What lens did you have on your DRebel ?

The lens is probably one of the most important aspects of low
light photography..  After all..  It's what lets in the light.
They all don't have the same size openings and as a result,
they can't let in the same amount of light.

If you plugged a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens on your Drebel and set
the ISO to 800 and used aperture priority to open the lens
wide...  You'd drastically outperform the C-2100 in low
light.

You don't need a new camera..  Just learn how to use what
you've got :-)

All of the above. You can sometimes do a bit better using the video mode
of a digicam and then average a few frames with registax or similar.

The faster the lens the better for available light work. A tripod helps.

Regards,
Martin Brown

first off: i used to have a c-2100uz and it was just a great cam for the
time and still is. for 2mp it really created outstanding images. you should
still be ale to find some pieces on ebay for around 300 bucks - which i
think it's still worth (i am not sure about its successors - might be worth
checking that out).

i now have a d70 - and agree with the others that the lens is probably a
really important (and pricey) issue with low-light photography. personally
i - so far - only had problems when using it at a night soccer game that was
artificially lit - but still it didnt cut it. but then again, i have lenses
from the more affordable end of the scale, and these kinda action shots
would probably require more sophisticated lenses. other than that i only use
it in low-light when i am out for night-photography - which i really enjoy a
lot - but we are talking 5-10 seconds exposure and up here - so it really
has nothing to do with you initial question anymore. ;-)

take it easy!
sid

It is a combination of image stabalization, low noise, relatively fast (f/2.8)
lens that made the C-2100UZ a unique camera.  I still can't replace everything
it does for me in one camera and one lens today.  Also, you do have to wait for
a point where people aren't moving too much.  I've taken hand held pictures of
non-moving items up to 1/2 second with C-2100UZ, and 1/10 for people (and some
of the shots had blurred hands if you look closely).  Compared to other
prosumer cameras it had a relatively large sensor size, so the noise was less
(but presumably the noise for the same ISO is even less on your rebel).

In theory, if you put a 28-135IS lens on your rebel, it should give you image
stabalization (or use a tripod/monopod), though you effectively lose an f/stop
since it is a slower lens (and given it is a consumer lens, it might be soft
wide open, which means losing even more stops of light).  Note that in a DSLR,
the depth of field is much smaller than on a prosumer camera like the C-2100UZ,
so things may not be in focus like they would be if you use f/3.5 on both
cameras.

The closest current prosumer camera to the C-2100UZ is the Panasonic FZ20, but
note it has a much smaller sensor and more aggressive JPG, so noise at ISO 400
should be higher (but you can clean it up).  I suspect the electronic
viewfinder is also not as bright in really dim light.

Did your wife try setting the ISO higher than the default 100?

Use a tripod.  Large cameras like the Rebel are harder to hold than small
ones like the Olympus.
It would help to set the Rebel to use shutter priority, the highest ISO, and
the largest stop.

She should surely be able to obtain good photos with what you already have.
Jim

Fast lens (f/2.8 or faster) is good...

image stabilization is good...

I'd go for a Digital Rebel with 50/1.4 lens, actually, or an
image-stabilized zoom that is about f/4.

Or a tripod!

By the way, the 50/1.8 lens for the Digital Rebel is very cheap ($75 New
York) and gives you (5.6/1.8)^2 = 9.7 times as much light as the original
"kit" lens at 50mm.  That's like going from ISO 400 to 4000.

If 50mm is too long, they also make a 35/2 that would be a fine "normal"
lens.

*chuckle*  This younger generation  hasn't experienced available-light
photography with a 50/1.8 lens... used to be the normal way to take
pictures, with Tri-X Pan and Acufine (pushing to 1600)... you could
photograph anything you could see.  Photographing stars in the sky by such
methods was what got me started in astrophotography.

It does indeed, especially action displays like fire performance (poi,
swords, staff, breathing).

<snip>

I've shot some interesting stuff with a 10D, but I've been forced to use
flash with action shots, dragging the lens pretty heavily. This actually
can result in some wonderful stuff, the flash catching a nice image of
the perform(ers) and the slurring just adding to the action feel.

http://www.spytfire.com/

The faster the glass, the easier the shot. The 50mm f/1.8 is probably
your most affordable option. You can get all the way down to f/1.2, which
is an entirely different class than even f/1.8, but the cost jumps from
$70US or so all the way to $1,100(!)

Truth is, though, I've done lots better with the 20D, with it's lovely
high-ISO modes.

At any rate, learn to love a tripod.

Well, I posted a "usable" image the other day on alt.binaries.photos.original
taken by the light of a single candle. The camera is a 300D, the lens is the
50mm/1.8 and the ISO setting 3200. The ISO3200 comes with the Russian firmware
hack. You can do as well shooting RAW at 1600 and then pushing harder in the
computer.

I had the Oly 2100 and if memory serves correctly one of the outstanding
features of
the camera was its image stabilization. That would take care of much if not
all the
blur caused by camera shake. (One of the features that I miss the most.)