low light

On Mar 7, 7:03 am, "ipy2006" <ipyasa....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to shoot action photos in low light conditions. What is the
> best DSLR for this purpose?
> Thanks,
> Yip



None. You need light to do photography, you moron.

On 7 Mar 2007 05:42:57 -0800, ipy2006 wrote:

> Here are some scenarios,
> Indoor shooting of people talking with hand gestures, people walking
> or pacing in the room, kids playing, women cooking in kitchen, or
> groups of people in meeting rooms etc. Sometimes I don't have the
> ability to use lights, I need to depend on flash and high brightness
> setting. Currently, I am using a Sony Digital Camera, Cyber-shot, DSC-
> H2. My budget is $1000 and at the most $1500.
>
> I read some review that Canon Eos Digital Rebel xTi DSLR is good low
> lighting. Nikon D80 was good but the article said more as a available-
> light camera.
>
> Please comment.

I have no idea what the review meant. I'd take referring to a
camera as "good low lighting" and "more as a available light camera"
to be the same thing, both seem to be praising the camera's low
(available) light ability. Both are good cameras, and well within
your budget, leaving enough room left over to get a good flash. But
the cameras that they replaced are probably better from a low light
standpoint, because these (Canon's 350D and Nikon's D50), using the
same size sensors, have fewer, larger pixels. This makes them able
to collect more light and for the same high ISO setting, produce
less "noise". Canon claims that despite having smaller pixels, the
400D is no noisier than the 350D, based on using better electronics,
but I'd guess that the difference is slight, and whatever difference
there is, the advantage would probably be to the 350D. I think that
the 350D and D50 do at least as well in low light and perhaps better
than their newer, more expensive siblings.

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.