Pimp Me Digital Cameras

When I bought my first digital camera, after a lot of research I ended up with a Canon PowerShot A80. For my new camera, I did a lot more research ... and ended up with a successor Canon PowerShot, the SD880IS. It's like the A80/A95, but more compact. A very good choice IMHO if you like that form factor.

I should add that although it's still a PowerShot, the images look better than the old A80/95 class cameras, as there have been tech advances since then. Don't know which limitations you're running up against, but maybe you want something fancier. (And by the way, ignore Amazon's price listing for this model, it's way high.)

I have a SD800 and like it a lot but it's too small for Chad's hands. =>

I got a Nikon d40x a couple of years back after multiple years using the usual sort of compact digital cameras and have to say the difference in picture quality is enormous BUT only if you are prepared to learn how to use it properly. If you don't bother to learn the ins and outs of DSLRs the pictures can be worse than compacts.
I found it easy enough to learn enough to get some very good pictures but if you want it for pictures of children I would also advise investing in a steady tripod.
As for children turning away or changing expression just when you are ready to take the picture I'm afraid there is no known cure to that problem. A fast camera like the Nikon or one of the new Canons will help a bit but children always seem to invent new ways of put on a scowl or becoming camera shy at exactly the wrong instant.

First advice is to ignore the huge number of megapixels being packed into the compact non-SLR cameras. If you're shooting a lot of indoor baby pix and don't want to use flash all the time, better low-light performance is _far_ more important than maximum megapixels, and indeed the more pixels they cram onto a tiny sensor, the worse the low-light performance becomes. And some of these tiny cameras have now passed the Stupid Point where the pixel size on the sensor is smaller than the resolution limit of the lens. ***Put your money on low noise at high ISO, not on absurdly high pixel count.***

Don't worry too much about shutter lag, as that sadistic torture is now mostly a problem of the past. Even the cheap cameras are usually much better than they were five years back. But note that I did say "mostly," not "entirely."

Check out a great web site - dpreview.com. They have very in-depth reviews and tests of all sorts of digital cameras, written by people who are really experts. They'll tell you shutter lag times, noise at high ISO, etc. for just about any camera on the market.

There are still some loose parameters in your specifications. For instance, would you be interested in a "superzoom" camera that has an extremely broad range of focal lengths. If you're only shooting indoor baby pix, you don't a lens that can go out to 450mm, but if you also like, say, photographing birds, then it becomes important. So, what _else_ might you likely photograph other than speedy-steelybaby? Also, is it important to you or Kate to get a truly pocket-sized camera, or would you be comfortable with one that's shaped more like a small SLR? Based on this, we can really narrow down the recommendations.

I'm a part-time-pro in photography (just sold my third magazine cover!) so please let me know if you have any further questions.

If you look around you might still find Nikon's D80 in stores - a DSLR, but since it is on its way out (replaced by the D90, itself a very good camera). You can find good deals (2 lens kits) for the D60 for under $1000 ($850 where I am).

I am well aware that this is still a lot of money: I'm just unsure where "several hundred dollars" would end, and a little variety for consideration never hurts.

Well, I am currently using exactly the same camera model you are, so I guess I can't recommend a particular camera (and am also very interested in the recommendations). I'd just like to mention that you can get used cameras from KEH Camera Brokers, which might let you get more camera for the money. Particularly if you decide to go for some flavor of DSLR. I bought my old Olympus OM2 SLR from them oh, geez, I guess it was 20 years ago now, and they provided me with a good, serviceable camera at about a third the then-going price for a new one. I haven't bought a camera from them lately, mind you, but unless they've changed their business practices a lot they should still be good.

We went with Pentax digital SLRs, mainly because we had some expensive Pentax lenses that we'd accumulated over 30 years of using Pentax 35mm SLRs, but I'd recommend an entry-level Pentax DSLR even for someone who has no existing lenses.

The killer feature of Pentax DSLRs sounds stupid, but it's very important. You can run them on four standard AA alkaline cells (which last a long time even if you're using flash). Rechargeable batteries just suck. They die just when you need them most, and take quite a while to recharge. They're usually rated for 500 to 1,000 recharges, but in reality you'll find yourself replacing them a lot sooner. And they're not cheap. Many are more than $100.

You'll also find that a lot of your recharges are wasted. You charge up the camera and put it aside. A couple weeks or a month later, you want to shoot some pictures and the battery is dead. After 30 days or so, a fully charged battery will need a complete recharge to be usable. With alkaline cells, the charge doesn't leak over a short period, so the camera is always ready to go. And when you find yourself far away from your recharger or a power receptacle you can just pop in a new set of AAs.

Apologies for the logorrhea. :) This is me, trying to be brief, and failing...

You've exactly identified one big advantage SLRs bring - lack of shutter lag. The main problem is that they're more work to carry and unpack, due to size and maybe extra lenses. Sometimes you don't want to hassle with all that, and no camera takes good photos when it's sitting on the shelf. Ideally you'd have both a SLR and a P&S. A great setup would to split SLR and P&S duties between you and Kate. Two photographers will get a lot more good stuff, no matter what cameras they have.

If only one is an option, I'd probably recommend the P&S just because you'll take it more places. That said, you'll get a lot of great photos with the SLR that you won't get otherwise. For things like playground photos (or eventually sports), you'll have a lot more success with a SLR.

Don't worry too much about ease of use, at lease as far as the camera controls. Any digital camera you get will have a few full-auto modes, along with some step-up options to give you just a bit more control. Even a full professional SLR has the "Push Here, Dummy" mode.

I don't have a lot of good recommendations for P&S -- I can't keep up with all the new models. I own and love the Canon G9, now supplanted by the G10. If you're willing to get beyond the basic modes, you can do some things to reduce the shutter lag. There are plenty of other good brands and models; I just don't have any particular recommendations. I would probably take the closest look at Ricoh and mid- to high-end Panasonic (Lumix) models.

For SLRs, you can safely stick to Nikon and Canon. They're both good. I use Canon and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the entry level Rebel XS, aka the 1000D. The Rebel XTi or 500D is a bit newer and would be a nice step up. Nikon stuff will be comparably good, the differences mostly come down to individual preferences, and you won't regret a choice of either brand.

No matter what camera you buy, make sure to check it out in person. Tiny cameras don't mesh well with big hands. You can get 'battery pack' hand grips for many SLRs that will make them a bit bigger, but easier to hold. Spending some time with the UI can be instructive as well. As you've been using the A95, you'll probably find another Canon model to be more intuitive, because the UI will be similar.

Sorry again for going on so long. If you do decide to get a SLR, we can talk lenses next. Those are a lot more fun. :)

My recommendations by descending price:
Canon 450D +18-55mm IS (DSLR)
Panasonic LX3
Sony DSC-WX1 (upcoming)
Panasonic TZ7 (aka ZS3)

I owned or still own all of these cameras and can highly recommend them, except the upcoming WX1 which looks very promising nonetheless and since I owned quite a few Sony compact cameras will probably feature decent quality.

You can't do anything wrong with the Canon 450D though. You'll also be able to sell it with max. 15% price loss at eBay at any time. It has a superb image quality that is far above any of the compact cameras mentioned above. The main difference is that the compacts can record HD video. If you don't care about video then just stop thinking and get the 450D kit that includes the 18-55mm IS lens.

Go here for photos I took with those cameras: http://www.flickr.com/photos/xixidu/collections/72157600234735407/

Also check out: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/

And to put the cost of using non-rechargeable alkaline batteries in a camera into some perspective: the price of a pack of four AA batteries is way, way less than the cost of a 36-exposure roll of 35mm film in the old days.

Shutter lag is going to be a problem with almost all point-and-shoot cameras, whereas it's (practically) not a problem with any of the modern DSLRs. That said, the drawback to a DSLR is that it's very easy to obtain worse pictures with a DSLR than with your point-and-shoot. (Among other reasons, the combination of small sensors and relatively long focal lengths means that more of your image is likely to be in focus using a point-and-shoot.) Another warning is that as an experimentalist, you're likely to have a strong desire to tinker, and tweak, and learn the optics involved in a DSLR simply because it has all of those switches, lights, and knobs.

That said, I'd still suggest either a Nikon or a Canon DSLR because it can grow with you and your daughter. (The other DSLRs are also good, but Nikon and Canon are safe choices. You're more likely to be able to borrow a friend's lens if you have one of those two than if you have an Olympus, for example.) I'd suggest getting an entry-level DSLR and getting to know it fairly well for a year or two. By then you should have a pretty good idea what, if any, limitations you find bothersome, and you could always upgrade to a better model once you know what you're looking to improve. (At that point you'll probably have almost as much money in lenses as in the cost of the camera body, but you'll take the lenses with you to a new camera as long as you stick with the same manufacturer.)

I see that while I was composing my earlier message #5, Kate posted that she has an SD800, so you have the pocket camera niche very well covered, making it silly to buy another camera that would just be a clone of the SD800.

If you don't want to go all the way up to a DSLR, with all the added cost, complexity, and inconvenience that comes with it, then go to bhphotovideo.com and search for this camera:

Fujifilm S200EXR

This is new camera, which will be hitting the stores in a week or two, and it's an upgrade of a well-respected, proven earlier model. It does have a lot of megapixels, which I cautioned against in my earlier message, BUT in this camera those pixels are arrayed over an unusually LARGE sensor for a non-DSLR. So the individual pixels aren't absurdly tiny and noisy, and the low-light/high-ISO performance remains quite good.

This camera is about as good as anyone could possibly do, in many areas, short of going the DSLR route. If you do decide on a DSLR, though, I can offer additional suggestions.

Comment held for moderation. That'll teach me to link. :)

A couple comments on the above:

- Shutter lag is still a very real problem, if you're trying to capture sports -- of which "cute baby hijinks" is a significant subset. You tend to get the moment after the moment.

- Battery life is unlikely to be an issue, unless you expect to leave your camera on the shelf for 2-3 months and then use it for 2-3 hours continuously. My G9 has been uncharged for two months and still has plenty of power. I was worried about losing the AA convenience when I switched from my A80, and it just hasn't been a problem

I just took a peek at Fuji's page for that Fujifilm S200EXR; I've been a fan of Fuji's for years, and I'm still using a FinePix 2800Z that's horribly outdated now.

What I like about Fuji is that they don't scrimp on the sensors and the lenses; my ancient 2MP Fuji has outperformed some 8(?)MP Canons in colour fidelity and sharpness. Alas, the poor old thing is sloooow... but the newer models have more powerful processors and better firmware, and the S200 has a high-speed/sport mode which would speed up shots even more.

My only quibble would be that it uses a proprietary Li-ion (albeit swappable) battery, and those wear out over charge cycles. I like cameras that use AA cells, myself, so I can swap them out when they can no longer accept enough charge to be worthwhile. (It also costs less to carry spare sets.)

-- Steve

Before discussing brands or models, think about your needs, and how they translate to tech specs.

- Fast movements: lenses with large aperture. Don't bother with superzooms, their zoom range comes with the cost of small lenses.

- Low shutter delay: SLRs may not be the best, because they have that flapping mirror that has to get out of the way.

- Indoor pics: image stabilizer. Only optical ones count. (I hate flash, unless it is only a fill flash.)

- Pixel count: 5Mp is usually enough for A4-size prints. Anything more is a trade-off with noise.

- Interchangeable lenses: ?

I won't make any brand or model recommendations, but lately I've gotten interested in the new Olympus Pen, a non-SLR with interchangeable lenses.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusEP1/

dpreview is a good site, I also like http://www.imaging-resource.com/ for evaluating cameras. They provide a link, "Find the Best Camera For You", which asks a number of questions about your priorities and points out suitable choices. You have the option of answering a few questions to get quick answers, or going detail by detail.

Personally, I would suggest a "RAWsumer" rather than a tru SLR if you're simply looking for an improvement over an old point-and-shoot. These high-end all-in-one cameras are characterized by the ability to shoot RAW, which will enable you to save a once-in-a-lifetime image which is not quite in the required exposure range. Even though you are slightly over-exposed or under-exposed, you can claw back the data to get a decent print. They also generall have extensive zoom; automatic, aperture priority and shuter-priority and fully manual expose modes, and the ability to attach a real flash -- usually a mistake to put it actually on the camera, but with a wireless trigger, you can use it off-camera for very professional results.

I'm thinking in particular of canon's G10, though there are similar units from other companies, usually in the $500 to $750 range.

While I haven't used it, I'll throw one option out there that I haven't heard mentioned yet: The Panasonic G1 (or GH1 if you want video, but it's more expensive). It's an interchangeable-lens camera with a larger sensor than typical point-and-shoot digital cameras (but smaller than most DSLR's).

Depending on how you look at it, it's either the best or worst of the P&S vs. DSLR debate: It's smaller than a DSLR but it's not really small enough to carry around everywhere; you get the benefit of interchangeable lenses but because it uses a new lens standard there aren't yet a lot of lenses available; it uses a contrast-detect AF system which is supposedly a little slower than a typical DSLR but faster than most P&S's, etc, etc.

If you want to learn more, I'd head over to DPReview (dot com) and read the VERY thorough review therein.

The other option, of course, is to get a compact P&S and change your photo-taking style. If you're sitting and waiting for a good expression or moment to pop up, I would almost always in that situation half-press the shutter button so it would pre-set the focus and exposure. Taking the picture from the half-press position then entails very little additional lag (it's the focusing on compact digital cameras that takes a long time). As a side benefit, holding the shutter button halfway allows you to lock the focus and exposure while re-composing the frame, allowing more interesting photos than the typical "subject-in-the-center-of-the-frame" snapshots.

Granted, the half-press technique doesn't work well for motion if the subject is moving toward or away from the camera as it will move out of the best focus region...

I have a Canon XSi (450D) and I love it. The Canon Rebel line are cheap enough that you can spend some money on lenses too. Not too many - I recommend the 50mm f/1.8 or the 28mm prime. These will give you great sharp shots even in low light. (link goes to my flickr page, if you want to see example shots of what even I can do). The only concern is that the XSi has kind of a small body. I'm 5'7" and it fits well in my hands, but it might be a little tiny for Chad.

I'd recommend a Canon 40D (or 30D if you can get a decent used one). It will run you about 1600-2000 bucks for the body and a decent 28-80mm zoom lens (don't skimp on the lens!). Advantages of a DSLR are, as people have noted, the lack of shutter delay and the sheer versatility. Also, Canons have a reputation for having good performance at higher ISOs, which allows you to better capture movement without having your picture degenerate into a grainy mess. The mid-range SLRs have a few advantages over entry level SLRs, like bigger CMOS chips and better lenses, but the big advantage for you is the probably the ability to continuously snap shots at regular intervals until the buffer is filled, which is great for sports.

The main disadvantage of the Canon body is that it is big and bulky in all ways... bulky lenses, bulky body, even the buttons and dials are bigger than I'd like, though mileage may vary on that front. Also, there is a bit of a learning curve associated with it as people have mentioned and the issue of cost for addons (don't skimp on your lenses).

Cheem, the 30d and 40d have the same size sensor as the 350D and 450D(XSi). They are all APS-C. If you want a full frame SLR, then you're forking out thousands for the body alone, a la the 5D. The 40D gets JPG shots at 10 Hz, the XSi at about 4 Hz.

The advantage Canon has over Nikon with mid-level SLR's is the ability to change settings manually without going into context menus.

steves-digicams.com and dpreview.com have extremely detailed reviews. They usually measure shutter lag and dozens of other specs. I am happy with the quality and the response time on our Canon A570IS but I am sure there are newer models.

I just upgraded from a compact to a Nikon d40 dslr, and would highly recommend it. If you shop around you should be able to find one in the $450-$550 range which is much more reasonable than anything else I found. Also, it much smaller and more lightweight than the cannons or the pricier nikons.

For shooting kids I highly recommend a dSLR.

Nikon, Canon and Pentax all have very attractively priced entry level kits. The picture quality is amazing, the big sensor and bright glass mean great low light shots and shots that still look good at high ISO settings.

I have lent my dSLR to 3 friends who have kids and all 3 retired their P&S camera's and gone out and bought a dSLR after a weekend with my camera. With instant shutter response and great burst performance you just can't beat them for getting great shots of those fast-moving kids.

I own a little Sanyo Xacti C40 which is a couple years old. Does well enough but the best feature is video.

With kids video helps immensely. And there are numerous apps including the kludgy Windows Movie Maker that let you take snapshots from videos. So it's sort of the best of both worlds.

However I do want to pickup a good DSLR for tripod work and astrophotography. The Xacti has limitations on how long one can keep the shutter open (4 seconds max) which isn't very good for light gathering.

I've been shopping for my first dSLR and I've settled on the new Nikon D5000. If I wanted to spend a bit more money I'd go for the Nikon D90. Lower priced options I considered were the Nikon D40/x and the Canon Rebel XTi. So those are some cameras to look into if you want an SLR.

Any of the consumer DSLRs would be ideal, provided you can spend a little time learning how to get the best from it. My personal preference is for Canons, so I'd second the suggestions for the Rebel XTi/450d - but Nikons & Pentax aren't bad either.

As some others have suggested, if you do go the SLR route then you have to invest in a fast prime lens in addition to the kit zoom. Something like the Canon 50mm 1.8L will give impressive results - most importantly allowing you to take good hand-held shots without flash, even in low light.

Grant Goodyear's advice sounds sound to me...

We had a nice P&S before (Sony Cybershot), but made the switch to dSLR just before Christmas (with an entry-level Nikon D60), and have become real enthusiasts.

The dSLR is bigger, yes -- and I still leave the old P&S in my purse for everyday photo emergencies -- but it's ready to snap instantly (which is a big deal with kids; I should know: I have two toddlers).

The auto mode (or the "kiddos" mode!) will let you have some fun right away, but then it's such a nice toy that interest in learning how to use settings and such will come naturally, no worries. Once you read your camera's manual (no getting around it... I tried), I suggest reading Tom Ang's "Digital Photography Masterclass".

About the rechargeable battery: no problem, but you WILL need a spare one for when it goes dead. Check eBay; we got one for around 10$.

But no matter what camera you're using, the best underrated trick is just to HOLD STEADY -- especially so with the dSLR (but the payback is great).

So a DSLR doesn't have to be complicated (just leave the in-the-box lens on it, put it in green box "full auto" mode and you're off), and if you don't care about the bulk, there's no real downside to a DSLR and lots of upsides.

As for speed, any DSLR is going to be much faster than any compact, but modern compacts may be good enough. I'd recommend going to Best Buy and playing with their on-exhibit cameras to see what's acceptable for you.

If you decide to get a DSLR, there are literally no bad choices. Every single DSLR out there is nice, and if you don't care about the details, don't sweat it. Just get the entry-level model of whichever brand DSLR you like the ergonomics of better.

Ken Rockwell has a lot of his baby pics posted. I also like his thinking about cameras.
As someone suggested earlier, natural light pics are often desirable over flash. Natural light needs either a fast lens (smaller f number)and or fast ISO (higher is better)The same combo allows faster shutter speeds to capture motion. These criteria throws out almost all point and shoot cameras.
This leaves a dSLR. Of the two biggies, Canon and Nixon the latter allows use of older (used lenses).
I would suggest (my next buy) the Nikon d90 as per Rockwell.
It has good high ISO specs.
For your baby pics the best lens is a cheapie a 50mm (slight telephoto)f/1.8 . No zoom which cuts down f/stops.
But you have so much pixel overkill that you can use optical zoom, or zoom and crop at the place you make prints.
I urge you to read to look at Rockewell's site.

For shooting kids, I've found that the most important feature I use on my camera is not the megapixels or zoom or low light, but instead the articulated rear fold-out viewfinder. It also makes it easy to get pictures of kids at their level: hold the camera down at your knees and swing the rearview LCD out and facing up. It makes it easy to get pictures of them in a crowd--just hold the camera up over everyone else, with the rearview folded out and down where you can see it.

After that, the most important feature to me has been the super zoom. Low-light performance can be boosted substantially by using something like NeatImage on the pictures.

I've got a Canon S3 IS (the current version is the S5). I love it for taking pix of kids. It's kind of a bulky form factor though, if that's a consideration for you.

At least on the S3, lag is only a problem really when using the flash on low batteries; there it's the recharge of the flash capacitor that's slowing things down. Anyhow, most non-DSLRs let you hold the button halfway down in preparation which will get the shot off with almost no lag (assuming the flash is charged.) I've found it pretty easy to get used to holding it partway down without pressing it all the way down, and I'm a clumsy sort of person.

Prof, thanks for asking - you have a lot of good comments. You may want to also ask about the printing of photos, or ask how to find a good photo lab to print them for you. I am an accomplished accumulater of multi-megabyte photo files (family and semi-pro) that I have learned to protect; you may also want to get an external hard drive for backups. And use ac transient protection!

I have absolutely nothing useful to add here (I'm another SD800 user); but I wanted to throw doughnuts in the general direction of the crowd for such specific, appropriate-level, and helpful comments for those of us reading along, never mind Chad :).

I also recommend the Canon dSLR + 50mm f/1.8 for kid pics. Any body will do since you will get quality pics from any entry level dslr these days.

If I hadn't invested so much money into Canon optics I'd probably pick up a Pentax since I like the sturdiness, size, and in-body image stabilization. In-body stabilization really seems preferable to me than lens-based IS.

For shooting kids, I've found that the most important feature I use on my camera is not the megapixels or zoom or low light, but instead the articulated rear fold-out viewfinder. It also makes it easy to get pictures of kids at their level: hold the camera down at your knees and swing the rearview LCD out and facing up. It makes it easy to get pictures of them in a crowd--just hold the camera up over everyone else, with the rearview folded out and down where you can see it.

The Nikon D5000 has a fold out/swivel screen with lilve view (like a point&shoot, instead of a screen you can only review pictures that have already been taken. It does give you a lot more freedom in framing shots. Both are options you don't see on many SLRs in this price range. One of the things which made me decide on it.

Late to the game here, and I'm such a non-expert that I don't even remember the specs or model number of my Panasonic point-and-shoot, but I thought I'd mention that when it comes to babies and toddlers, I've become very dependent on my camera's "burst mode" that takes a bunch of pictures in immediate succession with one push of the button. Usually at least one frame ends up with "cute kid" and I just delete all the ones that are "kid's ear as kid turns to look at shiny object." As a bonus, the six-year-old enjoys the flip-book effect when I play back a series of pictures of her dancing around.

I'll chime in (with #5 and #8): specifically, the Pentax lower pixel count models have very nice pixels indeed. Like #8, I had a collection of cherished older glass (1970's) and welcomed the K100D, but I still would recommend it for a very reasonable entry kit price ($500 - $600 including general purpose zoom lens) with excellent photo results. The newer models have upped their pixel count, so they may not have as good a low light level noise floor as the older 6MP K100D.

Pentax dSLR's have one other feature that I think makes them a winner when it comes to enlarging your lens collection: unlike most makers, who put shake reduction in the lens and which makes their lenses expensive, Pentax chose to mount their reduction mechanism under the image sensor, in the body. So it works even with the ancient M series lenses I had, and their modern lenses are not burdened with the expensive of movable optics.

For a quick pocket shooter I was very impressed with the Canon Power Shot SX110 S. 10x optical zoom, nice glass lens assembly, pretty good on the low light level noise, and also supports Canon remote control from your computer. Also has complete manual control including focus. All for around $200, much less than the competition feature for feature.

Both cameras run off AA batteries. This is a deal maker for me. One can be out unable to recharge a special camera battery yet still get AA's from the nearest convenience or camp store. I unfortunately bought me a Panasonic Lumix when my last Power Shot died (from being dropped). High pixel count, poor nise floor, slow shuuter response, no manual focus, 4x zoom, specialo battery, special cable. The only principle I stuck by was SD card. Then I found the SX110 S, but I cannot justify changing till I have my 18 mos out of the Lumix.

SD card storage is another commonality I look for. I only have room for one card reader adapter in my man purse. There are SD thumb drive adaptors, so I carry one. Too much junk already, so no other formats need apply.

Third is being able to use a standard USB cable. So many cameras are using custom camera end connectors on their cables for computer connection, meaning one has to carefully keep the cables matched to their cameras or you're sunk. SD card standard means you are not necessarily sunk without a cable, but standard mini-B is best for the other functions such as computer control. Both cameras take Mini-B. Requiring a separate dock is an immediate wash-out.

I had a fourth requirement that seems to have been dropped mostly, and was never in the advertising specs - in-camera recharging, especially from USB. Haven't seen it for some years now. May be the charging current for 4x2500 MaH batteries is too high now?

Main advice: see if you can play with your candidates first, and check for your variation of my list. Only handling the camera and reading its user guide can answer most of the questions (SD card being the one exception), so do not rely on either the display card specs or the salesperson to answer them. Try your typical subjects.

Good luck, and good hunting!

Definitely try before you buy.

A high burst rate is a nice feature, but be sure you know how long it can shoot at the desired resolution. Our Nikon will sustain 3 frames a second for several seconds without compression of the images, but you need a special flash to keep up with it under certain conditions.

It is interesting just how often the second or third picture is the one you want. People relax after the first one and you get more natural responses.

The down side is that there are a lot of places you don't take a camera when the body alone costs $1000.

I was in the same position you are--many great pictures of the baby missed because of the limitations of a p&s digital camera, and ended up with a Nikon D200. I take lots of pictures of my now 2-year old son; click the link on my name here to see them.

The problem I had was that my old camera couldn't focus very well inside, because there wasn't enough light, and it couldn't use the flash for focusing. So I had unfocused as well as just-missed photos.

Absolutely, a DSLR gets rid of the shutter delay problem. And it will focus very quickly.

But whatever DSLR you buy, also get a powerful separate flash unit that you can aim to bounce off the ceiling. Bounce flash provides a very even light that gives much better pictures than direct flash. For Nikon, I have the SB-800 flash. I'd say about 50% of the pictures I take of my son are indoors with bounce flash, with 40% outdoors and 10% indoors with available light.

I love available light photography, but if you have a standard zoom lens, with the widest aperature somewhere around f/4, and you want to keep the shutter speed 1/60s or faster for handheld shots, then I've found that indoors the camera very frequently needs to use a sensitivity equivalent to ISO 1600. It works, but its noticeably noiser. I just bought a 50/1.4 for indoor available light. 50mm is equivalent to a 75mm lens on a film camera, which is a great portrait length but is a bit long for toddler action photos.