Looking for the best SLR for Low Light shots.

[AKLforever]

Im about to go in august again. Last time I went , I took about 200 or so shots of animal kingdom lodge, mostly inside shots of the decor (which I love so much ). But my camera stinks for inside low light shots, so I found out then.
I hear that SLR cameras are better for that. And, from only a few sources, I hear that the higher the ISO, the better the low light shots will be, is that true? Just trying to confirm that. And, if anyone can recommend a good low light SLR camera, let me know. Im looking to spend about 400-600 or so. Thank you all

 

[handicap18]

Its not just the camera body, you'll want a fast (aka wide aperture) lens to go with it. Nikon, Pentax and Canon make great dSLR's. In addition to any kit lens it will come with you'll also want a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens to go with it. I mention that specific length because it is very affordable lens wise ($80-150 or so new). There are other focal lenghts available such as 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 30mm, and others that are in the f/1.4 or f/1.8 range. They are more expensive though.

Nikon and Pentax have slightly better high ISO performance from the reviews I've read. Not that Canon is any slouch. High meaning 800 & 1600. Some also do have ISO 3200, but that creates a lot of noise.

Based on your budget you'll want to look at the Nikon D50 and Pentax K100D. I believe Canon's XTi is quite a bit more. I wouldn't recommend the Nikon D40 because it does not have a focus motor in the body and will not auto focus with Nikon's 50mm f/1.8 lens.

 

[Master Mason]

It is still relatively easy to find the Canon XT's around, a lot easier then the Nikon D50. That would help lower the price if you like canon.

 

[ukcatfan]

For that price range, your selection is pretty limited. I would say go with a Pentax K100D. It has IS built in where their K110D does not. The IS will help with low light subjects that do not move. Unless you want some more range than the 18-55mm kit lens gives you, I would not get a longer range lens to keep the budget down. You would likely benefot from a 50mm prime, but that might put you closer to $700. There are some rebates around. If you think you can get away with no IS, then the K110D is usu. around $75-100 cheaper to save a little there.

If you can find a Nikon D50 or Canon XT around, they might fit the price range, but the new models from them will likely put you over. Olympus will not really fit your needs due to the low light needs. They are better than a p&s, but not as good as the C,N, & P models that have the APS-C sensor. The Oly uses a 4/3 system sensor that is smaller and has a little more image noise at high ISOs. I did not mention Sony b/c it is out of the price range.

Kevin

 

[AKLforever]

Well, let me say, the 600 range was just something I hoped for, but 700 is not out of my range, I was just hoping for less, hehe. But I can do 700 if it comes with a lens, I hope?
As long as I can do great low light.

I have another question now after reading your replies.
You say a 50mm lens is what I need, right?
So, what if I get a body and just a 50mm lens, would that be better then the kit? Or does that limit my normal day time shots?

 

[photo_chick]

The 50mm lens is being mentioned because of it's wide aperture. This will let you get a faster shutter speed and get better low light shots. This is a fixed focal length. Meaning if you want to zoom in and out you have to use your feet. NOT a bad thing, but sometimes it is just not possible to move that much, especially in a crowd (or when you are old and lazy like me!) From what I have seen it is not much more to get a body and basic kit lens than it is to buy just the body. If it were me, I would do that and also get a standard 50mm.


The store by me had a Rebel XT with the kit lens for $500, and then the 50mm f/1.8 is another $70. With tax that is still well under $700.

 

[photo_chick]

Forgot one thing... Higher ISO does mean more sensativity to light, just like with film. However there is a trade off. You get more digital noise with the higher ISO settings, just like with higher ISO film you get larger grains. Some cameras have less noise than others, as mentioned above. My Rebel XT is not too bad noise wise at 1600, but what is considered good and bad in that department is somewhat a matter of personal taste I think.

 

[AKLforever]

handicap18 talked about f/1.8 or f/1.4, and you said f/1.8, is 1.8 better? Should I look for one over the other?

 

[boBQuincy]

Most camera manufacturers list their 50mm as their lowest priced lens, often under $100. A 50mm is often also a very sharp lens, even at the low price. Most of the inexpensive ones are f/1.8 or so.

A f/1.4 is a faster lens (lets in more light) but these generally cost about 3x as much as the f/1.8, partly for the speed, partly because they are often built better. For most users the less expensive lens is just fine, and the slight increase in speed is usually not worth the extra $$$.

Canon cameras are sometimes rated "cleaner" at high ISO than others, due to their different sensor design. At any rate, different brands of cameras have a different look at high ISO, check DPReview.com to see some sample images.

At anything above ISO 400 you might want some third party noise reduction software, such as NeatImage or NoiseNinja.

Welcome to the world of dSLR, get out your credit card because the lens buying never ends!

 

[Gdad]

handicap18 talked about f/1.8 or f/1.4, and you said f/1.8, is 1.8 better? Should I look for one over the other?

Can't speak for other brands but I know with Nikon the 50/1.8 is about $100 new while the 50/1.4 is maybe closer to $300. I don't think you will see much of a difference between f1.4 to f1.8 for low light use. Anything f2.8 or faster should be fine. And noise should not be a big problem at high ISO if properly exposed.

 

[ukcatfan]

handicap18 talked about f/1.8 or f/1.4, and you said f/1.8, is 1.8 better? Should I look for one over the other?

First off, all of the 50mm primes are good no matter if you are talking Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc.

It is not always a better thing with the f stop number. The smaller it is, the more light it lets in and that means that a faster shutter can be used or a lower ISO. The difference in f/1.4 to f/1.8 is not much, but I believe in Canon terms, the f/1.4 is multiple times more expensive than the f/1.8 which is less than$100. I do not know much about the Nikon, but I am pretty sure that their cheap one is a f/1.8.

The Pentax 50mm is a f/1.4 and around the low $200's. Comparing apples to apples, the Pentax is cheaper, but it is usually compared to the Canon and Nikon f/1.8 b/c Pentax does not have an offering there, so it appears more expensive. It is supposed to be a little better in image quality and bokeh than the basic C&N offerings, but again it is a little more $$$.

As for kit lenses, you might not be happy to stick with one for a long time. This is especially true of the C&N offerings. Being the market leaders, they have to strength to offer weaker kit lenses in an effort to push you to an upgrade. The C&N fans should not be offended by this as the companies do it on purpose. If you really plan to stick with a kit for a long time, then you should look deeper at Pentax and Olympus. Sony's is also nice, but even with your stretched budget, I believe it is still out of reach. Here are a couple of lens review sites. http://photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html http://www.photodo.com/products.html

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

The others have mostly covered the big topics... Canon may have a slight edge in high-ISO but it's pretty slight. Nikon and Pentax generally use the same sensors so have the same performance in you shoot RAW (which is recommended.) If you shoot JPG, the Nikons are generally a tiny bit cleaner than the Pentax but lose more detail in the process - this is the trade-off when you have the camera attempt to do the noise reduction for you, you have to choose noise and detail or less noise and less detail. Best results will probably be to shoot raw and use a stand-alone program on your PC for any noise reduction.

The best bargain at the moment is the Pentax K100D + 50/200mm lens, which is a grand total of just under $600 after a $150 rebate. Without the 50-200mm, you're looking at about $500 - the 50-200mm is definitely worth having, especially for only $100, but it's definitely not a low-light king.

For 50mm lenses, Canon and Nikon have under-$100 50mm F1.8 lenses, while their F1.4 lenses are closer to $300 - but should have fairly obvious superior quality and construction. (Most aperture blades for better bokeh, etc.) The Pentax 50mm F1.4 is pretty legendary (generally considered to be possibly the finest 50mm ever) and is relatively affordable at $200.

If you forego the 50-200mm, you can get into a K100D, kit lens, and 50mm for about $700... not dissimilar to what you'd pay for an XT or a D40 with kit lens and their 50mm 1.8. The advantages with the Pentax are image stabilization (can be a big help in low-light indoor shots like inside Animal Kingdom Lodge) and better quality lenses, both with the kit and the 50mm. You also don't have the legacy lens restrictions of the D40 (which can't focus their 50mm F1.8 lens, or any lens without a built-in motor) and have what most consider to be better ergonomics and build quality than the XT. It's also the only with a 2.5" rear LCD plus a top-mounted LCD.

At the end of the day, though, all three really are very good cameras and should all produce very nice photos, much better indoors than what you got from your point-n-shoot.

 

[jann1033]

"Very low noise levels even at ISO 1600, virtually unnoticeable below this"
according to dpreview for the rebel xt
right now beach has it with the kit lens for under $600 shipped...i think dodd camera might have had it for around $5-600 on sale( sorry just threw the add away and it included a card and a case(?) so with the 50mm f1.8 and the kit lens, still under $700
i just saw a test of all 6 nikon and canon 50mm and they rated the 50mmf1.8 as one of if not the best, not just value but iq as well...if i can find the link i'll post it ( but i am supposed to be cleaning my office so can't look now)

 

[AKLforever]

Thank you everyone, you have all been very helpful.
This is some great info.

So far, as price goes, I can do the K100D with the 50mm lens from amazon, thats 700 for both. And its the kit too. Sounds like the camera for me. Bestbuy and all those other stores sell this for so much more, 100s more. This will be a good starter SLR camera. Thanks again everyone!!!

But now, I have to add and ask this. Does it matter what type of memory card you get, and by that I mean brand and high capacity or not and so on?

 

[Groucho]

The review here of the Canon 50mm 1.8 vs 1.4 shows some pretty clear advantages to the 1.4, with several side-by-side shots.

AKLForever, great choice. We've got a quickly-growing family of K100D users here.

For memory cards, it's probably not a bad idea to get a high-speed card. I've got a 133x and a 150x card (both 2g), one was $20 and one was slightly more. The price difference isn't enough to warrant buying a "normal speed" one IMHO. The Sandisk Ultra 2s are about equivalent to a 60x card, BTW. The best deals are often found at buy.com, and sometimes NewEgg, Amazon, ZipZoomFly, etc. I get the daily email from buy.com and you can often find some great deals there. I would look at 2g cards, maybe larger if you find a particular good deal.

Brand isn't so important IMHO, but I would look for one with a lifetime warranty as they can go bad.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

If you really want the best low light performance in a DSLR, check out the Canon 1DM3. It improves Canon's lead in high ISO performance by another full stop. It also gives you 10 frames-per-second shooting speed, a 2000 shot battery life, four times as many color gradations, and a huge viewfinder. If you don't mind the extra size and weight (it's a bit bulky), I think it's the ultimate WDW camera. The downside is that you'll need to add a zero to the end of your price range and wait a few months.

 

[jann1033]

the article i was mentioning i read the middle of last month, thinking it might have been in digtal photo or some other photo magazine but i don't subscribe and can't check the archives.. i thought i had linked to it or bookmarked it but didn't...anyway it compared 3 canon and 3 nikon 50mm lens and 2 of the canon came out on top, one of which was the f1.8..it was a really good article cause it reviewed each one's strong/weak points, has all the charts etc...sorry i can't find it. i know it was around then as it made me wonder about the lack of focus i had with that lens of mine and i posted asking about it mid april the same day right after i read the article. maybe someone else here saw it as well.

 

[cpbjgc]

...anyway it compared 3 canon and 3 nikon 50mm lens and 2 of the canon came out on top, one of which was the f1.8..it was a really good article cause it reviewed each one's strong/weak points, has all the charts etc...

I believe you were thinking of the Tanner Report on SLRGear.com. If you go to the the review of the Canon 50mm 1.8 II, under the description is a link to the report that compares the 6 lenses.

 

[Groucho]

It certainly is a bargain, any half-way decent F1.8 lens for under $100 is a real steal, even with the poor build quality (5/10 in the linked review.) It can probably do better than most Canon zoom lenses costing several times as much... but there are definitely differences. The one I linked showing the side-by-sides is, IMHO, a nice "real world" way to look rather than a bunch of charts which aren't always easy to translate into something that we can understand. Show me the bokeh!

And, FWIW, the Canon 1.8 didn't come in near the front... quite the opposite. Here's the test results, I've included prices from Adorama for reference.

10.00 Canon 50mm F1.2 ($1,360 - gulp!)
9.06 Nikon 50mm F1.8 ($115)
9.00 Sigma 50mm F2.8 Macro ($269)
8.47 Nikon 50mm F1.4 ($290)
8.06 Canon 50mm F1.4 ($310)
7.58 Canon 50mm F1.8 ($80)

 

[AKLforever]

The review here of the Canon 50mm 1.8 vs 1.4 shows some pretty clear advantages to the 1.4, with several side-by-side shots.

AKLForever, great choice. We've got a quickly-growing family of K100D users here.

For memory cards, it's probably not a bad idea to get a high-speed card. I've got a 133x and a 150x card (both 2g), one was $20 and one was slightly more. The price difference isn't enough to warrant buying a "normal speed" one IMHO. The Sandisk Ultra 2s are about equivalent to a 60x card, BTW. The best deals are often found at buy.com, and sometimes NewEgg, Amazon, ZipZoomFly, etc. I get the daily email from buy.com and you can often find some great deals there. I would look at 2g cards, maybe larger if you find a particular good deal.

Brand isn't so important IMHO, but I would look for one with a lifetime warranty as they can go bad.

Wow, good info.
I have been looking and cant seem to find any 133 or 150 cards, was that on buy.com? Cant find em?