DSLR alternative

[GrimJeeper]

I'm looking for an alternative to a DSLR to shoot indoors at figure skating and gymnastics events (to give you an idea of the lighting). I won't be making action shots necessarily, but the events are rather dim and flash is not permitted (and is generally useless since I am usually 20 - 100 feet from the athletes). Just visited Wolf/Ritz camera and was a bit overwhelmed at the dizzying array of accessories and the overwhelming cost of a DSLR and all the goodies. I don't mind dropping a grand on a great camera, but we quickly shot up to about two thousand dollars (Rebel XT and a good zoom lens + 9.25% sales tax). My question is this, is there a near DSLR camera that will meet my needs of shooting in moderate indoor light without excessive noise? Probably looking at an ISO of 800 minimum. I've spent days on the Internet looking for such an animal and am yet to find one. Anyone have any suggestions? Thanks!

[Rex914]

A D50 ($550) plus a good prime or two is your best choice. If you plan it out well, you should hardly spend more than a grand, and definitely not more than 2 grand.

There's no substitute for a DSLR in your situation. How far away are you from the performers?

[Jason25]

There is the Sony DSC-R1, which would be the absolute closest thing to it, but I would just go with a dSLR personally!

[Rambler358]

One non-DSLR option would be Sony's new DSC-R1. It has a 24-120mm zoom, and with its large sensor should be able to take nice low light shots for you. And Fuji's S9000 is another option.

[coldrain]

One non-DSLR option would be Sony's new DSC-R1. It has a 24-120mm zoom, and with its large sensor should be able to take nice low light shots for you. And Fuji's S9000 is another option.

Since the original poster wanted a big zoom and that made the XT too expensive, the R1 will not do due to its limitted tele zoom. The Fuji S9000 indeed would be nice, but do not forget its little brother, the S-5200. It is cheaper, and its sensor will probably perform even better in low light.

[GrimJeeper]

Big thank you to all that took a moment to offer suggestions. I have researched all of the suggestions and, since nothing takes the place of holding the camera in your hands, I'm going to do just that today. After all of my reviews (past three hours on several review sites and message boards), I'm leaning towards a DSLR, but perhaps without brand name lenses. I can pick up the XT at Costco for $899 with the kit lens and the D50 at Ritz with the Nikkor 28-80 mm lens for $699. The salesman at Ritz told me the 28-80 lens was pretty much crap. He recommended the D50 with the other kit lens (18-55 mm) for $799. With there only $100 difference between the two (and a $75 rebate on the XT pushing the difference down to $25), should I opt for the XT if I go DSLR? Next question, what's a good (non DC motor and with IS) zoom lens (200 - 300 mm) for both the XT and the D50? Tamron? Sigma? Thank you!!!

[timmciglobal]

The 70-300 IS is a good lens, new from canon. Much better performer then the old 75-300 IS. There are two, the "consumer" one and the "DO" one. The DO one costs more. Looks like it's running about 600$ or so for the consumer one.

Why do you need a long zoom indoors? Long zoom + indoors = problems usually. F5.6 even at ISO 1600 is pretty slow.

Oh and I'd take the XT, ISO 1600 is quite nice, though I'll admit the D50 with a 18-200 VR lens is sounding hot.

Tim