Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   What Camera Should I Buy? (
-   -   Which on to upgrade to? Canon Rebel XT, Nikon D50, Minolta 5 (

RP33 Nov 28, 2005 11:07 PM

Which on to upgrade to? Canon Rebel XT, Nikon D50, Minolta 5D?

What is the best for shooting sports and inside Gyms in low light.

I want a good camera but can't afford the top of the line.

viper3two Nov 29, 2005 7:29 AM

RP....I have the same delima you have. See my post "probably a burned out question". I too am considering either the D50 or the Rebel. I have an FZ5 now, but it will not do what I want it to do. I shoot alot of sports, especially at night. I read that the D50 can handle that pretty well, lower noise at higher ISO's than the Rebel, but the Rebel has better color saturation. There are pro's and con's of both camera's. I have not looked at the Minolta yet.
My advise to you would be this: Get your hands on both cameras somehow, either a friend or at a store, and play with it. I have a friend across the road that has a Rebel XT and he let me look at everything on it, then I went to a store and played around with a D50. I like the way the D50 feels, but there are some features that I like better with the Rebel.
The big thing is that you are buying something that you can build on later. Once you get the body, then save up and get some good lenses for it, and accessories.
Take a peek on the web too and see if you can find some sample shots from both cameras. I can't tell a difference in the two, except the colors seem a little more saturated with the Rebel. That will help in your decision also.

E.T Nov 29, 2005 9:18 AM

Minolta 5d should be really good candidate.
The 5D's image quality is excellent. Standard settings produced richly saturated images with good contrast and sharpness. Image noise in highlight areas is low at speeds up to ISO 1600, and noticeable but usable at ISO 3200. Shadow noise is low up to ISO 800, detectable at ISO 1600 and noticeable at 3200. Overall, the 5D's high-ISO noise characteristics are very good for an amateur dSLR, and use of the 5D's Anti-shake feature allows the use of lower sensitivity settings than other camera's in its class.

(this KonicaMinolta's anti-shake means every lens is "stabilized")

But you should definitely try in your hand which of these fit to it.

RacingManiac Nov 29, 2005 9:19 AM

For low light shot indoor, 5D will be a good choice since the condition demends high ISO and slow shutter speed. 5D's high ISO performance is pretty good if not one of the better ones. Review claiming image being usable up to 1600, I won't claim the same as I am not a low light shooter with mine, but it is pretty good. Plus the added function of anti-shake built in to the body itself which will allow you to use slower shutter speed without having to worry as much about hand shaking the camera, and allow you to hand held the camera without a tripod as well(which is not always an option indoor). The key in the end though is that you need a lens that'll allow you to stop down to f2.8 or something so you can make the most of your available light, which means you'll also need to look at something else other than the kit lens that each camera offers. But as far as the body itself I think the 5D is equipped best towards that end.

RP33 Nov 29, 2005 2:29 PM

To add to the confusion what about lens prices to get a nice lens but not cost the moon. Do all three have lens that are good but not so expensive that I can't reach them. I hear a lot about canon leading the way but they may be talking about the high end cameras. I also see a EOS 10D every now and then that is not real pricy, is that a good camera?

RacingManiac Nov 29, 2005 2:43 PM

Low light lens wise Minolta has a good option in the AF50 f1.7 lens. It's a fix focal prime, but with the crop factor in the DSLR like the 5D it is effectively a 75mm, which is decent for low range telephoto stuff(I guess depends on how big is the gym). Minolta also has a good f2.8 in the AF 28-75 f2.8 D which extend to about ~ 105mm on a DSLR. The former cost around $50 USD and the latter about $400(which might sounds like a lot but for a 2.8 its relatively cheap). Both are sharp lenses.

Realistically though all manufacturer probably have similar offering...

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:17 PM.