From: Paul Furman on
ASAAR wrote:

> These older models are still available new, and you can get them
> for many hundreds of dollars less than the current models. The
> "kit" lenses for these cameras are usually something like 18mm-55mm
> and are very inexpensive. These lenses would probably be well
> suited for some of the slower activities you mentioned - women
> cooking, people in a meeting room, maybe people walking and pacing,
> etc. With the money saved by not going for the more expensive 400D
> or D80, there's a slim chance that you *might* be able to afford a
> longer, faster, and unfortunately heavier f/2.8 zoom, that would be
> ideal for capturing fast moving pets, children playing, some sports
> activities, etc. B&H has the D50 body in stock for $450 (new) and
> $400 (used). The 350D is $488 (new). Nikon's recent "budget" DSLR,
> the D40 is quite similar to the D50, and it's main limitation
> wouldn't be a limitation for you. It won't autofocus with old Nikon
> lenses. B&H has it for $570, and this includes Nikon's 18-55mm
> f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. Add the same or a similar lens to the D50 or
> 350D and the price will be in the same ball park. This would leave
> your budget with just under $1000 remaining. That could be put to
> very good use if these lenses aren't suitable for collecting lots of
> light. You'd be all set if a fixed length lens of about 50mm would
> do, since an f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens is fairly inexpensive. If you need
> a longer lens, then you'd want to look for one that has an f/2.8
> aperture, but the prices for these rise rapidly. Longer f/2.8 zoom
> lenses are probably well beyond your budget.

I think he will need a wider lens for groups of people in a kitchen
unless it's a huge kitchen. I initially only saw the $1000 budget but
with $1500 he could get a Nikon D50, Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and 18-70mm
lenses. I don't know the Canon options as well.
From: nospam on
In article <pan.2007.03.07.15.53.05.559375(a)zianet.com>, ray
<ray(a)zianet.com> wrote:

> I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
> film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
> what is available with film.

digital is *much* better than film at high iso.
From: Tzortzakakis Dimitrios on

? "ipy2006" <ipyasaswi(a)gmail.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:1173268980.676512.227070(a)h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
> best DSLR for this purpose?
> Thanks,
On my film days, I used some 400 ASA film for such an occasion, with my
Nikkor 50 mm 1.4 (either delta or T-Max).Now I use a P&S, and besides I was
a Nikon fan, canon cameras are generally very good.


--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr

From: David Dyer-Bennet on
ipy2006 wrote:
> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
> best DSLR for this purpose?

Well, any of the Nikon or Canon offerings are going to be significantly
better than what you're using now (I've read ahead some).

On the other hand, many of the good choices blow your $1500 max budget
*before* buying a lens. By a factor of about 5, in some cases. At that
budget, anything remotely resembling the "best" the market currently has
to offer is completely off the radar. Some of the lenses you might
want to buy for this work blow your $1500 budget all by themselves.

Sounds like you're talking bright home / average office brightness
levels, rather than really low light levels. And people in normal life,
rather than high-speed sports and such.

I would suggest that you'll be best off with a bottom-end DSLR from
Canon or Nikon plus the best fast lenses you can fit into the budget.
Nothing slower than f/2.8 need apply. You want at least one at f/1.4 or
faster, probably either a 50mm or the Sigma 30mm. And you still won't
be able to get what you really need for $1500. You also need the good
flash, in Nikon the SB-800, I forget the Canon equivalent model. The
Nikon flash system is generally thought better than the Canon, the Canon
noise at high ISOs is generally thought lower than the Nikon in
comparable cameras. The Canon fast lenses seem to be cheaper, but on
Nikon you can get cheap manual focus fast lenses and still use them on
the DSLRs. It's all a bunch of tradeoffs.

But your $1500 just isn't going to cut it with anything other than
fairly blatantly compromised equipment.
From: David Dyer-Bennet on
ray wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 04:03:00 -0800, ipy2006 wrote:
>
>> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
>> best DSLR for this purpose?
>> Thanks,
>> Yip
>
> I should think the 'best' solution would be a film SLR with high speed
> film. I don't think the practical ISO ranges available on DSLRs yet match
> what is available with film.

In my experience, this is massively wrong. High ISO is where digital
completely blows film away; there's no comparison. (I've been pushing
TRI-X since 1969, shooting the Konica 3200 color neg when it was
available, and oh *man* is digital better than any of that.)