low-light dSLR cameras

[jexca]

We are receiving money at Christmas for the purchase of a new camera. We are going with a dSLR because we are now comfortable enough with photography that we need to be able to control our own settings, change out lenses, blur out the background etc.
Most important to us is an affordable($700) camera that takes excellent low-light or night time pictures. We spend a lot of time in downtown Dallas at night, or shooting low light indoor pictures, and would like to entertain the possibility of taking it with us to a concert when we go. Currently, we are severely disappointed with the amount of noise we get when we shoot low-light photos, but we know we don't have a great camera for that.
Additionally, I want a dSLR because I plan on taking photography classes/learning more so that it could become a possible career(and we figure something in the $700 range would be a good start). So we are looking for the best suggestions and appreciate anyone who takes the time to help us out. We are looking for specific models that someone has actually used successfully-we have been looking at all manufacturers thus the need for a little guidance.

[i speak in math]

The Pentax K-x was the low light APS-C king until the K-5 took the crown. The K-x can be had for under $500.

[kuvahmagh]

Does that $700 figure represent just a body or also your lenses? If it is both then I would seriously suggest really looking at the whole systems you will be buying into, lenses aren't cheap and they aren't interchangeable so if you buy a Canon now it won't be cheap to change to Nikon later on once you have a few thousand invested in lenses, not to mention all your time learning to use one brand then relearning the controls and handling of another brand.

[jexca]

Oh yes sorry about not adding that in. We will most likely buy a system with one or two lenses, depending on what we can find-after reading math's reply, we found a couple of the k-x systems with lenses for $650-800. If it comes down to it, we are willing to buy a body and one lens to start-knowing we are going to have to build up anyway. And we are definitely committed to one brand once we find the one that suits our needs. As it stands, we've owned p&s's made by canon, nikon, and casio, as well as using a samsung, a sony, and kodak. We currently are not brand loyal in that dept because we have had specific issues with each camera-battery life, quality of pictures, power on time, refresh speed.

[inkista]

Before buying a Pentax, I'd recommend learning two things (if low-light performance is paramount to you).

What Maximum Aperture is on a lens.

And the effect that a full-frame sensor has on high iso noise performance.

Then realize that in Pentax's current lens lineup, they've got very few (current) lenses that go wider than f/2.8 (and even fewer that are <$500 that do that), and they don't do full-frame. You can find a used Canon 5D (mark I) for about $1100 these days. Full frame might be more affordable than you think.

Being a Canon shooter, I'd naturally steer you in that direction. All I say is look at the number and prices of the USM primes that are faster than f/2.8 on the Canon side. Then note that on the Nikon side, only two fast primes are AF-S and under $500 (50/1.4 and 35/1.8), neither of them particularly long. How close are you to the stage when you're at a concert? Check the film-equivalent focal lengths you use on your P&S cameras for a guide as to how long a lens you might want.

Low light is as much about the lenses as it is about iso performance. Max. aperture. Go read up. An 18-55 kit lens is going to suck for concert shooting.

[i speak in math]

Originally Posted by inkista

Before buying a Pentax, I'd recommend learning two things (if low-light performance is paramount to you).

What Maximum Aperture is on a lens.

And the effect that a full-frame sensor has on high iso noise performance.

Then realize that in Pentax's current lens lineup, they've got very few (current) lenses that go wider than f/2.8 (and even fewer that are <$500 that do that), and they don't do full-frame. You can find a used Canon 5D (mark I) for about $1100 these days. Full frame might be more affordable than you think.

Being a Canon shooter, I'd naturally steer you in that direction. All I say is look at the number and prices of the USM primes that are faster than f/2.8 on the Canon side. Then note that on the Nikon side, only two fast primes are AF-S and under $500 (50/1.4 and 35/1.8), neither of them particularly long. How close are you to the stage when you're at a concert? Check the film-equivalent focal lengths you use on your P&S cameras for a guide as to how long a lens you might want.

Low light is as much about the lenses as it is about iso performance. Max. aperture. Go read up. An 18-55 kit lens is going to suck for concert shooting.

As a Pentax user and professional photographer, I would naturally steer the OP a different direction.

Full frame sensor size has little to do with high ISO noise control. For instance, I use the 1D at work all the time and it blows. The K-5 and its 1.5x crop sensor just beat the Canon 5DmII (as well as the rest of their entire line up) and tied the Nikon D3s (as well as the medium format, pentax 645D) in sensor tests over at DXO. It even beats the Nikon D7000 which has the same sensor. Its the 6th best digital camera ever according to their ratings.

With fast aperture lenses in mind, remember that many of the cheap fast lenses (ala, the canon 50mm f/1.8 et al) are very soft wide open and only become reasonably sharp after stopping down. Pentax's lenses, like the new $200 35mm f/2.4 can be used wide open with very sharp results. So they are essentially equal. With the superior ISO noise control, Pentax takes the lead.

Additionally, while pentax does not make a full frame digital SLR yet, many of their lenses are designed with a full frame image circle (yet marked as a DA, for digital). Their lenses are better built and cheaper. You also have the advantage of better built bodies and weather sealing for less money. They also make a medium format camera, while Canon and Nikon do not.

But I digress. The OP asked for a low light camera body under $800. It only seems fitting to recommend the brand with the best low light abilities. For 1/2 the $, he can get the previous APS-C king of low light and still have $400 left to spend on lenses. I would recommend the DA 70mm f/2.4 LTD to go on the front of that. Gorgeous lens and one of the sharpest tested. Great short tele for portraits, concert ...

[inkista]

I said longer fast primes, not 50mm lenses.

Make the case you gotta make. But, as you've clearly drunk the DXO kool-aid, just two tests by dpreview for the other side:

High ISO side-by-side of 60D, D7000, K-5. Don't look at the JPEG one. You'll be really pissed if you look at the JPEG one.

EF 50mm f/1.4 USM vs. SMC FA 50mm f/1.4

And I do find it ironic that on the one hand you're saying that having full-frame sensors in the lineup vs. APS-C doesn't matter a damn, but that on the other that Pentax makes 645 format digital marks its clear brand superiority. You can't have it both ways. Either larger sensors are better, or they aren't. The fact that a medium format camera is 4-5x more expensive than a full-frame and has to use a completely different set of lenses than an APS-C camera are perhaps practical issues one shouldn't examine too closely while making the case for Pentax.

DXO's methodology BTW, is, er... questionable. The numbers don't really translate to real world usage. And part of the reason is that they completely ignore sensor resolution in the scoring. That's why crop bodies look as good (or better) than full-frames, and full-frames look as good or better than medium format sensors. The 1DsIV was rated as one point below the Hasselblad H3DII, which is rated one point below a D7000. I have a very very hard time believing that result.

Oh, and the 1D isn't full-frame. It's APS-H.

[Niresangwa]

Originally Posted by inkista

I said longer fast primes, not 50mm lenses.

Make the case you gotta make. But, as you've clearly drunk the DXO kool-aid, just two tests by dpreview for the other side:

High ISO side-by-side of 60D, D7000, K-5. Don't look at the JPEG one. You'll be really pissed if you look at the JPEG one.

DPReview seriouslyballsed up the first test. They held their hand up and admitted it and re-shot it...

Of course all of this, no matter how you source things to support your platform is full of bias. I think Pentax supporters are just more sensitive to it now that the latest line up (K-x, K-r, K-5 and 645D) that was such a huge jump in capability...

Pentax Forums are currently feuding with DP Review, and we have our own take on just how biased DPR is when it comes to pushing Canon down people's throats. The resultant re-shoot quoted above and the anger from those who called them out show that DPR is most definitely just as biased as any other review out there.

Another thing you keep bringing up is the lack of FF in the Pentax line up. Who cares? The new generation of crop sensors bodies (not just the K-5, but the d7000) have shown that resolution is a match for FF (do you have another review to go up against the DXO one?). Aside from DoF benefits which are marginal, why bother with FF? Crop sensor bodies are only going to improve and level the playing field. For the general user, its a non-issue. One consideration that is an issue however is the size of the system, crop bodies are smaller, lighter and in Pentax's case much more durable in terms of sealing and build quality. Can the FF mount every single lens in the Canon line up and have the benefit of stabilization? (that last question is a legitimate one)

The 645D being 4-5 times more expensive? It runs at $10k. Show me the NIB purchase price for a D3 (24MP) or 5dMkII (21MP) that is under $2k. Used 5dMkII yes, but lets compare apples to apples.

Idk, sorry to derail yet another thread for a newb asking for guidance while we come to blows over platforms... like I said, I think Pentaxians are just a little hot right now and feeling like they're not getting the respect their brand arguably really deserves right now.

In response to the OP:

Look into the K-x. You may grow out of it in a couple of years, but that shouldnt be a concern, as if you do go into making money, you will need a backup, and in the meantime you'll have a GREAT unit and plenty of money left for glass...

With your budget however, I'd probably go for the K-r however. Newer AF system, newer handling of the sensor's ability, more advanced functions than the K-x

Amazon.com: Pentax K-r 12.4 MP Digital SLR Camera with 3.0-Inch LCD and 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and 55-300mm f/3.5-5.8 Lenses (Black): Camera & Photo

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Niresangwa

The 645D being 4-5 times more expensive? It runs at $10k. Show me the NIB purchase price for a D3 (24MP) or 5dMkII (21MP) that is under $2k. Used 5dMkII yes, but lets compare apples to apples.

Under $2k would be more than 5x. Between $2k and $2.5k is 4-5x. The Nikon D700 is around $2300 new. The 5D2 squeaks in at $2499. I bought my refurbed--essentially new--5D Mark II for $1800 on the CLP. But if you demand proof of a full frame for under $2k, the Sony A850 body is going for $1899 on Amazon.

I think Pentaxians are just a little hot right now and feeling like they're not getting the respect their brand arguably really deserves right now.

Tell me a time when they haven't been. The phrase "chip on the shoulder" comes to mind for me whenever I read the word "Pentax" now.

Bad of dpreview if they ballsed up the comparison and didn't update the images in the database. But I was looking at noise, not sharpness or contrast. Noise is on the sensor, resolution/contrast is in the glass. And at least dpreview will admit, and will retest, and their testing methods are open and in the clear. Not something DXO does. And funny that Pentaxians think DPR is shoving Canon down peoples' throats when Canonites think they're shoving Nikons down peoples' throats.

Another thing you keep bringing up is the lack of FF in the Pentax line up. Who cares?

Well, certainly not a Pentaxian. Easy to dismiss what you can't have. And still no rebuttal to my point about affordable long fast glass--which is what you are likely to need if you are concert shooting. 85/1.8. 100/2. 135/2.8. All under $500. The 77/1.7 Limited is, what, $750+? The DA* 135/2.8 is, what, $820? Where's this vaunted cheapness?

As for the DA lenses being full-frame ready? A half dozen or so lenses out of the entire lineup counts as Pentax ready to go full frame? All but one of the zooms vignettes enough to see the image circle. Less than half the primes cover a FF sensor. This is not having a glass lineup that's ready for full frame. Pentaxes efforts with the K-5 make it pretty clear they're betting that you'll think the way you are: why bother with full-frame when crop performance can be this good?

The thing is, what Nikon and Canon shooters have learned is that as good as the crop bodies can get, the full frames can get better. It's a deep-rooted prejudice that goes back to film: larger resolution is better. Large format is better than medium. Medium is better than 35mm. 35mm is better than APS. I could argue 'til I was blue in the face that the finer grained emulsion and thinner/flatter base of APS film actually equated to 35mm resolution (not to mention the advantages of having a mag strip for recording EXIF data), but all anybody could see was that if the same grain and emulsion techniques (and the mag strip tech) were use on 35mm, then 35mm would be that much better. And they were right.

The new generation of crop sensors bodies (not just the K-5, but the d7000) have shown that resolution is a match for FF (do you have another review to go up against the DXO one?). Aside from DoF benefits which are marginal, why bother with FF?

To have the wider field of view to give you more FoV with better quality (longer) glass. There isn't a crop-body ultrawide out there that doesn't suffer from CA, distortion, and corner softness. I can see it at web sizes with uncorrected images. Longer lenses are inherently easier to design with fewer of those issues than shorter ones. You can get amazing 24mm/2.8 lenses for low cost. Harder to find a great 15mm or 16mm at f/2.8 that performs as well for the same price on a crop. I'd also mention tonality gradation, but that's not something we'd be likely to agree on.

135 format experience can also just make a full frame feel like home. This is, of course, an intangible to the digital-only shooters.

Crop sensor bodies are only going to improve and level the playing field.

But what makes you think full frame sensor won't improve at the same rate and in the same exact way? Where is the reasoning that the gap is going to close coming from? The technology that applies to one applies to the other.

One consideration that is an issue however is the size of the system, crop bodies are smaller, lighter and in Pentax's case much more durable in terms of sealing and build quality. Can the FF mount every single lens in the Canon line up and have the benefit of stabilization? (that last question is a legitimate one)

No, of course not (although with a monopod.... ). And sure, there are people for whom those features are important and for whom Pentax is a great system and just what they need. But full frame is an option a lot of folks are going for. To dismiss it as an unnecessary consideration, just because you don't see the need for it, is not great advice to my way of thinking. I've seen posts from folks swapping systems to Canon or Nikon, and for the majority it was to get their hands on a full frame for pro work, where an advantage in blurring out the background with longer lenses that have smoother bokeh is enough to be worth swapping systems. Hell, I can remember seeing folks switching to Canon simply for the tilt-shift lenses. Every shooter's needs are different. This is why five different brands of dSLRs can flourish.

I am not saying a Pentax is the wrong choice. But I am saying that the Pentax shooters on this board tend to ram a Pentax down on every newbie asking for "what camera" advice, even before weighing what it is the poster actually needs the camera for, and whether or not lenses for that need are covered.

I'm a Canon shooter. I've at various times on this board, recommended Pentax, Nikon, Sony, and Olympus models to a newbie asking "what camera?", as well as my home system. I'm not blind to the Canon system's faults. And I at least try to be fair and equitable to the other brands, if I don't always succeed. But I think some of the Pentax-pushers on this board cannot say the same. Long fast glass remains a hole in the Pentax lineup. This isn't necessarily a problem--until you need long fast glass. Folks who shoot stage, sports, wildlife, or small children running about just might be among those who do.

[i speak in math]

Originally Posted by inkista

I'm a Canon shooter. I've at various times on this board, recommended Pentax, Nikon, Sony, and Olympus models to a newbie asking "what camera?" ...

So, how bout it? Someone on a tight budget, $700 or lower, looking for the best low light DSLR they can get?