The two primary cameras for young children today are the following.  Please note that by ordering through these links you are helping to support this site.

Note that these are really just two cameras.  Each camera comes in either pink or blue.  Both cameras have been updated recently – but the update is strictly to add more megapixels to the existing cameras.  Everything else about them hasn’t changed.

We gave the Fisher Price camera to our older son when he was three years old.  He used that until losing it in Jerusalem, after which we replaced it with the VTech.

The Fisher Price is a more basic camera, but we felt that it took more high quality pictures.  Here is a shot that Eitan took with it while in Thailand.

The pictures are of a decent quality and generally it exposes quite well.  Here’s a shot he took indoors of his brother.

The camera is really no frills.  It does not have a zoom, the flash cannot be turned off, and obviously the exposure cannot be overridden.  However, for a young child it is extremely easy to use.  It is also practically indestructible as it did go flying on several occasions.

Eitan absolutely loved the camera and was heartbroken when he lost it.  Rather than buying the same camera, I decided to buy the VTech due to the higher megapixel count and the fact that it has video.

The VTech isn’t as good when it comes to pictures.  Although it has more megapixels than the Fisher Price, the optical quality isn’t as good and the exposure is often wrong – particularly when the flash fires.

Here’s an example shot from the VTech.  In general we have noticed far fewer ‘keepers’ from this camera.

You can see that the quality isn’t nearly as good as the Fisher Price, despite the fact that it has a higher number of megapixels.

The VTech does have the advantage that it supports video and has games on it.  For awhile Eitan played these games a lot.  In fact, I think he has used it more for the games than for pictures or video.

For video though, it can be quite funny seeing what happens when a hyperactive kid takes it out for a spin.  He took this video when we weren’t watching. (Note: if for some reason the video does not appear here you can also view it at http://www.flickr.com/photos/kirispupis/2993531665/)

He played around with the video for a bit, but no longer uses it.

Recently, Eitan has stopped using the camera completely because it doesn’t zoom.  Currently I help him take pictures with my camera, which he loves to do.  I have been eyeing buying him the Olympus SW1030, which is rugged enough for his age but is a bit high for our budget right now.

However, between the Fisher Price and the VTech kids cameras, in my opinion (and Eitan’s) the Fisher Price is the clear winner.  The VTech has more features and a higher resolution, but the Fisher Price is much easier to use and takes better quality shots.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Coming from the 5D, the 40D is certainly a different camera.  I suspect that many people right now are trying to make up their mind whether to purchase a new 50D or a used 5D, so I thought I would offer my opinions on the differences (the 50D and 40D are very similar cameras).

First, I am not going to dwell on the well known aspects such as image quality and noise.  There are many well respected web sites out there that will go into detail for these cameras.  In general, though, I felt the 40D was a very good camera.  Knowing that its high ISO capabilities are not as strong as the 5D, I didn’t push it very much.  On a few occasions I went up to ISO 800, but generally tried to keep it as low as possible.

As the 40D is a new camera, it has a number of improvements over the 5D.  The following are my impressions of them.

Dust removal – As with all newer Canon cameras, the 40D has automatic dust removal.  I tested this by taking some shots with my MP-E 65, which is the king of all lenses when it comes to showing dust.  I did find significantly less dust than I am accustomed to, particularly in the corners.  However, the images were certainly not dust free, and I will still have some cloning work to do.  The dust removal feature does reduce the amount of cloning I need to do though.

LCD – The 40D has a much nicer LCD than my 5D.  This helped significantly when making decisions about which images to keep.  I suspect with zoom I could have a good indication of how in focus an image is, but I didn’t have time for that.  Still, images I thought were in focus on the viewfinder turned out to be out of focus when I downloaded them.  I suspect the viewfinder on the 5D Mark II will be an improvement here.

Live View – I didn’t use this feature at all, and suspect I won’t use it much on the 5D Mark II except for the taking movies.  The MP-E 65 requires eye coordination and Live View is basically useless in this aspect.  When taking pictures of the kids, I felt it was unnecessary.

Viewfinder – Displaying the ISO in the viewfinder was very helpful.

Bursts – the 40D has a much higher frames per second than the 5D. In practice, I didn’t really use this.  My preferred style is to anticipate the moment, then take the shot.  I never pushed my old 5D in terms of burst and didn’t come close to using the feature for the 40D.

Autofocus – This is very hard to quantify, but based on the results I believe the AF in the original 5D is better.  In similar settings and lighting conditions I have had more ‘keeper’ shots, despite the fact that I used the same settings.

Feel – The 5D is certainly a larger camera and ‘feels’ more professional.  Perhaps it is just my familiarity with the 5D, but it feels much better in my hands.

Crop factor – This was very welcome when taking macro shots and when using my telephoto lens.  It was of course unwelcome when using my wide angle lens.  In general though I didn’t feel that I got any shots I wouldn’t have gotten with my 5D.  The depth of field was also a bit nicer in the macro shots, as the 40D has a bit more than the 5D.  Still, my style is to generally blur the background a bit, which is more difficult when you have more DOF.

Pop up flash – I used hot shoe flashes whenever necessary, but Nelya used the pop up flash.  I offered to put one of my flashes on the camera, but she didn’t want to bother.  In my opinion, the shots show the effect of a weak uni-directional flash – all the more reason that I prefer to not have a pop up flash on my camera.

Wife’s opinion – Nelya actually used the camera for the first party as I volunteered to help with the event.  She didn’t like the camera at all – saying that it felt more like a ‘toy’ compared to my old camera.

In general I think the 40D is a great camera.  When choosing between an old 5D and the newer 50D (which is essentially the 40D with a better LCD and 50% more pixels), I would choose the 5D simply because I prefer having less DOF and I like the feel of the camera more.  For purely macro and telephoto reasons though, the 50D certainly has its advantages.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

However, let’s get more specific on the differences between a diopter and a true macro lens.

The above shot is one of my favorites from the 500D paired with the Sigma at 400mm.  However, the above size doesn’t truly show the real sharpness.  Here is a view at 100%.

When you compare it to the MP-E 65 and 180L shots from yesterday, this shot is nowhere near as sharp.  There are several reasons for this.

1. The telephoto lens I had on the camera, the Sigma 80-400 4.5-5.6 OS, was nowhere near as sharp as the MP-E 65 or the 180L.  Keep in mind that when you use the 500D, the image will be no sharper than the sharpness of the lens you place it on – in fact it will be worse but we’ll get to that.
2. Macro lenses are calibrated for short focus, while telephotos are usually calibrated for objects near infinity.  Of course all good lenses should be sharp all around, but when designing macro lenses engineers pay particular attention to the sharpness for objects that are close in – as that is the main purpose of the lens.
3. The 500D itself causes a loss in sharpness.  This is one reason why extension tubes are often preferred – though they do not increase magnification greatly on a telephoto lens.  Still, the 500D is a very good diopter and you will lose much less sharpness than simpler single element diopters.

Therefore, the 500D is not nearly as sharp as a true macro lens.  Another large difference is the magnification.  The true magnification that you receive with the 500D mounted on top of a telephoto varies with the layout of the optics within the lens, but I found that on the Sigma at 400mm I managed .75x at the highest magnification.  With a shorter lens such as a 200mm, the magnification will be even less.  Since true macro lenses start at 1x, you will get better magnification with a true macro lens than the 500D on a telephoto.

The following are other differences.

1. A true macro lens is much faster. The 100mm is 2.8 and the 180mm is 3.5. The top telephotos are 2.8 but many are 5.6. Since you lose at least a full stop when you add the 500D, you wind up with f/4-f/8.
2. You’ll generally find that the color contrast is much better with a macro lens.
3. AF is slowed down significantly with the diopter on, though for the vast majority of photographs AF is not necessary.

Still, the following are the main advantages of the 500D.

- It is significantly cheaper than a true macro lens.  A 77mm filter runs about $150, compared with the most often used macro lens – the 100mm 2.8 at almost $500.

- You can quickly switch to taking macro shots while taking other types of shots.  I used to keep the 500D in my pocket while trying to photography birds.  When I found a cool insect, I would quickly put the diopter on the lens and shoot away.

I often recommend that those interested in macro photography buy a 500D or extension tubes to see if they like macro photography before spending more on one or more true macro lenses.  It tends to sell used for around $100 so if you decide that you no longer need it, you will only wind up paying $50.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Both shots were taken with the MT-24EX mounted and were at 1/200 second at apertures of f/11.  The camera used was the Canon 5D.  One shot was taken with the 180L while the other was taken with the MP-E 65.  With both shots, I took a number of the same subject so I then took the best representative shot from each set.  The following are the two test shots.

I hope it is obvious which shot was taken with the 180L and which was taken with the MP-E 65.

Let’s take a look at both of these shots at 100%.

At 100%, both shots still look fairly good.  The top one, of course, is the MP-E 65.  Here’s the result at 200%.

Try to keep in mind that the eye is larger from the MP-E 65 shot because the shot was taken at a higher magnification than the 1x of the 180L.  It does appear that they are quite close.  Here is the shot of the 180L magnified to 300% – where the eye is roughly the same size as that in the MP-E 65.

Obviously the MP-E 65 version is sharper, but that one is at 200% vs this one at 300%.  In my opinion if I had to pick a winner it would be the MP-E 65, due to the detail in the facets of the eye vs the detail of the top of the head on the shot from the 180L.

In truth though this is neither a scientific nor a very fair test.  With all of the gear I had on the camera, I should try to see if I can take shots higher than 1/200th with the 180L – perhaps with high speed flash sync – to see if that improves the sharpness.  Certainly there is a higher chance of camera shake with the 180L and the Wimberley brackets than with the MP-E 65.  Also, to be entirely fair both shots should have been at 1x – though the MP-E 65 is actually sharper at 1x than at 2x.

This also does not give an indication of how well these lenses work with a 21MP sensor, which I hope to show in a few months.  In the end, I may not have proven anything here but I hope to have given you an idea of the sharpness of the 180L.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.