You need FAST glass to get pictures of babies.  Phones suck donkey dick for that.  

1 hour ago, topgun said:

With the quality of my S7's camera, I'd take it most any day over a lower end P&S.  Its seriously good for a phone, and you can shoot in RAW if one desires, not that I care to.  

That being said I don't know what a good P&S would be now a days, haven't looked in a few years now.  

How much money can you spend before the W goes ballistic and do you want pictures, or pictures and good video?  

Post above.  Phones are completely useless for babies.

Mirrorless is your answer.  Fuck p&s as the lack of interchangeable lenses is teh dumb

I like the Fuji glass options best in that domain

12 minutes ago, ///M5 said:

You need FAST glass to get pictures of babies.  Phones suck donkey dick for that.  

1.8 F but microscopic sensors FTL

I don't know shit about mirrorless.  

 

Get fast lenses and lightroom and thats everything.

What's it take $$$ to get something reasonable in the mirrorless world? 

I'm now taken a serious look at mirrorless because of the form factor. However the glass cost 150% or more for the same DSLR glass it seems.

 

The wife gave me a look and said, "Only if you'll actually use it." As close to a yes as I'm gonna get.

I need the ability to take close indoor shots.

Lower light the better.

On 5/30/2016 at 10:54 PM, ///M5 said:

MK - here is how I'd spend $550 on a camera right now

Canon 40d used $200 used

Canon 28 F1.8 $110 used 

Canon 50mm 1.4 $230 used

Later add 85 1.8 for $300 or 100 f2 for $300 135 f2 for $750

60d body will get you video at $450, but then I'd probably grab the 24 F2.8 stm instead of the 28.

Resurrecting the dead!

I disagree with Seans love of primes, but it will give you the best glass for your bucks.  

 

Get lightroom too.

 

Mike you need the fast 50mm or 35mm first.  Then maybe wider if you are always trying to fit more in.

 

If you shoot people and want faces, then talk to me and be ready for some disapointment when it comes to $$$$.

4 hours ago, MKader17 said:

I'm now taken a serious look at mirrorless because of the form factor. However the glass cost 150% or more for the same DSLR glass it seems.

 

Not really.  The shit glass sure but stuff worth buying is about the same.

Problem with a 50mm on a crop is that you have to get too close to the target and they see you ( fine for babies ) but once you get to 70mm sometimes the house is too small to get far enough away.  The 70-200 (40-150 mirrorless) buys you a lot of flexibility in that regard but is really better suited to a full frame.  The sigma crop is real interesting but you need image stabilization (at long reach)nd it doesn't have it.

I could easily and happily replace the big whitey with an 85 and a 200, but that would cost me more dough and not less.  The zoom is mostly useful to me for sneak pics and at ball games chasing the kiddos.

5 hours ago, MKader17 said:

The wife gave me a look and said, "Only if you'll actually use it." As close to a yes as I'm gonna get.

And if you get crappy glass you won't use it, get good glass and you'll have friends asking you to shoot their kids too.

With a child your surroundings turn into a mess.  Biggest cure in a picture is for the mess to be blurred

11 hours ago, topgun said:

I've got a Sony that I've really had good luck with, I'd also go look at something like a Canon G7x or something.  

Under 400$ or so I'd stick with my phone, bonus points is I always have it and it syncs to the cloud automatically and easy to email out photos.     

ANything slightly modern allows easy connection via wifi to your phone.  I review my pictures on my phone instead of the camera since the screen is bigger...

Merry Christmas everyone!

 

And good luck in your fantasy superbowls!

1 hour ago, ///M5 said:

Problem with a 50mm on a crop is that you have to get too close to the target and they see you ( fine for babies ) but once you get to 70mm sometimes the house is too small to get far enough away.  The 70-200 (40-150 mirrorless) buys you a lot of flexibility in that regard but is really better suited to a full frame.  The sigma crop is real interesting but you need image stabilization (at long reach)nd it doesn't have it.

I could easily and happily replace the big whitey with an 85 and a 200, but that would cost me more dough and not less.  The zoom is mostly useful to me for sneak pics and at ball games chasing the kiddos.

Un fair. Find primes at the same F stop.  It will be less with primes.

 

You want more light.  And that is the correct answer. When you shoot as you normally do.

 

As you said, zooms are for the moving things.

 

I still crop in post and IDGAF.  My images are pretty good.  Maybe not bilboard perfect but at least centerfold/magazine cover.

Sean is spoon feeding this well.

 

I shoot a lot differently and I would tell you to go a different route.  However we probably have much different goals.

Well my house is definitely very small. My main goal is to get some pics of the little girl. In the crib, on the changing table, with guests, etc.

I figure I can accomplish that with a Prime lense.

I was thinking about a 60d and a 50 1.4 and going from there.

Some example photos!

Merry Christmas everyone!

Merry Christmas! 

Good looking family Mike!