Child Photography : which Canon body ?

[popel75]

Hi folks,


I love this site, I was never disappointed when following its recommendations.


I own a XTi (400D) body but I am getting somehow frustrated when shooting my three daughters (3 and twin girls 18 months). ISO 400 maybe ISO 800 with Noisenija postprocessing is the limit plus the AF is soso plus 6 pictures in a row is not really enough.


As I live in Japan I can get good used camera bodies at acceptable prices. I am hesitating to upgrading to either a 1 D MARK II (fast, high ISO, resolution of only 8mega is not an issue ?), 5D (probably more for landscapes?)or 50D (new, modern, but 15 MP for what ?) body, all selling around 1000 US$.


Which body is the best for photographing toddlers (they move a lot indeed!), I heard that the Nikon D700 is a dream machine, but I do not want to sell all my Canon gear just because some believe that the D700 may be better.


The body's weight is not an issue, limited indoor light and quickest autofocus plus a lot of RAW or JPEG shutters in a row is what I need....


I own the 85mm 1.8, the 70-200mm F/4 IS and the 28-70mm 2.8 lenses, all of which are great.


Any hint ? []


Thanks !





Thomas

[Tom Alicoate]

Thomas,
With Center point focus, My 40D will focus with very little light. I have no problem with taking photos of my kids. I can get to iso 800 or 1600 and still have useable photos. I can easily recommend it for what you are doing. The XTI always seems to expose a little dark to my tastes. Then when you lighten it up there is a lot more noise. Do you shoot in Manual? Things might look a little better manually exposing a little brighter. The d700 is a great camera for sure, but the XTI is fast enough for kids, maybe just turn on a few more lights or get a flash. Sometimes if your mind is made up, it is better just to make the switch. I want the 5D MKII, and I should buy one just so I can stop thinking about it.


Tom

[Jon Ruyle]

I take a lot of pictures of my kids. I started with a G2, then a rebel xt, then a 1D Mark IIN, and now a 5D II.


The G2 sucked imo because the shutter lag was way too long. I was very happy with the iq of the rebel (I didn't feel that I needed to make 36" prints of my kids), but the autofocus left a little to be desired, especially on quickly moving kids and with fast lenses. I also wanted a bigger viewfinder and some advanced features such as spot metering.


I faced the same decision you are making: 5D vs 1D Mark IIN. I agonized and agonized. I had longed for a full frame sensor, but finally decided that what I really needed was better autofocus, not better iq. I used the 1D for about two years and was very happy with it.


Now that I have the 5D II, I'm a convert. It isn't as responsive as the 1D, but it has way better low light performance (including better low light autofocus). To me, this is more important. Kids do move around alot, but my best shots come when at times when they aren't moving, and are more like portraits than action shots.


This is all very personal and I think it comes down to your shooting style. (And keep in mind, my experience is with 5D II vs the older 1D IIN... the difference in low light performance of 1D IIN vs original 5D is not as great). If you are taking pictures of kids running around or moving quickly, if you shoot in good light, if timing is critical, and if you aren't a background blur freak, you'll probably prefer the 1D. But if you like low light shots of the kid by a window or a christmas tree, if you want the narrowest DOF possible, you'll prefer the 5D.


The tough thing is, most of us do some combination of these things (maybe we sometimes shoot in low light and sometimes shoot action in good light). Not an easy choice, but I'm sure you'll be happy whichever way you go.

[greggf]

Thomas,


I do the exact same thing as you...shoot pics of kids(mine(18 months) and other kids as well). started with the 30D, moved up to the 5D, and now the 5Dll. Over all the jump to the 5D was the most noticeable as far as image quality(WOW, I really took that), and depth of field. I post pictures of my little man on my smugmug site every month(greggf.smugmug.com), and have been very happy with the 5D. IF you time photos just right, or just take alot, you're going to get the picture. That's the great thing about digital....The mark ll is another story, but I think if I were you, get the original 5D, use your existing lenses(by the way, I have the 28-70,70-200 f4IS, and a 100f2, and I love them!!!), and you will not be disappointed with your purchase. IMO you'll love what full frame does with your lenses....good luck





Gregg

[popel75]

Thanks so much for sharing, i am getting closer to finalize my choice.... hesitating still between the 1D Mark II and the 50D or 40D (which I can have for 500 US$ used here)


I do mainly AF with my kids so probably the 1D Mark II is a good one, anyone who could share some experience with the 50D and taking pictures of kids, is the Bokeh really so much better with FF, is the 1D Mark II a good compromise@1.3x ?


Thanks again []


Cheers


Thomas