Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

DSLR vs less $--need fast "shutter" to capture kids/movement

by egroff Dec 13, 2009 6:02AM PST

I am looking to get a new digital camera and would like to spend under $300. HOWEVER, I am extremely tempted by the Nikon D3000. The only reason for my temptation, however, is that I desperately want to take pictures of my fast-moving children. I know the DSLRs will give me that--but they will also give me a whole lot of extras I won't necessarily use or need--as a mom of young ones, I don't really have the time to learn to use them, as much as I'd like to.

So the basic question is this: what non-DSLR camera has little shutter lag (mostly in well-lighted conditions or with a flash) AND a short shot-to-shot time? Is the Sony DSC-H20 as good as it gets, or are there better cameras? Is it remotely worth going $200 out of my budget just to get good, time-accurate pics of my kiddos?

Thanks for any feedback!

Discussion is locked

2 Posts
- Collapse + Expand Details
- Collapse -
If were talking shutter lag
by kalel33-20416052469708587370302374692233 Dec 13, 2009 6:09AM PST

Then many of the higher end point and shoots match the shutter lag of the DSLRs. The Sony H20 would not be my first choice. The best superzooms now appear to be the Panasonic cameras. They win in compact and full size superzoom comparisons.

If you buy the D3000 then you will have a camera will very little zooming capability, unless you spend a lot more money to get a decent telephoto lens. Also the kit lens is not the fastest, so it's not a guarantee unless you know what you are doing. DSLRs are for control. Point and shoot cameras are for no thought shooting and that's what you sound like you want.

- Collapse -
kids photos
by hjfok Dec 14, 2009 11:03AM PST

For most outdoor shots during daytime, you don't need a D-SLR. But for indoor or outdoor low light action or candid shots, the D-SLR will certainly be superior to the PS camera.
I bought the D-SLR for taking my kids' photos when my first child turned 2 year old. My prior PS cameras were simply too slow in low light with or without flash. The D-SLR is great but it costs a lot more than a PS camera to get great low light candid shots. You do need a couple of fast zoom lenses and an external flash, as a minimum. I spent several thousand a few years ago and got a lot of precious photos. The learning curve is not bad. It takes a couple of days to get used to the controls and then a couple of weeks of experimenting/playing with it to get proficient. I had used SLR in the past but that was many years ago, so you may take a little longer. The learning curve really is quite easy and enjoyable, just learn a few simple basic principles and you are set to go.
But let me warn you that D-SLR can be a little addictive. I never liked photography much in the past before having the D-SLR, usually had to take some photos occasionally for work or trips. However, the D-SLR makes learning photography really fun and I can review the results instantly and learn/correct my mistakes. There are also a lot of extra equipment and accessories that can keep my interest up. After I bought the first D-SLR several years ago, I spent thousands more for additional equipment. So if you calculate the cost effective ratio, buying a D-SLR to take candid photos of your kids will not be a good investment. But it opens up a new hobby that I can do with my whole family, to me this is priceless. Some people even make it into a part time business, but I don't have time for that.

Back to Cameras forum

CNET Forums

Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Brand Forums
Roadshow Autos
Off Topic

Other Forums

Forum Info