calling all enablers: need camera suggestions

[Michaelaw]

When I first got into DSLR's I was on a budget big time. I ended up getting into Olympus starting with the E-500 and two kit lenses for around $900.00. Later I went with the E-510 for around the same price. My time spent with E system cameras is highly valued by me. In my opinion, the e-system cameras and Zuiko lenses are some of the best gear you'll ever own! The only downfall of their 4/3rds sensor is its ISO performance, you can (or could) only safely go up to around 1250 before the noise began. I really think they're worth a look. Of course this is biased info as I've never checked out other brands like Pentax, Sony etc but I've seen the results they produce, so you'd have a hard time going wrong with any of them. Having used Olympus over a three year period, I think it would be a shame to overlook the brand.

[Fortytwo]

High ISO performance seems to be the new buzzwords around. I don't get it. Really, I couldn't care less how my camera performs at ISO 6400. And I think very few photographers should care. It's the megapixelrace 2.0. Many people talk about high iso performance, and if you look at their portfolio, they take mostly landscapes or portraits etc.

I rarely take my camera off ISO 100. No matter which camera you take or how good it is, anything above ISO 200 is going to compromise image quality, even if it's just a tiny little bit. Upping the ISO is a last resort for everyone. It's much better to use a tripod, or (studio)flashes etc. The only people that really should care about high ISO, are sportsphotographers and journalist (and paparazzi), because they don't have any other option then upping the ISO. But if you're into landscapes, get a tripod. If you're into portraits, get a studioflash kit. You get te point. In my opinion, high iso performance is a selling point rather than a usefull feature. But I know a lot of people disagree with me...

[Michaelaw]

While it may be the second megapixel race for the average joe, for me it's an important feature. I often work on projects which require me to shoot a lot of images in very large low light areas. I have no time to rig studio flashes to fill a seventeen thousand square foot space and one shoe mount wont cut it for obvious reasons. The ability to ramp the ISO to 5000 and capture the entire flavor of the scene with very little noise and then be able to throw that image up on a huge theater screen and have it hold together is a genuine gift to my work flow. If you try this with the Olympus E-3 you will lose! I don't really think you can just blanket high ISO performance across the board and say it's only useful for sports and paparazzi situations. The very reason I went there was because I worked with pros in genuinely difficult lighting situations where flash was not an option and at the end of the day, they had the image in the bag where I did not. I cannot afford image degradation when my work is 30' wide in a show situation, my clients would not accept it! If your images are degrading at 200 ISO, I'd begin to look for a better system, with all due respect

[Mad Aussie]

I don't agree there 42. High ISO performance is very handy for several applications. I shoot sports, so it's handy there as you mention. But I also shoot wildlife and birds and often in low light, so again it's handy. Even some portrait stuff where I don't want the perfect light covering the whole scene would be handy with a higher ISO. A tripod isn't always the answer if your model/subject can't/won't sit still enough.
Even flora can be a hassle if there's a breeze blowing but the ambient light is dark.
Often I'd rather have a higher ISO performance than have to use the flash.

I definitely would not compare high ISO performance to the Mega Pixel Myth.

[Fortytwo]

When it comes to sport, I agree MA. It's very usefull then. For wildlife I disagree. ISO 200 and a 2.8 lens is for 99% of the time more then enough. At least, that's my experience.

For large space's I don't have first hand experience and the pro's I know use camera's that won't go higher than ISO 400 and they rarely take it over ISO50. Flash is a must then, so is a very heavy tripod.

But I was actually talking about the average joe. This is a topic about "beginner DSLR's". I can understand it's an important topic amongs pro body's, but for camera's like the Canon 1000D or the Nikon D3000 it's not an issue in my opinion. Manufactures are trying to make it sound important, but in that class of camera it isn't. At least that's what I think of it...

I knew I was getting into something here. Now offcourse everybody is free to disagree with me. I'm not the prophet of photography by a very long shot. And I could be very wrong here. But discussions like these can be very enlightning. For me as well...

[Mad Aussie]

We don't all have f2.8 capabilities on all our lenses we use.

And knowing the type of stuff Bambi is shooting, I can see that a higher ISO performance could be helpful at times IF a camera has all the other features she needs as well.

True that with the prosumer class of camera with the smaller sensors it's less important than the fullframe gear. But I'd still choose a camera with that advantage if I could because I know it would be helpful to me for the reasons I mention above.

[tirediron]

Dammit all... she needs to buy a Holga!!!

[Michaelaw]

So back in the days of film shooting you would have said ASA 100 would be the only film required? I shoot my fair share of wildlife also and on an overcast day, if you want a good sharp shot of a Chickadee posing in the underbrush (even if it's tired ) using a long lens, you are going to want to use a higher ISO with a modestly priced 70-300mm lens f4.5-5.6. A 2.8 will need a second mortgage on your house. The OP was not only about beginners DSLR but also within a budget. Obviously you see this differently than me and that's cool. I've recently noticed with my wildlife work and d700, my Fall/winter shooting day has been extended. With my Olympus I'd be heading back to the ranch a lot earlier due to lack of light.

[F8&Bthere]

getting a bit off track here but it is relevent to the OP in regards to ISO performance being a criteria to pay attention to (or not) in choosing her camera.

Just say if you could get an extra stop or more of shutter speed without adding noise, why wouldn't you want that ability? Any subject that moves, any windy day, any time you might have a hard time getting the depth of field you really want when shooting at wide apertures.... just a few examples.

I just finished reading the book Within The Frame by David Duchemin and he put some of his EXIF data with every one of his lovely images throughout the book, mostly shot with a 5D, many outdoor daylight shots of people in their environment. And I was amazed at how many were shot up around 400 - 800 ISO. I only bring this up as one example of a pro photographer who we can probably assume can afford all the tripods and flashes he could desire, and probably uses those tools at times, but I bet the ISO performance is crucial to him anyway.

And for the average joe the ISO performance of a camera may be even more important since they often blow their wad on a camera and a couple lenses and may take quite some time to save up for things like flashes and tripods. Not to mention that lugging around all that stuff all the time sucks. And their affordable first lense choices aren't usually the fastest either. My guess is that without IS or VR lenses, shooting any moving subjects or any indoors stuff with camera stuck on ISO 100 or 200 would produce a lot of blown shots for many a beginner or non-pro photographer.

[Mad Aussie]

I think the process is simple ... here's my take in a nutshell ...

1. Set the highest budget for a camera/kit you can afford/justify

2. Identify the better cameras/kits that fall into this budget

3. Identify which of those cameras/kits fit your criteria in terms of features you need

4. If one stands out and is among the top brands then that's your camera.

Hints:
a) Don't fooled by megapixels. Anything over 8 mp and certainly over 10 mp is plenty.
b) If 1 has better high ISO performance then that's an advantage.
c) More frames per sec can be an advantage shooting birds/animals/sports.
d) Auto Bracketing of at least 3 frames is important for HDR Merge work.
e) Having a camera that fits your hand well is an advantage but you will adapt to whatever you get.