4 Weeks till a baby arrives... Would you get the 600D?

[captaint]

Hi all,

In 4 weeks time our first baby arrives!!! I currently have the Canon EOS 450D however want a camera that shoots HD video as well to capture our babies first years.

I've been looking to upgrade to the 600D but my only reservation is the lack of auto focus in video mode. I want to ensure shooting video is easy enough for my wife to be able to do.

With that in mind should I get the 600D or hold off till after the babies born (borrow a mates HD camera in the meantime) and see if the next version has auto focus (when ever that comes out)?

Interested in your thoughts (unless there's another video/photo camera out there for me... I'm open to going compact and ditching the DSLR if I need). I'm one of those amateur photographers whose scared to come out of P mode that looks to look professional with a DSLR though I probably don't need one

Thanks in advance!

 

[Z]

I would say that based on your needs and description i.e. must be easy to use, even for your wife who is not an enthusiast that DSLR video is not suited to you.

I would recommend sticking to the bespoke camcorders because it is likely that Canon will not have video autofocus in their DSLR line for the foreseeable future. When done properly, video from a large sensor DSLR is a beautiful thing, but for you it sounds like pulling focus will be a pain. If you are determined to use a DSLR for home videos, know that you can stop down the aperture (a larger aperture value) to increase the depth of field and make manual focus a little easier.

 

[awinphoto]

Tough call... Like Z said, AF during video is not likely any time soon, and frankly unless you really want to think about focusing the lens as you video capture a baby around... That can be a tiring proposition if you're not careful as they move fast when they get older... DSLR video is awesome when done correctly, but it's very manual in that department. I would recommend the 600D if you want to upgrade your still photos of your baby, but on the video side, I would either get a camcorder if you want easy video capture or a higher end compact camera that takes care of that stuff for you.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A dSLR is great for shallow DoF portraits (50/1.8 works, or 85/1.8), and the lack of the long AF and shutter lag that plague point-n-shoots means you can more easily capture special moments, especially once the little one starts moving.

A dSLR is great for video...if you have a steady-cam rig, tripod with fluid head and a stationary subject, separate audio gear and the software to sync the sound later, etc. in other words, unless you're shooting a film or for artistic pursuits, skip the dSLR for video and get a camcorder.

I've got top end dSLR gear that I use to shoot photos of my two daughters (4 and 2 years old now). But for family videos, I reach for the Canon Vixia HF M41.

 

[Arthur]

As mentioned above tough call. I was in the same boat three years ago. I have shot video of my twin daughters using my DSLR (Canon T2i) and it works fine for family needs. When they are little and not moving much the lack of AF problem is not so big a problem? As they get bigger and move outside more then it probably becomes more of an issue. Honestly I've found I've used the DSLR less and less for video of the family and more and more exclusively for photography. Kids are now three.

Is there video AF on the G1-X? That is probably going to produce pictures close to the quality of entry level DSLR's if the reviews are correct. Easier for other family members to use as well. I will probably get one in a few months. It won't be fast enough to catch sudden images though...

Unfortunately no one camera can do everything well so I will wind up with G1-X and upgrade to 5D Mark III in a few months and still keep my camcorder as well. Keeps everyone in business I guess...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If you want a simple camera to capture the kids, and take videos for the next few years, I'd look at video capable cameras which autofocus. There aren't many that do it well. Although I stay away from Sony for my perception of poor customer support, their DSLR's seem to get it right (finally), and you should check out the reviews on DPR and Luminous Landscape. The Sony's might be what fits your situation, good low light plus good video with autofocus.

I'm sticking with Canon, but then, I do not do video's.

 

[awinphoto]

Sorry, forgot to say, congrats on the baby! Enjoy the experience and take as many photos/videos as you can on the early days... You'll never get those days/moments back.

 

[captaint]

Thanks for all your help everyone!

So if it's not the 600D then what else?

Here's some I've spotted:
Canon PowerShot G1X
Sony Alpha A35

 

[captaint]

I've also spied the Sony Nex 7 and Nex C3

 

[neuroanatomist]

I've also spied the Sony Nex 7 and Nex C3

All the cameras you list are stills cameras with video capability. Some have continuous AF during video, but none are ergonomically suited to shooting video. You've already got a camera that's good for stills, I'd recommend another camera that's suited to video, and that's a camcorder.

There is no one camera that will do both stills and video optimally and conveniently. If you'd rather sacrifice on both, some of the compacts you list would work. If you want to sacrifice video, get a 600D. If you want to sacrifice stills, get a camcorder that shoots high MP stills.

Question: in your toolbox, do you have a flat screwdriver, a Phillips screwdriver, and a pair of pliers - or only a Leatherman multitool? Personally, I prefer using the right tool for the job.

 

[takoman46]

The S100 is another easy to use option if you're looking at point and shoots. If not then I think a dedicated video camcorder would be the best solution.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The S100 is another easy to use option if you're looking at point and shoots. If not then I think a dedicated video camcorder would be the best solution.

It's ok for occasional use, IMO (I have one). The audio recording quality is not very good, and it's hard to hold for shooting videos of any length.

 

[captaint]

I've just visited a few specialist camera shops for their opinion and I'm down to a couple of choices:

Upgrade to the 600d, keep my 17-85 lense and possibly buy a 50 f1.8 lense for better baby portrait shots. With this option I'm stuck using manual focus video which is harder for my wife.

OR

Look at Sonys A55 or A57. Financially this would likely lead to a downgraded lense but allow for easier operation for my wife and easier video for me.

Thoughts? Thanks again for your guidance!

 

[dmills]

I would recommend what Neuro and several of the others are saying. Keep your 450 for stills. It's much better than a point and shoot, and spend about $300 on a camcorder instead. Buying a point and shoot could do both, but will do neither well. Buying a better DSLR will give you better stills, but worse video than a dedicated camcorder.

Here's one that looks pretty good (I haven't used it though)
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-VIXIA-Camcorder-Internal-Memory/dp/B004HW7E7E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331942641&sr=8-1

Both this and your camcorder would use the same SD cards.

 

[elflord]

I've just visited a few specialist camera shops for their opinion and I'm down to a couple of choices:

Upgrade to the 600d, keep my 17-85 lense and possibly buy a 50 f1.8 lense for better baby portrait shots. With this option I'm stuck using manual focus video which is harder for my wife.

OR

Look at Sonys A55 or A57. Financially this would likely lead to a downgraded lense but allow for easier operation for my wife and easier video for me.

Thoughts? Thanks again for your guidance!

If you're going to use a stills camera for video, my advice would be to test it before you buy -- most DSLRs don't have good AF in video mode. In the youtube shots I saw of the A55, it does look like its AF in video mode does compare well with most SLRs.

However, the last thing you want to do for your stills is put substandard glass on the latest and greatest body.

If you're on a tight budget, I'd agree with those who recommend getting an inexpensive camcorder. Then you might have some spare cash to add a lens as well.

Another option would be a mirrorless camera (micro 4/3 or Sony NEX) -- some of these cameras will autofocus reasonably well in video and are much cheaper than the A55, especially if you buy used. For example, I purchased a used GF2 for $250 and it autofocuses quite well in video. The main disadvantage of these cameras compared to more established DSLRs is that you don't get as much bang for your buck with the available native lenses.

 

[takoman46]

The S100 is another easy to use option if you're looking at point and shoots. If not then I think a dedicated video camcorder would be the best solution.

It's ok for occasional use, IMO (I have one). The audio recording quality is not very good, and it's hard to hold for shooting videos of any length.

I don't think audio quality is good anyway with a DSLR or any cheap camcorder using the built in mic. I feel a dedicated mic would be needed in either case if audio quality is a big concern. Also, as a solution for stability issues with small cameras (in my case I use the gopro for underwater video recording) you can build a simple handle that screws into the tripod mount using a bolt, a 6in. piece of delrin rod and base plate. It's an inexpensive and ghetto solution but it's very durable and stable.

 

[Meh]

I'll add my 2 cents and agree with others who've recommended you get a camcorder for video. I've tried shooting a few videos with my DSLR and the quality is great and being able to get shallow DoF in videos is really cool, but it's just very difficult to capture good videos of candid moments and family events, etc. The reason being they are not staged (video shooters correct me if I'm wrong)... professional video (whether using pro video cams or DSLRS) that make use of shallow DoF are rehearsed, the focus is predetermined, and any change of focus during the scene is practiced. You just can't keep subjects in focus when they are moving around randomly. Focus during video when you have shallow DoF has to be very precise and the camera doesn't know what your main subject is... if you're focusing on little Johnny and some other kid moves closer to the camera the AF may shift focus to that other kid and there goes your moment when Johnny blows out the candles.

 

[Jedifarce]

Hi all,

In 4 weeks time our first baby arrives!!! I currently have the Canon EOS 450D however want a camera that shoots HD video as well to capture our babies first years.

I've been looking to upgrade to the 600D but my only reservation is the lack of auto focus in video mode. I want to ensure shooting video is easy enough for my wife to be able to do.

With that in mind should I get the 600D or hold off till after the babies born (borrow a mates HD camera in the meantime) and see if the next version has auto focus (when ever that comes out)?

Interested in your thoughts (unless there's another video/photo camera out there for me... I'm open to going compact and ditching the DSLR if I need). I'm one of those amateur photographers whose scared to come out of P mode that looks to look professional with a DSLR though I probably don't need one

Thanks in advance!

Have you ever considered purchasing the Canon HF G10 instead of a DLSR?

 

[Jedifarce]

I've also spied the Sony Nex 7 and Nex C3

The Nex camera's don't have image stabilization, just watch the various videos on youtube using the NEX, it's barely watchable. Stick with a camcorder.

 

[Leadfingers]

... If you are determined to use a DSLR for home videos, know that you can stop down the aperture (a larger aperture value) to increase the depth of field and make manual focus a little easier.

Don't you have that backwards? Or am I missing something?

:-[