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



## captaint (Mar 16, 2012)

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 (Mar 16, 2012)

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 (Mar 16, 2012)

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 (Mar 16, 2012)

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 (Mar 16, 2012)

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 (Mar 16, 2012)

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 (Mar 16, 2012)

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 (Mar 16, 2012)

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 (Mar 16, 2012)

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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 16, 2012)

captaint said:


> 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 (Mar 16, 2012)

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 (Mar 16, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> 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 (Mar 17, 2012)

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 (Mar 17, 2012)

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 (Mar 17, 2012)

captaint said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> takoman46 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 17, 2012)

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 (Mar 17, 2012)

captaint said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Jedifarce (Mar 17, 2012)

captaint said:


> 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 (Mar 17, 2012)

Z said:


> ... 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?

:-[


----------



## Jedifarce (Mar 17, 2012)

dmills said:


> 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.



If he can afford it, he should get the Vixa HF G10. For $300 you'll get an SD rather than an HD sensor.


----------



## Jedifarce (Mar 17, 2012)

Leadfingers said:


> Z said:
> 
> 
> > ... 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.
> ...



He's talking about increasing the F/stop so the the depth of field isn't as shallow.


----------



## RC (Mar 17, 2012)

I too think a video camera would be your best option as opposed to a DSLR for family videos and family users. From the time my first was born up until now (20 & 17 year olds), I went through 3 video cameras, a Sony and two Canons. Still have a Canon but don't use it much anymore--teenagers are turds and avoid cameras.

I disciplined myself over the years and took my camera on all significant family outings (as well as casual stuff around the house) and I have hundreds of hours of edited movies all on DVD. Looking back I am so glad I lugged my gear every where--those movies are priceless. 

Give it some serious though, you might find a video camera is the better option.

I am not up on current video cameras but my one camera recommendation would be make sure it has a view finder in addition to the pop out screen. For me it was some much easier to compose, pan, and create smooth video using the viewfinder. My other suggestion is you must edit your videos to make them interesting and pleasant to watch. Get a good piece of editing software. 

Congrats on the new addition!


----------



## Z (Mar 17, 2012)

Leadfingers said:


> Z said:
> 
> 
> > ... 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.
> ...


Seeing as the OP is a novice I thought I'd try to explain that stopping down a lens means having a larger aperture value i.e. a 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 lens can be stopped down to f/11 ... I didn't mean to cause more confusion!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 17, 2012)

captaint said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Nothing is parfect, its always a compromise, but the lure of stills and video in one body is a strong incentive to hunt down one that will work for you. The sony APS-C DSLR's are fairly good in low light, but do lose some light due to the translucent mirror. On the otherhand, no dust gets to the sensor, and you can do autofocus video and very fast FPS (No AF after 1st frame).

There are reviews at DPR and Luminous landscape. The newer generation of sony Cameras seems to overcome the horrible video overheating issues that the A33 and A55 have, Stay away from them, or your camera sensor can overheat from 3 minutes of video!

I'm not sure the A57 is available yet, but it should eliminate the issues with the A55. One thing with Sony, is that you can look for good used Minolta AF lenses. They had some very good quality lenses. Be sure they are autofocus and compatible with the camera you buy, since they are mostly screw drive lenses.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony_august_2011_new_products.shtml

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/03/13/Sony-SLT-A57-Preview-with-real-wold-samples


----------



## Parallacs (Mar 19, 2012)

Congrats on the upcoming baby!

Mine first one is coming in May and I got a 5D back in November to prepare. I had a Xti for four years so I know how to control a DSLR pretty well. That said, the 5D is very easy for taking pictures. You can set it to P mode and auto-iso and take very good photos. Obviously, the more work you and your wife put into it, the better the photos will be. 

In terms of video, going DSLR is a poor choice unless you are committed to it. Video takes large amounts of memory, obvious lack of auto focus, and a need for processing/editing on the computer. This makes it hard to upload and share. (The video from the 5D looks SO good though, I can't wait to use it on the baby)

My advice is to get a video camera AND a photo camera. This will allow the wife to take video and you to take photos. I would go for a DSLR (you only get one chance to take the best possible photos). For a video camera, people don't care too much about quality, I have a panasonic HDC that I will use to quickly share and it was pretty cheap.


----------



## emag (Mar 19, 2012)

You could also consider something like a JVC Everio. Get your videos without breaking the bank. Good quality, light weight and mine's never given me trouble. I'd recommend something that will take an external mic.


----------



## AnselA (Mar 19, 2012)

I would second or third getting a dedicated video camera ( the prices are really reasonable now) designed for the purpose and shoot the baby pics with the existing DSLR. You will find plenty other things to spend on with that Baby on Board.


----------

