A camera to "catch" my kids in action

[pilotswife]

Budget
$250-$350 (or less if on sale!)

Size
size doesn't matter... so they say... but I dont like the tiny ones, I like my camera to feel like a camera.

Features
I would like 8-10... but suppose I could deal with 7

What optical zoom will you need? 4x - 6x

* How important is “image quality” to you? (Rate using a scale of 1-10)
8-9

Do you care for manual controls?
yes - as long as they arent too complicated... just give me easy to read instructions!


General Usage

* What will you generally use the camera for? I want good pics of fast toddlers (1-4 year olds) My baby is a red headed boy, and we are looking at modeling for him, need to be able to produce some great quality shots of him.

* Will you be making big prints of your photos or not? maybe 5x7's, and once in a blue moon an 8x10

Will you be shooting a lot of indoor photos or low light photos? yes... indoor, outdoor, low light... i need it all

Will you be shooting sports and/or action photos? YES... those little tikes are fast!

Miscellaneous

Are there particular brands you like or hate? I have a good friend who has suggested the Canon A series... I LOVE the flip out display on the A640, but find many mixed reviews on this model

Are there particular models you already have in mind? Canon A640, A7010 IS, A570 IS... etc... (I like the image stabilization and face detection idea)

(If applicable) Do you need any of the following special features?
*rotating LCD would be awesome... my husband is active duty military and is away ALOT -- would love to use it to get some shots of our family together.
*also need the continuious shot (where it takes several shots in a row... the machine gun effect, as i like to call it)
*special effects would be alot of fun for me (sepia, black and white with accent, skin tones, custom effects, kids and pets, portraite mode, etc...)
*I need it to be fast... the "down time" between shots and for the flash to warm up on my old camera, is KILLING me!
*I also need durability... if a kid grabs and drops it, I need it to hold up!

[pilotswife]

I have just been studying the canon powershot S3 IS... any suggestions on this one? My main priority is to be able to take great shots of my kids, but I am also intrested in becoming a better all around photographer. I want something that will help me to learn the ins and outs. I worry about the 6 megapixles on this camera... otherwise it sounds like what I want... I liked the A640, but reviews on it say its not good in low light, and there is no IS (which I really want)... they run around the same price, so now I am confused... would it be better to have 10 vs 6 megapixles, or IS and since I dont see many complaints about low light, I assume the S3 IS is better than the A640 in low light.... I may be leaning toward the S3 IS now... what do you think aobut mps?

:confused:

[fionndruinne]

Don't worry about 6 megapixels. That's more than enough for everything but huge prints or very extensive cropping - you'll only pay more for a higher-megapixel camera, and noise levels will probably be worse.

The S3 is a nice camera as far as ultrazooms go. I looked into the Sony H5, but when I went to the store I found that one to be very plasticky-feeling. The S3 has the better-built feel. But all ultrazooms will be kind of bad at noise levels, especially if you're going to be shooting in low-lit rooms. If you use flash much, that shouldn't be a problem. All in all, I think the S3 is one of your best options.

[pilotswife]

thanks. Now I am wondering how user friendly this model is... I haven't really been into cameras in a long time... and things have certianly changed! I really want to "cowboy up" when it comes to taking photos... will this camera help me learn photography without completly frustrating me?

I do know that I need something with good "burst" --- a feature that I have never had on a camera, but I am sooooo looking forward to. (a good smile doesnt last long with little ones, so I really hope this feature helps.) How is the burst on this one... do you think this is a pretty fast camera from shot to shot, and does the flash take along time to ready up? I do use the flash alot, so that is pretty important. What is the significance for using the flash with the zoom?

Also, from what I can tell, it looks like the S3 IS is about a year old now... how do I find out if they are planning to release a new and improved model of it soon - and will I be able to see reviews on the new model before it becomes available?

Thanks in advance for you help.

[fionndruinne]

As far as I know, no S3 replacement is in the works. It is itself an upgrade of the S2, which was a pretty long-running model with many fans.

I don't own an S3 myself, but I know that a few other members do on this board, so I'll let them do the talkin' as to how the S3 functions.

[pilotswife]

ok. Now I am back to checking out the a570 IS vs. the S3 IS...

things to compare

S3-------------------------A570
flip out LCD 2" -------------fixed LCD 2.5" (i prefer the flip out, but 2.5")
6.0 mp --------------------7.1 mp (i may like to make 8x10's occasional)
processor???---------------DIGIC III (face detection... i take alot of kid pics)
ISO 800--------------------ISO 1600 (not sure which would be better, remember i will be focousing in on kids and faces - less niose on close ups is better)
12x optical-----------------4x optical (i am used to 12... how bad would it be to go down to 4x from 12x? - sounds devastating!)

I am confused

[fionndruinne]

I used a 3x zoom point-and-shoot for years, and it did get awfully frustrating at times.

What are the minimum ISOs comparatively? You probably won't want to use max ISO very often as the sensors in small cameras are noisy. Sticking around 400 would be best for action shots I'd think (but what do I know?).

[shahmatt]

You could consider the Fuji S6500FD. It's a direct competitor to the Canon S3 IS, and has the best low light performance of its class, with much better high ISO image quality compared with the Canon.

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_s6000fd-review/

[undefined]

I hate to say it, but what you want doesn't exist in the price range you are looking for. Your requirements are mutually exclusive of your price range.

Here's the issue - low light, fast continuous shoot mode. The only camera models that come in a relatively small (non-SLR) size that have very good low light performance are Fuji SuperCCD based cameras (Fuji F20, F30, F31fd). Unfortunately, the Fuji cameras have a pretty pitiful "machine gun" continuous shooting mode.

Canon has excellent continuous shooting modes, but the low light performance is pretty pathetic, especially if you are looking to produce snap shots in limited light without flash and want them to come out crisp.

A DSLR with a fast lens (50/1.8) will produce crisp shots in most low light situations while capturing those 'precious moments'.

[SpecialK]

The Canon S3 IS is generally nice, but as with all ultrazooms that have a "viewfinder" (one or two only have a LCD), the viewfinder is of the EVF (electronic viewfinder) variety which has a possible disadvantage of a small blackout period and other imaging tradeoffs. However, the rotating screen of many of the canon A series is very nice, and would be a large positive for kid pictures as it allows you to get on their level without shooting down at them.

If you are contemplating the A640, I would recommend stepping down to the A630. It has 7.1 megapixels, but does not have the remote capture feature (controalble from the keyboard), and is about $210.

Most of the Canon A series has fairly bad redeye from the flash, but that is a trait of most compacts as well.

The (good) DSLR idea mentioned above will cost about $550, unless you buy used.

[pilotswife]

Thanks for your comments... I am researching the fuji s6000fd now... the comment that I have noticed in it's reviews that I dont like is that it has no Image Stabalization... should I be worried about that shooting kids with it?

[undefined]

Thanks for your comments... I am researching the fuji s6000fd now... the comment that I have noticed in it's reviews that I dont like is that it has no Image Stabalization... should I be worried about that shooting kids with it?

In a word: NO.

Here's why:

Image stabilization helps by reducing the blur caused by your hands moving. This allows the camera to utilize slower shutter speeds without your movement causing the picture to appear blurry. Once again, IS permits the use of slower shutter speeds.

With children, or any moving object, this is counterintuitive to what you want - faster shutter speeds! You want to capture the kids without them being a blur, which will require you to use a faster shutter speed than photographing, say, a plant.

So - image stabilization helps on non-moving targets. The general rule of thumb is to use a shutter speed of 1/focal length. In simple terms - if you buy a camera that is advertised at having the equivalent to a 35-350mm lens (10x zoom), you want shutter speed to be 1/35s at wide angle or 1/350s at full telephoto. Image stabilization can help here, somewhat, by offering one to two stops of advantage (slowing the shutter speed without blur from your hand movement). Put in other terms, the 1/350s becomes more like 1/125s. That is probably fast enough to capture the kids moving around, but this advantage really only exists at the extreme tele end of your zoom.

In reality, the above statement does not turn into much of an advantage, as the lens is slower (takes in less light) as you zoom in. So, while image stabilization may allow you to shoot at a slower shutter speed, you are taking in so much less light you won't likely ever be using full zoom indoors on anything that moves faster than a snail.

As I said - image stabilization is not helpful or necessary in most cases when photographing moving objects, except at full zoom.

[pas49ras]

Image Stabalization is only really helpful with slow shutter speeds as it stops camera shake. Action pictures of your kids are better suited for a fast shutter speed where a higher ISO would be more helpful. The Fuji is better with the higher ISO shots.

[pilotswife]

so, you guys are saying, that I need higher ISO rather than IS? at least until they are playing field sports and I need to use the full zoom, the IS will come in helpful with that? Correct?

[pas49ras]

so, you guys are saying, that I need higher ISO rather than IS? at least until they are playing field sports and I need to use the full zoom, the IS will come in helpful with that? Correct?

At full zoom...IS is minimally helpful when taking pictures of sports or a subject in motion . A faster shutter speed not only freezes action but helps with camera shake as well. This is Fuji's version of IS, where the subject is not blured because of its best in class higher ISO /lower noise levels which allow you to use faster shutter speeds. Any camera used for catching action..higher shutter speed is more useful than IS.

[tim11]

Image Stabiliser (IS) is a misleading terminology. It doesn't technically stabilise any image but minimise the effect of the photographer's hand shaking. But if the subjects move the effect of IS is minimal.
For example, you can place your camera on a rock and if the subject moves at a faster speed you still get a blurry image.
The best indoors and lowlight non DSLR camera is Fuji and I bought F30 just for this reason.

[undefined]

Tim is right. IS is of limited use, and most often only useful at extreme telephoto or when photographing still subjects.

If I were in your shoes, I'd buy two cameras. I'd pick up a Fuji F20 - a camera with an excellent reputation for taking wonderful low light photos, and a Panasonic TZ1 - a great small superzoom (10x) camera for outdoor shots. I'd keep the F20 out and ready while indoors (or on your belt or in your purse) and use the TZ1 when going to places like the park or outdoor settings that you might want a good zoom. The TZ1 is about $160 now, the F20 is $140 - that puts you at $300 + memory cards. The versatility that you would achieve by having two cameras far exceeds any single compact camera on the market.

[sbnr]

Save your money and get a Nikon D50 or a Pentex K100D. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=6222&A=details&Q=&sku=438218&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation) They aren't going to kill your budget, but keep in mind once you dive in, you'll be tempted to buy more gear to compliment your system. :D

I would still get a Canon S3, but it won't do everything you are asking for like a good DSLR.

[reppans]

I wouldn't dismiss IS so readily:

1) Short videos can make all the difference in the world, especially with kids and sports. For example, I've taken lots of stills of my kids skiing and you simply cannot judge their skill level from a still - a 10 sec video clip makes all the difference. IS improves videos dramatically.

2) While frozen action shots can be nice... I happen to really, really like motion blur shots where you can capture the subject still. Motion blur adds "action" to a shot as well as having a depth-of-field "subject focusing" quality, both making a shot much more interesting. Lastly, while it is very easy to freeze an action shot, it is more difficult to capture motion blur, and therefore feels more rewarding to get right. ISO won't help here... IS, once again, can make all the difference. These are from an A710IS:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/238/458726709_be7b580dea.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/207/467105088_b9490440a0.jpg

The bottom line is that your choice for good ISO performance and good IS shouldn't necessarily be mutually exlusive, there are cameras out there that have both.

[fionndruinne]

Hockey!

*taps stick on ground menacingly*

[shahmatt]

I wouldn't dismiss IS so readily:

1) Short videos can make all the difference in the world, especially with kids and sports. For example, I've taken lots of stills of my kids skiing and you simply cannot judge their skill level from a still - a 10 sec video clip makes all the difference. IS improves videos dramatically.



I agree, IS helps stabilize video recording, and that's useful.



2) While frozen action shots can be nice... I happen to really, really like motion blur shots where you can capture the subject still. Motion blur adds "action" to a shot as well as having a depth-of-field "subject focusing" quality, both making a shot much more interesting. Lastly, while it is very easy to freeze an action shot, it is more difficult to capture motion blur, and therefore feels more rewarding to get right. ISO won't help here... IS, once again, can make all the difference. These are from an A710IS:


I don't understand here, in order to freeze an action shot (and you've done that admirably here), you still need a fast shutter speed. From your images, all the background is a blur because well, 1. they are not in focus, and 2. they are also moving (but mainly because they are out of focus). Since you have obviously used a high shutter speed to capture these shots, IS would have been redundant. I mean your shots would have come out the same even if IS was disabled. On the other hand, ISO would indeed have helped if these images were taken in low light, but the images appear to be in bright light so I guess you could have used a lower ISO without a problem. Your EXIF data from the images are not there, so I can't say.



The bottom line is that your choice for good ISO performance and good IS shouldn't necessarily be mutually exlusive, there are cameras out there that have both.

IS is an excellent tool for low light photography, and its a shame Fuji still hasn't put them into their cams. But a good high ISO image quality does solve the problem of IS to an extent and takes it further by allowing the user to take action photos in low light (albeit increased noise), and this is more important I think in a social context.

[reppans]

I don't understand here, in order to freeze an action shot (and you've done that admirably here), you still need a fast shutter speed. From your images, all the background is a blur because well, 1. they are not in focus, and 2. they are also moving (but mainly because they are out of focus). Since you have obviously used a high shutter speed to capture these shots, IS would have been redundant. I mean your shots would have come out the same even if IS was disabled. On the other hand, ISO would indeed have helped if these images were taken in low light, but the images appear to be in bright light so I guess you could have used a lower ISO without a problem. Your EXIF data from the images are not there, so I can't say.

Hockey Shot was taken at 35mm equiv, Tv priority @ 1/30th, Av 8.0, Ev -1/3, IS was set to "Panning" mode which corrects for verical movement, not horizontal. 1/30th is slow, and Av 8 would give a wide DOF.

The swing shot was taken at 120mm equiv, pre-focused, program mode @ 1/160th, Av 3.5, Ev -2/3. 1/160th is pretty fast, I agree, but that swing was moving really fast - I had to follow the subject around with the OVF to keep the camera's motion in synch with the subject... another panning shot, effectively. I'm quite certain, the blur is not DOF: I was reasonably far away, the seats are reasonably close to each other on these swing rides, and P&Ss are not anything like DSLRs is being able to create narrow DOFs. I guess I would agree, however, that IS may, or may not, have been important on this particular shot.

I'll describe another favorite type of IS shot of mine (won't post it though, since its of my sister-in-law's kids). Opening presents on Xmas morning with 3 families' kids running around the tree sorting the presents. With natural light coming in through the windows, my in-law's 2 kids see me with the camera an pose for a shot. With IS, I had both of them, and the tree, crystal clear (taken @ Tv 1/8th, Av 3.5) but with all the other kids in a whirlwind of motion blur all around them. It captured the action of the moment, and without fail, this photo really seems to draw everyone's interest compared to all the other, everyday, standard freeze frame shots.

[Rooz]

you're drawing a very long bow here i think. the purpose and effectiveness of IS is not to take action shots. while motion blur is nice SOMETIMES, it can be achieved with or without IS. i can't see how IS helped in that shot at all.

lets not mislead the OP here about what IS is all about and how it can be used.

[reppans]

....i can't see how IS helped in that shot at all.

lets not mislead the OP here about what IS is all about and how it can be used.
Not sure which pic you are referring to but your point is fair enough.... I'll restate:

The Xmas shot I described above was fully assisted by IS (1/8 sec handheld, myself and subject were still).

The hockey shot was partially assisted by IS ("panning" IS mode cancels vertical motion, but you still need to get horizontal motion right).

The swing shot was probably just outright lucky timing.