newer 18-140 which is somewhat cheap if you get it refurbished. The 18-200 is still somewhat expensive, but it's a good all around lense. I've got a bunch of other ones like the 35mm 1.8, but I don't use it that much. My other primary one is a Sigma 10-20mm but that's more for real estate work. For fill flash, I think you can just leave it in automatic and hit the flash button and use the built in flash, it's still better than a phone flash and the kit lense is fine with the built in flash. Never got into mirrorless because the lenses are more limited. I have about 6-7 other lenses.

 

[Andrew1972]

IPhone 6 is pokey camera. The iPhone 7 or better is superior Choice for your use case . You’ll actually have it on you and they can take amazing photos due to high end computer compensate for poor conditions.

A DSLR will miss life moments since no one carries it about 24x7.

 

[greenjp]

The newer phones have some clever processing tricks, but they will in no way match a dedicated, larger format sensor camera. An iPhone 7 has a ~17mm^2 area sensor. m4/3 is 225, crop sensor SLRs about 370. Can't overcome the physics of capturing 15-20x less light. And unless they made huge strides between the 6s and the 7, the phone isn't in the same world as a real camera in terms of responsiveness, rapid shooting, etc. Not to mention there's no long zoom options.

Your point about missing the moments if you don't have the camera is a good one, and why I never would recommend a big "full frame" type camera to a casual user, and do recommend the smaller mirrorless type cameras and prime lenses as they're much more convenient to carry around.

 

[KrisZ]

There are no amazing smartphone cameras. They have their time and place and can capture some great candid moments, but when I see people capturing pictures and shooting videos during school plays or birthdays, moments that one can prepare for, I just shake my head.

But then again, what is one of the first things being mentioned in various smartphone reviews? How "amazing" the camera is. People's standards must be really low to call something like that amazing.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
But then again, what is one of the first things being mentioned in various smartphone reviews? How "amazing" the camera is. People's standards must be really low to call something like that amazing.

In my opinion, if lighting is good, many modern smartphones can take pretty good photos. But when lighting is limited and you still need fast shutter speed to freeze action, things start to fall apart.

Below image was taken with my Nexus 5X which is relatively outdated by today's standards.

 

[KrisZ]

In good lighting I had good results with cheap disposables loaded with cheap 400 ISO film, remember those?

Also, and this may differ from one smartphone manufacturer to another, but pictures that I took with my wife's iPhone 7 plus, that looks quite amazing, with HDR effect and all on the screen, came out terrible when I printed them due to the very heavy post processing. The digital artifacts were extremely bad.

Something to keep in mind if you want to frame some of these great looking shots.

 

[Rand]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
There are no amazing smartphone cameras. They have their time and place and can capture some great candid moments, but when I see people capturing pictures and shooting videos during school plays or birthdays, moments that one can prepare for, I just shake my head.

But then again, what is one of the first things being mentioned in various smartphone reviews? How "amazing" the camera is. People's standards must be really low to call something like that amazing.


So true my stepmom still believes that her galaxy s5 camera is better than a DSLR because the reviews raved about the galaxy s5.(oh and its samsung and shes a huge samsung fan)

I have a nikon J1, still works fine for my use. If I pulled it out more than 5x a year I might go with something better.

The J1 is "only" 10megapixel so not really good for big prints but.. it stands up very well against any kind of smartphone and most of the point and shoots(with a few exceptions)

 

[alarmguy]

A "nice" photo is relative to the individual.
For the majority of the population, a smart phone takes a nice photo.

Just as Kodak Instamatic cameras took nice photos.
Its all relative to what someone thinks is important vs perfection to detail in a well designed larger format camera.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instamatic

 

[greenjp]

Well seeing how the OP isn't part of that majority and was asking for help picking a camera that was specifically not his iPhone most of us are providing advice on actual cameras

 

[alarmguy]

^^^^ ??? ^^^^ Who are you replying too, hopefully not me or you didnt read all my posts in here and certainly didnt read the last line..

 

[Vikas]

Did OP tell us how he plan to use his "faster" camera? Will it be always placed on the fireplace with the lens cap removed ready to fire? These mirror less or DSLR are great when you already are carrying it around. How do you grab the picture of the kid at home unless you have instant access to the camera loaded to fire?

Don't take me wrong. I have Sony A6000 camera with two kit lenses and iPhone7 and iPhone7+ For impromptu photos, you can't beat iPhone7+ Total investment in Sony A6000 is about $1K including extra flash and other accessories.

If your budget is under $500, consider the Sony RX series P&S first before deciding that you want to jump on interchangeable lens camera. The previous generation of that camera, brand new, are now under $500. Even though, they might be using 4 year old technology, those Sony are still great buy.

P.S. Don't go by QuattroPete's photos. It is like buying Michelangelo's brushes and believing that you can get the same pictures if only you had the his brushes. QP's pinhole camera pictures are way better than my A6000 pictures

 

[NGRhodes]

I picked a Sony RX100 for ability to take quick snaps.
A bit of noise, but clean up very well. low light (darkness and shadows) are very well controlled, better than my old GX5 (with kit lens).
Processed in Raw, I am using Dx0 as Capture One has a broken RX100 profile

Here are a few examples, got a flower shot, running kid (to show off speed of camera, not perfect but good) and a dusk long-ish exposure).

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
P.S. Don't go by QuattroPete's photos. It is like buying Michelangelo's brushes and believing that you can get the same pictures if only you had the his brushes. QP's pinhole camera pictures are way better than my A6000 pictures

LOL!

Thanks.

 

[Vikas]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Vikas
P.S. Don't go by QuattroPete's photos. It is like buying Michelangelo's brushes and believing that you can get the same pictures if only you had the his brushes. QP's pinhole camera pictures are way better than my A6000 pictures

LOL!

Thanks.




I dare you to show your pinhole camera pictures

Funnily after taking photographs for well over 40 years, I still can't really get over that feeling "only if I had better gear" "I would take better pictures" even though logically I know it is wrong.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Funnily after taking photographs for well over 40 years, I still can't really get over that feeling "only if I had better gear" "I would take better pictures" even though logically I know it is wrong.
This never goes away. I feel the same way.

 

[Vikas]

What did OP decide? Sony just came out with their A7 III mirror less for under $2000 price point. OP should get that

 

[bunnspecial]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I'd look for a Nikon D300 with a 35 or 50mm f1.8 prime. Get the full frame lens, 1.8 is cheap in those focal lengths. This way when you upgrade to full frame in the future (I assume all will go this way at some point), your lenses will still be fine.


IN GENERAL, I agree but I think that within the Nikon ecosystem there is a very good argument for buying a DX prime.

First of all, many folks will find 50mm too long for a general purpose lens on DX camera. 35mm is more of a "normal" focal length.

The best affordable 35mm full-frame lens is the AF-Nikkor 35mm f/2D for around $400. This is a great lens(I had one) but it has a lot of disadvantages for the OP. First of all, it won't autofocus on D3xxx or D5xxx series camera, as those cameras lack an in-body focus motor. Even worse, Nikon has disabled metering for lenses with an aperture ring on the newest D3xxx bodies, so the lens won't even meter. By contrast, the $200 DX AF-S 35mm f/1.8G(I have one) works great on every Nikon DSLR made and is optically better than the f/2.

50mm lenses get a bit more muddy. The old 50mm AF-Nikkor f/1.8D is around $100 new, but has the same issues as the 35mm f/2 on the lower end bodies. The optical design is essentially unchanged from the 50mm f/1.8 Series E, which in itself was a good but not outstanding lens. FWIW, I have non-D AF version along with a Series E 1.8 and an AI-s 1.8. The AI-s is the best of the bunch, but I wouldn't suggest it unless you want to get into manual focus lenses. The G version of the 50mm f/1.8 has been tweaked optically just a bit and is better than the D version, and is around $200. All the Nikon 50mm primes do cover full frame.