Best cheap high ISO dSLR?

[callum_broom1]

<p>Hey, Im new to the forum and trying to find a good cheap dSLR for high ISO performance.<br>

A few nights ago I shot for the band Lostprophets using a Nikon D80 and a 50mm f/1.8 lens, I was unhappy with the results on high ISO, I had to go as high as 1600 & 2500.<br>

So I am looking for a dSLR that can shoot with good results at high ISO, I have been considering the Pentax K20D or the Nikon D90, I already have some Nikon lenses but have read that the K20D has better results at high ISO? Am I correct?<br>

Any opinions or suggestions of any cameras would be helpful, thanks =]</p>

[nicholas_fiduccia1]

<p>You will want the Pentax Kx or the Nikon D5000 or D90. Each of these cameras share the same amazing sony sensor that produced low noise pictures at high ISO.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>The D90 is good at higher ISOs, but I wouldn't call it cheap - probably the best compromise right now in the Nikon lineup for cheap/good high ISO is the D5000. But keep in mind that the D5000 has no autofocus built in motor, whereas the D90 does. So if you get the D5000 you'll need moderen AFS lenses for auto focusing. the D90 will AF with older, non AFS lenses.</p>

[parv]

(Deleted links to Sony A550 reviews, lacking definition of "cheap".)

[sattler123]

<p>Get a used Canon 5D classic and you never worry about high ISO again - with an adapter you can use your Nikon lenses.</p>

[buri]

<p>Don't use a Canon with Nikon Glass...please ;)</p>

<p>I have a couple of D80s and have the same problem with high ISO shots. I have also shot with the D300 a little and really like the results. I have also heard that the D90 is much better than the D80 in both a) light sensor accuracy and b) high ISO noise.</p>

<p>However, this all depends on what you mean by cheap. Do you have a range? If you really want cheap, the D5000 is probably a good bet since you already have Nikon lenses, but I don't know if you will really be happy with the quality.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>hi callum, i upgraded to the d300 from the d80 for precisely the same reason--high ISO. the fact that the d300, d90, d5000, and pentax k-x all use the same sensor means they'll all be pretty similar in terms of high-iso performance--1 to 1/12 stop improvement over d80.</p>

<p>i would say it comes down to the lenses. my concert shooting kit is a tamron 17-50/2.8, sigma 30/1.4, and sigma 50-150/2.8. i also have the 50/1.8 but i prefer the 17-50.</p>

<p>the better, fast-aperture pentax lenses aren't cheap--the 16-50 and 50-135 in k-mount are around twice the cost of those same, tokina-branded lenses in F-mount. and the pentax DA* 55/1.4 is more expensive than both the Nikon 50/1.4 G AF-S and the Sigma 50/1.4 HSM. otoh, the nikon 35/1.8 AF-S is only $200. so you need to factor that in.</p>

<p>if you don't have too many nikon lenses, and you have the budget to invest in new glass and a new body, you might get ok results with a pentax k20d or k-x. but you'd get similar results from any of the nikon cameras with that same 12.3 mp sony sensor. one problem is that you'd need at least a d90 to AF with your current 50/1.8. then again, a d5000 (body only) and a 35/1.8 would cost about the same as a new d90, body only.</p>

<p> </p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>You might want to see what the D90 output looks like. Here's a photo shot at ISO 3200, 1/20 sec, f/2.8 at 16mm, mild Noise Ninja applied. This was a candlelight (and spotlight) event protesting Proposition 8 in California. It is a little soft with movement, but the noise is low, and I think the image still works.</p>

<p>In Nikon, I prefer the D90 over the D5000 even in terms of cost, because the D90 can use lenses that are economical alternatives to those available for the D5000.</p><div></div>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>One big advantage that the Pentax K-x has over the D90 and D5000 is the built in Shake Reduction (a.k.a. VR or IS in Nikon/Canon terms). Just something to keep in mind when comparing specs and prices.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>Perhaps the OP could post a few samples.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>A used Canon 5D version 1.</p>

[buri]

<p>Guys, he has Nikon glass....stop recommending Canon cameras for Nikon lenses. That is just crazy.</p>

<p>Again, don't use a Canon with Nikon Glass...please ;) I have nothing against canon, but you invest in the lenses and buy a matching body. You don't buy a body and make your lenses work with it somehow.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>One big advantage that the Pentax K-x has over the D90 and D5000 is the built in Shake Reduction (a.k.a. VR or IS in Nikon/Canon terms).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>context is everything here. both the d90 and d5000 are available with kit lenses with VR, btw, but that's besides the point: while in-camera stabilization does help with low-light still photography (where you want slower shutter speeds) and longer lenses (to counter camera shake), it's not as big of an advantage for the OP's stated purpose as it might initially seem.</p>

<p>to get the best low-light performance, you need 2.8 or faster lenses--that's a must for concert photography. shake reduction wont help much here because it wont freeze subject motion. you need higher shutter speeds to do that.</p>

<p>the problem with pentax is most k-mount fast lenses cost much more than their f-mount equivalents, like the 16-50 and the 50-135 (available in a tokina-branded version for nikon for several hundred dollars less). also, pentax doesn't offer an inexpensive 50/1.8 like canon and nikon do, and they dont have an inexpensive 35/1.8 like nikon, either. <em>in fact, if the OP bought the k-x and wanted the closest pentax equivalent to his current 50/1.8, he'd have to spend almost 4x as much for the SMCP-FA 50/1.4 ($400 at amazon) or 6x as much for the 43/1.9 ($600) or 55/1.4 ($622).</em> so that kind of eats up any cost savings right there.</p>

<p>i should note that pentax does have some decent, inexpensive f/4 lenses, like the 16-45, but these are better suited for landscape and general photography than for shooting live music indoors in dimly-lit environments.</p>

<p>not to say the k-x isnt an attractive mix of performance and price point, but i'd just caution the OP to research lens options carefully before purchasing. concert photography really does require fast lenses, as well as a body capable of good performance at ISO 1600 and up.</p>

<p> </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Actually, Ryan, it is not so crazy. I originally bought a Canon DSLR to use with a couple of EOS lenses that I had plus some FD superteles using the expensive Canon FD to EOS converter. Within a year I sold all the lenses and went to Nikon glass since it was so easy to use on my Canon DSLR and remaining EOS film body. Finally switched to Nikon F-mount full frame and crop bodies a couple of years ago.</p>

<p>Even though my D2X makes using my AI and AIS lenses a breeze I would switch back to Canon in a heartbeat for the right camera/price, even though I am adding an AF-S lens shortly. Canon still has more options for full frame, and every Canon body will meter with just about every Nikon lens ever made. Unfortunately this is not the case with Nikon bodies. I suspect that I will continue using Nikon crop bodies but will have to switch back to Canon for a full frame. Unless Nikon introduces an "affordable" "D3X" to put up against the 5DII. </p>

[dennis_knoxville]

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/</p>