I have been doing more research since I last posted my question. Like many other people, I think I've narrowed it down to Canon or Nikon, and have just accepted the fact I probably really need a DSLR for what I want to get out of a camera. I have used a regular old SLR in the past.. but never a DSLR..

The Nikons seem like the way to go.. but the D40 only uses the AF lenses, which can cost an arm and a leg depending on what you get.. I thought about looking around for a used D50 (since I doubt there's any new one's left). Does anyone have suggestions?.

As far as the Canon cameras- the only thing I really see different is that they cost a bit more. Would they be better for shooting action indoors, in low light?.

Thanks,Christina..

Canons are know to be good to have a lot less High ISO noise then Nikon. I shoot sports and the company I freelance for has us Nikon users use one of their Canon's if we are shooting gymnastics and figure skating as we are not allowed to use strobes. I have also shot horse shows as well and feel that my Nikon has done very well..

Problem is for what you are looking for it is going to be expensive either way. The best way to get halfway decent action shots in a low light atmosphere such as you are looking for is to get fast glass. You are then looking at the 28-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 both of which are well over $1000 for each respective camera. You can go with a 3rd part lens, but it's still well over your budget..

I'm sure you can get some ok shots, but to get some good/great shots you'll need to spend the money..

You would probably be better off getting a bridge camera. I'm sure other will eventually chime in and they will be able to give you a better idea on bridge cams and P&S's.Photography and Graphic DesignPortfolio - http://www.atlanticexpressinc.comPrints - http://www.atlanticexpressions.com..

The D40 is too cut down to be a camera to grow with. The K100D would be a better fit. Both use the same sensor but Pentax adds less noise and has cleaner processing. You also get a better AF system, AS, better backward lens compatability and better useability. The K100D Special will have the AS and sensor cleaner from the K10D, as well as compatability with SDM lenses...

I appreciate the input from both of you. I guess I should have specified that I wouldn't expect to get professional quality results in my budget. However.. it would be nice to accomplish a somewhat reasonable photograph in an indoor arena (or any low light or indoor situation), since often with digital cameras I have used they come out as nothing more than a horse shaped blob. Perhaps it is technique playing a part also..

As far as the Pentax K100D.. I will look into it also. Hopefully I will be able to visit a store and look at a few cameras this weekend..

If I were to get a bridge or P&S.. are there any recommendations of what I should look for?.

Image stabilization seems like the best thing to invest in...

Thanks...

Palomino985 wrote:.

Image stabilization seems like the best thing to invest in...

Not if subject motion an issue..

Look for something that does well at extremely high ISO (say, 1600+) without flash, has a fast lens, is well-regarded for continuous autofocus in low light, offers raw support so you have more flexibility to cope with the inevitable underexposures. You probably won't find anything, but that's what you'd really be looking for...

Palomino985 wrote:.

...and have just accepted the fact I probably really need a DSLRfor what I want to get out of a camera..

Yep. To shoot moving subjects in low-light, that's asking a lot..

Personally I wouldn't go with a Nikon D40 simply because it only accepts a sub-set of Nikon lenses..

From a high ISO noise stand-point I think the latest offerings from Canon, Nikon, and Pentax aren't that far apart. I wouldn't go with a Sony A100 for high ISO work based on the review..

Canon 400D ($650):.

Http://www.bhphotovideo.com/...-REG/Canon_1236B002_EOS_Digital_Rebel_XTi.html.

The cheapest telephoto fast focusing (USM Ring-type) large aperture lens is the Canon 85/1.8 USM lens ($340):.

Http://www.bhphotovideo.com/...A/Canon_2519A003_85mm_f_1_8_USM_Autofocus.html.

So Canon 400D (body) + 85/1.8 = $1000 US.

Least expensive Canon route (NEW):.

Canon 350D for $490, but the 400D has improved auto-focusing over the 350D I believe.

Http://www.bhphotovideo.com/...-REG/Canon_1236B002_EOS_Digital_Rebel_XTi.html.

Canon 50/1.8 ($80):.

Http://www.bhphotovideo.com/...2-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html.

So Canon 350D (body) + 50/1.8 = $570.

If you're able to get close to the action then the 85mm or the 50mm (and perhaps in conjunction with liberal image cropping) may offer enough reach..

Technique-wise my guess is the more you're able to pre-focus and wait for the subject, the more in-focus shots (%-wise) you'll probably have versus relying on a camera's ability to achieve an accurate focus-lock of a moving target shot after shot after shot in a low light venue..

Or you could use the spray & pray technique: set camera to continuous firing, auto-focus to tracking mode (Canon: AI-Servo), point it at your subject and hold the shutter down  Maybe one in the bunch will be in-focus and of the moment (in the gait) that you want..

Remember to budget for memory card(s), camera bag, etc..

One other thing: shooting in RAW is help in low-light situations. Canon provides a good RAW converter (Digital Photo Professional) for free, with Nikon though I believe theirs is an extra expense of about $100. Don't know about Pentax - check reviews..

Good Day,Roonal.

'Money doesn't buy happiness, but it makes for an extravagant depression' by golf tournament sportscaster..