«

On Wed, 04 May 2005 15:38:10 -0500, Ron Hunter

wrote:

>Ken Tough wrote:
>> Pete
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
>>>digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
>>>better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
>>>thanks...
>>
>>
>> You may find the shutter lag is a big bugbear, especially when you
>> try to capture the little blighter smiling. Made me move to a dSLR,
>> and the pics are a heckofalot better since. (Oly 3040 -> D70)
>>
>On the newer cameras shutter lag is only slightly longer than a DSLR, in
>some cases faster than the older ones. The shutter lag on mine is
>shorter than my reflexes so I guess I am the 'lag'. sigh.

Define 'newer camera'. Define 'slightly longer'.

The time it takes to take a photo from 'seeing the moment' is:

reaction time+shutter lag

therefore even if your reflexes aren't that great it doesn't take a
genius to conclude that you will have a better chance if either of
these two parameters are as short a time as possible. Maybe slightly
longer is too long eh? After all, especially with moving subjects
like kids, we're often only talking about milliseconds between getting
that shot or missing it arent we?

I love it here...

Steve wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2005 15:38:10 -0500, Ron Hunter
>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Ken Tough wrote:
>>
>>>Pete
>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
>>>>digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
>>>>better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
>>>>thanks...
>>>
>>>
>>>You may find the shutter lag is a big bugbear, especially when you
>>>try to capture the little blighter smiling. Made me move to a dSLR,
>>>and the pics are a heckofalot better since. (Oly 3040 -> D70)
>>>
>>
>>On the newer cameras shutter lag is only slightly longer than a DSLR, in
>>some cases faster than the older ones. The shutter lag on mine is
>>shorter than my reflexes so I guess I am the 'lag'. sigh.
>
>
> Define 'newer camera'. Define 'slightly longer'.
>
> The time it takes to take a photo from 'seeing the moment' is:
>
> reaction time+shutter lag
>
> therefore even if your reflexes aren't that great it doesn't take a
> genius to conclude that you will have a better chance if either of
> these two parameters are as short a time as possible. Maybe slightly
> longer is too long eh? After all, especially with moving subjects
> like kids, we're often only talking about milliseconds between getting
> that shot or missing it arent we?
>
> I love it here...
>
>
Yes, we are talking about milliseconds, and it depends on what you take
pictures of, and how you do it if that time really causes trouble or
not. Cost is also a major issue for many young parents, who are
probably already challenged by costs for a new baby. Not everyone
enjoys financial security, or stability.


--
Ron Hunter

On Fri, 06 May 2005 21:49:01 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
wrote:

>Steve wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 May 2005 15:38:10 -0500, Ron Hunter
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ken Tough wrote:
>>>
>>>>Pete
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>>with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
>>>>>digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
>>>>>better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
>>>>>thanks...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You may find the shutter lag is a big bugbear, especially when you
>>>>try to capture the little blighter smiling. Made me move to a dSLR,
>>>>and the pics are a heckofalot better since. (Oly 3040 -> D70)
>>>>
>>>
>>>On the newer cameras shutter lag is only slightly longer than a DSLR, in
>>>some cases faster than the older ones. The shutter lag on mine is
>>>shorter than my reflexes so I guess I am the 'lag'. sigh.
>>
>>
>> Define 'newer camera'. Define 'slightly longer'.
>>
>> The time it takes to take a photo from 'seeing the moment' is:
>>
>> reaction time+shutter lag
>>
>> therefore even if your reflexes aren't that great it doesn't take a
>> genius to conclude that you will have a better chance if either of
>> these two parameters are as short a time as possible. Maybe slightly
>> longer is too long eh? After all, especially with moving subjects
>> like kids, we're often only talking about milliseconds between getting
>> that shot or missing it arent we?
>>
>> I love it here...
>>
>>
>Yes, we are talking about milliseconds, and it depends on what you take
>pictures of, and how you do it if that time really causes trouble or
>not. Cost is also a major issue for many young parents, who are
>probably already challenged by costs for a new baby. Not everyone
>enjoys financial security, or stability.

We are specifically talking about taking pictures of moving subjects
of course it depends what you take pictures of. The title of this
thread is 'baby coming' remember? It you're taking pictures of trees
you've all the time in the world.

I know cost is a major issue for young parents. Fine, but the issue is
that you are arguing that point and shoot cameras are as good a DSLR's
and it simply isn't true especially in the areas of start up time,
shutter lag, and general speed.

No one here is trying to say it's only DSLR cameras which are any good
but their benefits are especially apparent with moving subjects such
as kids.

Steve wrote:
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 21:49:01 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 May 2005 15:38:10 -0500, Ron Hunter
>>>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ken Tough wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Pete
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>with the little one on the way I was wondering if it was worth me buying a
>>>>>>digital SLR camera to take better pictures? I just want to know how much
>>>>>>better the pics could be with a camera like an entry level D SLR?
>>>>>>thanks...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You may find the shutter lag is a big bugbear, especially when you
>>>>>try to capture the little blighter smiling. Made me move to a dSLR,
>>>>>and the pics are a heckofalot better since. (Oly 3040 -> D70)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On the newer cameras shutter lag is only slightly longer than a DSLR, in
>>>>some cases faster than the older ones. The shutter lag on mine is
>>>>shorter than my reflexes so I guess I am the 'lag'. sigh.
>>>
>>>
>>>Define 'newer camera'. Define 'slightly longer'.
>>>
>>>The time it takes to take a photo from 'seeing the moment' is:
>>>
>>>reaction time+shutter lag
>>>
>>>therefore even if your reflexes aren't that great it doesn't take a
>>>genius to conclude that you will have a better chance if either of
>>>these two parameters are as short a time as possible. Maybe slightly
>>>longer is too long eh? After all, especially with moving subjects
>>>like kids, we're often only talking about milliseconds between getting
>>>that shot or missing it arent we?
>>>
>>>I love it here...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yes, we are talking about milliseconds, and it depends on what you take
>>pictures of, and how you do it if that time really causes trouble or
>>not. Cost is also a major issue for many young parents, who are
>>probably already challenged by costs for a new baby. Not everyone
>>enjoys financial security, or stability.
>
>
> We are specifically talking about taking pictures of moving subjects
> of course it depends what you take pictures of. The title of this
> thread is 'baby coming' remember? It you're taking pictures of trees
> you've all the time in the world.
>
> I know cost is a major issue for young parents. Fine, but the issue is
> that you are arguing that point and shoot cameras are as good a DSLR's
> and it simply isn't true especially in the areas of start up time,
> shutter lag, and general speed.
>
> No one here is trying to say it's only DSLR cameras which are any good
> but their benefits are especially apparent with moving subjects such
> as kids.

Toddlers, and up, yes. Babies don't get around much.


--
Ron Hunter