Looking for a good low-light setup for indoor and landscapes

[willevans]

I'm trying to decide between a few setups for around 1000 dollars. I'm looking for VERY low noise pictures in hand-held situations in the interior of buildings and at night on city streets, like downtown Atlanta. All I know for sure is my Canon A620 isn't cutting the mustard (not wide enough, horrible noise at ISO 200 and above).

I'm thinking that a DSLR with image stabilization would be good. My friends have DSLRs and I really like how much more capability shooting in RAW gives them and the extra dynamic range of their cameras. What do you guys think?

1. Used Nikon D40 with new 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 DX VR AF-S ($400 + $200)
2. Used Sony Alpha 100 with new DT 16-105mm f/3.5-5.6 ($570 + $580)
3. Used Canon XT with EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM ($550 + ?)

[Photo-John]

Any of those systems will do the job. Simply stepping up from your Canon A620 to a digital SLR is going to make a big difference because the noise levels will be lower even at high ISO settings. If image stabilization is important to you, then I would encourage you to look at Pentax, Sony, Samsung, and Olympus. They're all making digital SLRs with built-in sensor-level image stabilization. That means you won't need to buy special lenses. No matter what lens you're using the image stabilization will be available for you.

[willevans]

Well, when I had a film SLR I found that I didn't change lenses very much. I typically shot most of my stuff with a 28mm prime, so I don't think I'll be changing lenses very often with a zoom.

What would give the sharpest low-light landscapes? I think I need something with good low light focusing (read good things about Canon), low noise at high ISO (seen good things from Nikon), and image stabilization somewhere in the system.

There is so much info out there I was hoping that someone would come along and give me some info. I looked at Pentax and liked the build quality and the features, but half the reviews I read said that even with a prime the camera didn't make photos as sharp as its rivals even after sharpening in RAW. That's a shame cause it really is a hell-of-a camera for the money.

I think if anything I've learned that I need to wait until I have the funds for a serious system, something like a D80 with a stabilized lens of some sort.

[cyberlord]

You also might want to consider some in camera image stabilization and some fast glass.

You can get a Pentax 100D Super and some used 50mm 1.X glass on ebay for under $500. If you wanted the kit lens you could do the same for $550 but I recommend upgrading and get the 16-45 instead of the 18-55. It's a better lens though nothing to seriously wrong with the 18-55.

There are other in camera IS brands, but I can't think of them.

[Frog]

Didache's pics seem plenty sharp to me and he uses the pentax k10d. Look up his gallery.
Not saying its the best choice but I wouldn't think sharpness or lack thereof is a strong reason not to go with Pentax and I'm a Nikon user.
Personally I'd rather have stabilazation in the lens than the body but in body is a big advantage too in that you don't have to buy special lenses.

[oldgearhead]

How about a used D70 with the 50mm F/1.4AF. Mine is very sharp from 2.8 up.
Hovever, I rarely take off the 18-200VR. I guess I'm too lazy to worry about sharpness.
They are saying the D300 is very good at the higher ISO settings. But its 1800USD.