Best affordable low light SLR?

Croasdail wrote in post #4159467
5D users are going to hate me but you absolutely don't need it to get low light images. For 95% of the time a 20/30/40D will do just as well. And when printed or sized for screen output (not peeped at 100% magnification), you can't tell the difference. If money is no issue - go for the 5d or Nikon D300. If you want to buy a camera with some very nice glass for less then the price of a soon-to-be-replaced 5d, any of the 20/30/40 class cameras will do the job just fine. They will be leap years better then your film experience.

no way. the 5d will do better 95% of the time in low light. just how much better is debatable but it is a superior low light camera.

and i've owned the 20d, 30d as well as the 5d.

i notice that printing a certain size always comes up in these anti-5d posts. maybe one out of 5000 of my pictures ever get printed.

ed rader

And the other 4999 are used for what...? Me... I shoot to produce prints. Every shot I take is taken with the intent that it could/should be printed. That is my end goal, producing something that can be viewed and enjoyed. Each and everyone is created with the intent to be print worthy. For others, it is to find technical perfection... the perfect camera so they can brag they have the best hardware. Nothing wrong with it. But to tell someone when they are looking for an "affordable" low light camera that their best option is to spend $2500 on a camera and then over a grand on a zoom lens is the best path to affordability is just BS. I have yet to see one image from the 5D crowd showing in real world terms an image made with a 5D another camera could not. The 5D is a great camera - no doubts. It has tons of great qualities. But affordable... hell no. The photographic equivalent of Viagra... heck no.

Here is a quick example at 1600 ISO. Not perfection but very workable for low light. And this image is pumped up a bit to get more out of the sky... probably added a stop to stop and a half to it to get the sky to show. Not full size, but you get the general idea about noise and dynamic range. It is currently printed at 13x19 with little or no noise, and no NR work done... just what aperture does by default.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

You haven't said what you want to use the camera for. If it's mainly close work (portraits etc) or wide (architecture, landscapes) then the general consensus is the 5D with the right lenses will be the best option.

But as you're coming from film, you might want to think about the differences with a crop camera. 40D is very good in low light, almost as good for noise and detail as the 5D, but while it's real strength is in sports, nature, wildlife etc (40D better than the 5D), it's also very capable for people and portraits (5D or it's replacement a tad better). You could put the $$ saved towards a quality lens.

In other words, you might want to consider the whole system (camera plus lenses) for your shooting interests and see what your optimal system would consist of / value for money vs IQ etc.

The 5D is a very good price now, probably signalling that it will be replaced shortly but at a higher price than the current model's current price (but maybe less than the 5D's original new price). The new one will also be likely to have sensor cleaning and other improved features. The new Nikons are certainly worth considering but as others have said, who knows when they will be released. Also Nikon camera plus lens is generally more costly than Canon camera plus lens (for comparable quality), and possibly not as wide a range of options for lenses. (Others might disagree with this last comment).