I had a Nikkor 300/2.8 for astrophotography. That was a huge hunk of glass which used a 72mm filter. I sold it when I quit doing astronomy.

Not necessarily. Some people find that they can do 90% of their shooting with a single prime (no-zoom).

The really big thing is that you won't find lenses with f2.0 or lower on non-SLRs. The DSLRs also have a larger (physical area) sensor, which gives higher quality pictures.

Gotcha...so, if it's a choice between, say, the Canon G7 or the Canon Rebel XTi with a 2.0 or 1.8 lens, with the capability to go longer/faster, if needed, you'd suggest the Rebel?

/pretty much a rhetorical question...but I like what I'm reading about the Rebel Xti right now.

I'd go with a DSLR for kids. The ones with fix attached lenses are normally a little slow. Motorized zoom is slow and gets really annoying (at least for me). "Ah, let me zoom in on the kids... pzzzzzz... oh, the kids left." :( The only issue I see with DSLR is the size. Will you be willing to carry it around?

As for lenses, I actually recommend a zoom lense + an external flash. Throw in a 50/F1.8 (~$100) if you really want some low light stuff. However, remember that with the large aperture, it's difficult to get everything in focus. I have a friend that got a fast lense (F1.x range) that doesn't want to use a flash,
then later complained that he can only get his subject's nose to focus. :p

BTW, I'm not a pro at all. Just a gadget junkie that used to spend a lot of time reading this stuff.

Everything said so far, especially Luwin's great reply is right on. I don't have a digital SLR, but,

If shooting your kids is a primary goal, then a DLSR would be a good choice. You can't beat the speed - and that's probably one of the most important things for subjects like that. Coupled with high "burst" rates (rapid successive pictures), chances of getting a good shot increase. (And it's all about getting lucky. :p) Plus, better imaging at higher ISOs make them ideal for things that don't sit still and lower light situations.

For portraiture and general use, a moderate zoom lens would be fine. Something like a 28-135 is very versatile and not too unwiedly.

Except for minor "fill", onboard flash is going to suck no matter what. Take Luwin's suggestion and get an external flash. You can also get add-on diffusers (or make your own) to soften the light from the flash. With an extension cable, you can also hold the flash off camera, which can also help. I've only shot a little with a flash... and I'm not very good at it. Which is why pretty much all my photos are with available light. (you could go this route too) If there isn't much light... well then, the photos get, uh... artsy. :o

A couple of drawbacks with a DSLR: Like Luwin, I like to take a lot of low angle shots... and DSLR require you to look through the viewfinder, rather than the LCD. So it makes it more difficult to shooot that way (though not impossible). The other issue for me is the larger size. If you find yourself leaving the camera at home, or in the backpack on your back, instead of around your neck or in your pocket... what good is it? This is one reason I haven't taken the DSLR plunge. I'm into travel photography and like to keep it light (and I have this neck strap aversion thing going on). The bottom line is, that you can't take good pictures if you don't have your camera with you. An external flash adds to the bulk.

Just realize that a DSLR itself won't make the pictures necessarily better. Modern point-and-shoots are so good, that for most people the image quality is plenty good, especially if you never print. But, DSLRs add capability, which, when utilized can make your photos better. I recently took a trip with a rather photo-happy group. Some had honkin' SLRs, some had tiny pocket cameras, and everyone captured good stuff. For me, I just sort of learned to work within the limitations of my camera (limited zoom --> Get closer. Shutter lag --> Anticipate. Mediocre low light performance --> tripod, get creative. No satisfying shutter(mirror) click --> turn on the fake sound).

Still, I think for what you want to do, an DSLR would be great. Just get in the habit of taking it everywhere. Be that guy, with the camera always around his neck.

I do want to get a DSLR someday. If I were to buy one today, it would probably be a Rebel.

Don't listen to them, this is the only camera you need
http://www.gervase-phinn.com/gervase...e%20camera.gif

James' reply is spot on also. If I were to go DSLR today, I'd probably get the Rebel as well due to my limited budget. The shutter lag is the primary thing that I feel limited by when it comes to taking pictures of my daughter - in waiting for the image to process, my daughter would be doing something else already that I wanted to capture, and then - woosh . . . too late. But in terms of low light, etc. - the external flash and a full-size tripod or even the mini one I carry in my bag with the camera has allowed me to overcome situations where otherwise the low light would be a hindrance.

The size thing is what I say keeps me back from getting the DSLR - but in all honesty, the G-series isn't exactly small either, especially if you have to carry an external flash/extra battery/mini-tripod. I would have to make it a point to bring it with me with the intention of taking pictures. It's good that you have the SD600 already to be your little travel camera!

From what you've posted, it seems the DSLR will definitely offer the flexibility of swapping lenses if you need, etc. - I know this may be a moot point for some, but go into the store and hold them different cameras and see how they feel, how friendly the userface is, etc. - and compare different ones. Places like Ritz or Samy's often carry all the different models so you can check out/take test shots using each back-to-back.

Keep us posted on what you decide on!!

If there is ANYONE that deserves one, it's you. But it's kinda even cooler when the pics you take with your P&S are spanking ones some other folks take with their crazy expensive DSLR's. Gotta love a good underdog story. ;)

...so I did some more research, and quite a bit on the camera I already own...and realize that I should be getting better pictures than I am with the Canon SD600.

I think I just suck at 'camera', and any pictures that actually turned out well were because I finally was taking a picture of something that was ideal for what I had the camera set to shoot.

I think I need a 'camera for teh stupid' tutorial, just so I understand what certain settings mean.

Example: I'll be taking a shot of my kid in the house (kitchen, for example...and the lights are 'can' lights with incandescent - not flourescent - bulbs. On ISO 200, even if the kid is smiling at the camera, the shot will come out blurry. I'll swear. Reset the ISO to the highest (800) and retake the pic...with my kid having much less enthusiasm this time, and the pic will be crisper, but the colors will seem sterile.

Also, looking at samples taken by a Canon SD800IS from dpreview.com, it seems most of the shots are taking with low ISO numbers (80, 100), and the shots are still crisp. The colors are more true.

How does ISO work? For some reason, I always equated ISO with shutterspeed...only to find out they're completely different.

Any idea how I can speed up my shutter? Is there some other term that might be in some menu somewhere?

Totally.


Good point... I forgot about your SD600... which is a nice little camera, BTW. Then it's settled. Skip the in-between camera and get a DSLR. :D



One more thing to mention, Paul... Get a simple image-editing application, if you don't already have one. Doesn't have to be full Photoshop. I think a lot of cameras are bundled with basic software that will allow this(?). Or there's freeware. People often overlook the post-production side of photography. (of course, then there's those that abuse it)

PS:

I so do NOT want to be that guy with the huge camera around his neck. I love how small the SD600 is, but if I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong, I'll throw money at it...


...just like with bikes.

...and cars.

...and home appliances.

...and porn.

...and music equipment.

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/e...ilgrin0040.gif
Abuse? Enhancement!

For what it is worth, I think you do a great job with your pictures. I have been known to hold the camera backwards so I may not be the best critic, but your pictures look nice.

I've got Photoshop...and Illustrator...damned if I know how to use it...

I'm blocked by the fact that I'm a firm believer of 'crap in = crap out'. Polishing a turd isn't something I like doing. I'd love to start with a solid picture, then enhance it, rather than fix it.

Thanks, thomson...but in its defense, it's really hard to take a bad picture of the Grand Canyon!

Cameras are by default set to be "daylight" balanced. Incandescent or flourescent are at different color "temepratures" so, the resulting picture will have a color cast. Your camera should have settings that help mitigate this.

Despite what it may seem like, standard artificial indoor lighting is MUCH dimmer than natural daytime daylight. Even at ISO200, the film speed isn't fast enough in most cases.

Have to agree there. My 20D has auto settings for high-speed subjects and can shoot well at 5fps with each shot at 8mp. Of course, there's less opportunity to have nice depth affects but I can't be choosy when my subjects are running by at 35mph. It's a really nice feature to have (I'm actually getting greedy because I want to get 8fps instead of 5) and makes fast-action shots almost idiot-proof.

ISO is the film's (or in the case of digital, the sensor's) sensitivity to light. The higher the ISO, the more sensitive to light. The caveat with higher film speed is increased "noise."

Shutter speed is simply how long the shutter was open. The longer, the more light that is let in. The caveat here, is that the longer the shutter is open, the more suscepitble you are to camera shake or blurred subjects.

They are different, but can be used to effectively accomplish similar things. If the lighting is dim, you can increrase the ISO to increase the light sensitivity, thereby allowing a faster shutter speed to decrease the likeliness of blur. Or you can DECREASE the shutter speed (allowing in more light), however you will be limited by the speed of the subject and, depending how slow your shutter speed is, may require a tripod.

True. Only so much you can do with a crappy photo. I have lots of experience there too.

I think the SD600 should have the option to adjust for flourescent lighting, if I'm not mistaken. Have you tried pressing "Menu" when the camera is in picture-taking mode that is not Auto (There's one with the "M" next the red camera - try that one), and scroll down until you see where you can choose options like "Off/Vivid/Neutral/Sepia/B&W/etc." Flourescent is one of the choices, I believe?

I have the IXY 800IS, which is the same as the U.S. market SD700IS I believe, and the pictures from my recent trip to Washington were all taken with that little thing, with little or no postproduction except for adding borders or cropping - that little camera packs quite a punch!

While I'm not a believer in relying too heavily on Photoshop (takes away from the specialness/purity of the shot of that moment), it has helped enhance or fix minor nuances that would otherwise be a distraction to the overall shot. I only know how to use basic stuff on it (mainly contrast/brightness/converting to B&W), but it has helped many times!

+1

Another alternative to the tripod is the monopod.
Good: Cery easy to use and manipulate, once you get the hang of it
Bad: Can't put your camera on 10-sec delay, or leave it standing

I brought this tripod to the Grand Canyon with me...it was awesome.

Joby Gorillapod

http://www.joby.com/images/gorillapod-family.jpg

Ideally, then, I'd want to keep my ISO settings low to reduce noise, but try to speed up my shutter to reduce blur with moving objects, right? Also, find the corrective setting for flourescent or low-light shots...

Then, I guess, it's all about practice.

See that's the problem. The bottom line is, that you need "correct" exposure. This is accomplished through a combination of ISO, shutter speed, and aperture. By default, a camera tries for an overall exposure equal to 18% gray, IIRC. So, when you change one setting, it affects another. Increase the shutter speed, and you [may] need to increase ISO or aperture to get the correct exposure.

That said, you can increase shutter speed. Probably the quickest way is shoot in "shutter priority" mode, if your camera has it. This will let you set the shutter speed yourself, then the camera automatically sets the aperture for a good exposure (higher shutter speeds, require a larger aperture, to let in more light). Or shoot in "action" mode, if your camera has it. The camera will automatically shoot at the highest shutter speed that the lighting conditions will allow.

...And this is where a fast lens comes in handy, if you don't mind a shallower depth of field, depending on the point of focus and the subject matter...