[JeffJS]

I cannot stress how valuable I think an external flash is. I've never owned a camera that had what I believe to be a good Internal flash..

K7, DA*16-50, AF540 (bounced)



I'm not saying a different lens won't help, it certainly cannot hurt. However, I think you need to get control of your lighting and exposure before you dump a lot of cash into lenses.

In the last photo you posted, it looks like the camera took too much into account the background lighting. Fill flash would help this but so too would spot metering on the kid.

[Alex00]

Go to this thread and look for the baby pictures i took. I have a cropped version of the eye so you can see the details.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/88923-da*-50-135mm-discontinued-4.html

it was about 7pm only 60w bulb.
ISO 100
1/180
f2.8 using DA* 50-135
Flash at -1 with diffuser in-front on the flash for softer light.
(you can find the diffuser at amazon Amazon.com: Opteka Universal Soft Screen Flash Diffuser for Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, & Kodak On-Camera Pop-Up Flashes: Electronics) .

[Rondec]

I guess I would say practice -- a lot. Focusing takes practice. Center point and recompose is the way to begin and after you are consistent at nailing it, then try using some of the other auto focus points.

As to fast lens versus external flash question, I don't know the answer. External flash definitely gives you more bang for your buck. It also takes a lot of practice to use and get consistent results. I have seen an awful lot of photographers blast away with an external flash and come away with photos like they had just visited a mime convention.

A fast lens also takes a lot of practice -- mainly from a focus stand point. Remember that as you open up your lens, your depth of field becomes more narrow. A 50 f1.4 lens will have a depth of field of only a couple of inches wide open at the distances your shooting at. So, there is no easy answer, except practice and enjoy.

I think the beauty of digital photography is that you can look at your photos and figure out what really went wrong (or right) and get better over time.

[Alex00]

agree with Rondec. If you want to get allot in focus or at least the kid, you need to be higher then 1.4, otherwise only small portion on the photo will be in focus depending on your distance.

[hcc]

As to fast lens versus external flash question, I don't know the answer. External flash definitely gives you more bang for your buck. It also takes a lot of practice to use and get consistent results. I have seen an awful lot of photographers blast away with an external flash and come away with photos like they had just visited a mime convention.

A fast lens also takes a lot of practice -- mainly from a focus stand point. Remember that as you open up your lens, your depth of field becomes more narrow. A 50 f1.4 lens will have a depth of field of only a couple of inches wide open at the distances your shooting at. So, there is no easy answer, except practice and enjoy.

You received already some valuable feedback. I can possibly add on the advantage of fast lens (eg 50 mm f1.4).

I have a K-7 and a 58mm f1.4 Nokton. I chose originally the Nokton for outdoor photography in low light. I found that the fast lens allows me to take some very decent pictures outdoor and indoor with low light in absence of flash. In fact, everytime I want to shoot at home in the evening, I use the Nokton (without flash). Overall I am very impressed by the ability to shoot indoor without flash: very nice during a school event.

This particular lens (Nokton 58mm f1.4) is a manual focus with a relatively short depth of field and the aperture ring has an A (auto) position: all in all, a good practice and training lens for newbies ... like myself.

PS: I took last week the K7 and the Nokton lens in the bush (ie wilderness) for 4 days and night under the rain and wind, and in the mud. The lens is really robust and impressive. There were other colleagues using some Nikkon and Canon SLRs with kit lenses. They were very surprised to see me shooting in the rain or in the early night without flash: their Canikon & kit lenses were not designed for that.

[aleonx3]

I use flash quite often even though there is enough light, because flash provides the white light which can enhance the picture. I seldom use the built-in flash, always the external flash, especially the ones with swivel head.

The important point to remember when taking baby (or small child) pictures is never use direct flash; in fact I don't even use that for small house pets as well. I use bounce flash (often on the side wall). Use the appropriate aperture and ambient light to your advantage, and you will have lots of fun taking sharp baby pictures as some forum members here suggested. Here is an example of bounce flash from the side wall and partially to the ceiling. I reduced the size of the picture here, since I always take RAW, I can count the hair strands on her face on the full size picture.

[Raybo]

Oh boy!

[Cloggie_UK]

I think a decent external flash and diffuser would be your best friend which in turn makes a fast lens a bit of a moot point. I mean, a fast lens will give you higher shutter speeds but would you shoot child portraits @ 1.4? The DOF will be extremely shallow. A higher quality zoom, yes. Nothing against a fast prime but I wouldn't rely on it's speed to capture portraits unless you like a very shallow DOF.

This one was shot with a K10D, Sigma 24-70 F2.8 EX DG Macro and a Metz 58AF-1 wit a Gary Fong Lightsphere:

[Alfisti]

Are some of you being intentionally unhelpful or are you just plain lazy?

It's pretty clear that problem number one is focus, most posted by the OPer are out fo focus, what is your focussing method?

Secondly, the backlighting and exposure are a problem.

I agre with those that say needing a fast lens is a myth, DOF is a concern at f/1.4 so an external flash is always a good idea.

[Marc Sabatella]

Take a look at these images.
Does this mean, I need to get a external flash or 50mm f1.4

I think the first question you should ask is, does *what* mean you need to get some other piece of equipment? That is, what *specifically* about these pictures are you not happy with? If it were me, the only thing I'd be unhappy with is focus, and that doesn't require new equipment to improve - just better technique. Aside from that, they don't have hugely objectionable amounts of camera shake, subject motion, or noise, considering these are low light shots in which those are exactly the three things that one *always* fights. But if you're specifically unhappy with the amount of camera shake, subject motion, or noise in the picture, identifying the specific area of concern would be the starting point in deciding how to address the problem.

[pakuchn]

Well, the one thing for sure is that I need to just out and just start taking pictures.

How else will I learn? Well, thanks everyone and I will get back to you later on with some samples.

[ma318]

Hope you don't mind. As a last resort, a little bit of PP in Photoshop can make some improvement.

[tokyoso]

It looks like you have shaky hands like I do.

If it's a low light situation and you need the exposure time, as in your second pic you can try setting it on the floor and raise it with a rolled up towel to keep the camera still, like this guy is doing (here) -

[boriscleto]

K-x does not have ISO 100.

:-(

You need to turn on expanded sensitivity. Custom menu 1 #3.

[Marc Sabatella]

But you don't necessarily need ISO 100 - the point is, use the lowest ISO you conveniently can to get the lowest noise levels (assuming you have enoug light to get a fast enough shutter speed). If 200 is the lowest normal ISO setting on your camera, use that uinless there is a reason to go higher.