DSLR for specific purpose

[prufrock69]

Hi all,

I need some guidance in choosing a dslr for primarily shooting baby/family photos in available/indoor/low light situations. I'm about to make a purchase but would like some experts to make sure my reasoning is accurate.

My main purpose for moving from my fz28 to a dslr is so I can take some better quality photos of my baby. As most of the shots are indoors, I need a camera with good available/low light performance and flash options. A superzoom isn't cutting it. Also, I feel that the dslr with its lens options will be able to grow with him as he later starts running around!

So with that in mind, I'm interested in a older model (lower cost) dslr that has a good, fast prime lens. Now that Nikon has released a 35mm f/1.8, the d40 has become the front-runner (plus they have a cheaper than Canon flash that allows bouncing). Total cost: ~$700. I think thats a pretty good setup for my needs for the price. Also, the d40's point & shoot characteristics and beginner-friendly UI are very appealing. Its lack of primes that can autofocus (before the 35mm) was nearly a deal-breaker.

A comparable canon setup: XS+Sigma 30mm f/1.4+(cheapest bounce) flash = ~$1000. I can shave about $200 if I opt for the 50 f/1.8 but I think the 30mm would be better suited for my need. Canons also seem to have more primes that can autofocus but they are pretty expensive.

Are there any comparable setups for pentax/sony? What do you guys think of my reasoning?

[Rooz]

low light means you need good iso performance which means you should stick with nikon or canon. cheapest of cheap good quality options would definately be a d40/ sb400/ 35mm f1.8.

your reasoning is totally sound.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

+1 totally sound.

Oh and I don't mind manually focussing sometimes, I find it easier in some situations (like low light portraits) and you shouldn't be too frightened by it.

I find the 50mm prime a bit long (too tight a crop with too little environment) for indoor shots and wish I had the 35 also.

Do try and get some sort of kit zoom lens to go with your basic setup so you're not always stuck at one focal length.

[mattdm]

Are there any comparable setups for pentax/sony? What do you guys think of my reasoning?

Your reasoning is very good, and the Nikon with 35mm lens sounds like a good choice.

I don't know much about Sony, but I can answer your question for Pentax. Since you're interested in prime lenses, it could be a really good system for you. Pentax makes some very nice zooms (the DA★ 50-135mm has a stellar reputation), but really the system shines when it comes to prime lenses. With the exception of Nikon's new 35mm and Canon's very expensive L glass, no one but Pentax really seems interested in this space anymore.

The catch is that the camera body pricing at the entry level isn't very compelling — more on that below.

(Despite what Rooz says, by the way, Pentax does fine in the high ISO range as well — I wouldn't particularly rank that as a reason to stick to Canon and Nikon.)

One thing to consider is that when you go faster than f/2.8 or so, it's hard to keep your entire subject in focus. This can be okay for some effects, but will be difficult when your baby starts being more mobile (and turns into a toddler). Therefore, I think flash photography is really where it's at — but you need nice bounced light from a moderately powerful flashgun.

Pentax's flash system gives you something Canon and Nikon don't offer at the low end (or at all, from Canon): wireless ttl flash control using the built-in flash as the controller. This means you can get an approx-$200 flash like the Pentax AF360FGZ, Metz 48 AF-1, or Sigma EF530DG Super and put it somewhere convenient in the room to provide light, while the camera body itself has no added weight or bulk. Very cool.

Anyway, lenses:

Pentax's FA 50mm f/1.4 is regarded as one of the best 50mm lenses, but it's a little long on APS-C for general purpose. The FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited is in the running for one of the best lenses ever — but it's steeply priced. In general, the older FA Limited lenses (still in production) are more expensive and have faster max apertures, while the DA Limited series lenses (designed for digital) are more compact but a bit slower.

I use the DA 40mm Limited f/2.8 95% of the time. (Well, 90% now that I have the DA 70mm Limited f/2.4.) Occasionally the field of view is a little tight, but it serves pretty well as a normal lens. I've considered getting the DA 35mm Macro Limited f/2.8 instead, except I love my 40mm so much. There also was a DA★ 30mm on the lens roadmap from Pentax Japan, but it's gone for the latest roadmap update — rumor is that the optical formula is finalized but it's being repositioned to compete with the new Nikon lens.

Of course, the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma comes in Pentax K mount too, so that could be another option — and like I said, if you're interested in great prime lenses but don't have thousands of dollars for each one, it's probably a better system for you than Canon.

The 40mm lens is ridiculously compact — I don't get why Pentax doesn't sell it in a kit with the K2000. And this is the big drawback: the K2000 is most-readily available in a kit with the usual cheap zoom lens plus the low-end no-tilt flash. That means that to get the setup you want, you basically have to buy the kit and sell the parts you don't want on eBay. (The lens and flash seem to go for about $100 each, so if you went through the hassle, you could get the K2000 + AF360FGZ + DA 40mm for around $800 final. But that's such a pain I don't blame everyone who's already shaking their heads. Of course, it'd get you a somewhat nicer camera than the D40, and a top-notch lens.)

Pentax is supposed to announce some exciting new camera next week, expected to be at the high end. This will probably push a lot of K20D and K200Ds (and older — I'm selling my K10D) into the used market at reasonable prices. And they may re-announce the 30mm lens at that time or soon.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Pentax's flash system gives you something Canon and Nikon don't offer at the low end (or at all, from Canon): wireless ttl flash control using the built-in flash as the controller.

Just to be clear the Nikon D40, D40X and D60 don't allow native wireless control of remote flashes. But the OP didn't seam concerned by that, he's happy with an on camera bounced flash which I think is sensible for chasing kids. The Nikon D80, D90, D300 etc wirelessly control numerous remote flashes superbly.

It's the often quoted biggest strength of the Nikon system, but personally I like the menus & screen.:) And being able to post in the Nikon picture of the day thread instead of the Canon equivalent.;)

[mattdm]

Just to be clear the Nikon D40, D40X and D60 don't allow native wireless control of remote flashes. But the OP didn't seam concerned by that, he's happy with an on camera bounced flash which I think is sensible for chasing kids. The Nikon D80, D90, D300 etc wirelessly control numerous remote flashes superbly.

I use the wireless remote flash for chasing my own kids all the time, which is why I bring it up. :) It's nice to be able to turn the camera into portrait mode without reorienting the bounce flash, and it's nice to have less bulk in my hands.

The Nikon system is more advanced then Pentax's in some ways, but the Pentax one is available on the K200D and K2000, not just in the D80/D90 price range.

[prufrock69]

Many thanks for all your thoughtful replies. Matt, thanks for the info on the pentax system and primes - a lot to digest but very illuminating. Based on what I've read, every DSLR is capable of taking quality pictures and any bad pics will generally be my fault. Each company seems to have minor advantages in some category or another but nothing that will make much of a difference to a noob like me. Based on everyone's opinions so far, I'm probably going to stick with the d40 despite my inner gadget freak screaming for the latest and greatest. Thanks again everyone.

[Rooz]

do your time with the d40, learn the basics and then upgrade to a better body when the time comes.

[mattdm]

Based on everyone's opinions so far, I'm probably going to stick with the d40 despite my inner gadget freak screaming for the latest and greatest.

Yeah, I don't think you'll regret it. The new 35mm lens makes a sweet little combo.

[kjmdrumz3]

do your time with the d40, learn the basics and then upgrade to a better body when the time comes.

What he said! In all seriousness though, Rooz has been the one I've always went to with questions. He knows his stuff and won't steer you in the wrong direction, trust me. If I can talk the wife into letting me get a D90, I'll mail you my D40x for a hell of a deal ;)

[laydros]

D40 is a hell of a camera.

There are rumors that Canon has a crop 30 or 35 similar to that new Nikon coming soon, but nothing is confirmed yet. That would bring the price down a bit, but the D40 can still be had for much less than an XS. The D40/D60/D5000 AF business is kinda weird to me (any Sony Alpha or Canon EOS body will autofocus with every lens in the system) but I still think the D40 is worth it. Lots of people use old manual focus lenses converted for their AF cameras anyway.

I think the D40+35+flash would be a winning combination for what you want, and Nikon has a great system to upgrade within now.