Camera problems.

I'm sort of curious why you want replies by PM, that sort of defeats the purpose of a forum (to share info & experiences).

In any case, "low light" is your first problem. Low light typically means high ISO settings which will push the CCD into a noiser/grainer operating mode. Actual low light also means that the autofocus system has a harder time doing its job, so you're going to get more out of focus shots. Your LCD screen is a low-res version of your shot, so you won't see the fine detail that is turning out bad, but some cameras have an LCD zoom mode so you can see more clearly what is happening at the pixel level at the time and try for another shot if you need to do so. Flash up should help, but not if you force high ISO and not if the subject is further away than your flash coverage.

If you habitually take these kinds of shots, you need a camera that works better in low light.

 

Why do you mostly shoot on "low light?" As explained, that pushes sensitivity (digital gain) up, causing increased noise. It also pushes shutter speeds down, potentially causing motion blur, and apertures wide, reducing the depth of field and exacerbating missed focus.

Your camera allows full manual exposure. Try experimenting in different lighting situations to see what you really need. Determine your shutter and aperture needs based on desired results, and push the sensitivity up only when you need to.

 

As mentioned, the problem with flash will be your subject to camera distance. Most on camera flashes aren't much good after 10-15'. Flash also tends to create harsh shadows and change the look of the photo.

Instead of trying to use low-light mode, try the Program AE mode. Take the same photos both with and without flash. Compare the results and see if one or the other addresses some of your complaints. Don't expect miracles, e.g. if you're taking night shots or in an underground parking lot, there are going to be difficulties in getting good shots. The camera should be capable of doing a lot, but since you're saying that you're not that familiar with it or photographic technique, best to keep it simple.

 

A sample photo that displays the issues discussed would be helpful. Otherwise, this thread is pointless.

 

EXIF information and lens info would also help... are you using the kit 14-42 or an upgrade to a 14-54 or 12-60.

If you are shooting the kit lens its a great lens for sufficient light and in other than that you need a flash. A fl-36 is a nice piece to have in the bag and allows a lot more options than onboard. Metz also makes some Oly compatible flashes.

The upgraded lenses mentioned will get you f2.8 at the wide end and will help lower light situations.

 

I looked at your sample under close-up, and there does appear to be a fair amount of noise where the lighter and darker areas come together, although this could be an artifact from the posting process. ISO 400 should be relatively noise-free, but that varies from camera to camera and I have no experience with the Olympus.

Another idea would be to use a tripod. This enables slower shutter speeds, lower ISO (less noise and graininess), and smaller apertures (greater sharpness and depth of field). It also allow use of the camera's self-timer, which retracts the mirror before the shutter actuates, thereby eliminating a potential source of vibration. Unlike a flash, use of a tripod maintains a natural look since it depends not on adding artificial illumination, but rather on making better use of the available natural light.

Even fairly small, lightweight and inexpensive tripods can work quite well.

 

WOW....where was that?

 

It's hard to tell from that image, but it doesn't look so bad to me. Maybe a bit over sharpened, but nothing I would call terribly noisy from an ISO perspective.

Noise is something we have to live with. Cameras from our era (mine is about a year older than yours) aren't as good as newer models, but they aren't particularly bad in the 100-400 range. Harsh, high dynamic range lighting conditions can cause some ugly noise, especially in deep shadows.

Looking at something at full resolution from sitting-distance to a monitor isn't particularly fair - akin to standing inches away from a TV and complaining that it's pixelated - but I'm sure most of us (myself included) are guilty. Consider how big a print would be at native resolution. With my camera, it's roughly 16"X11". I sit with my eyes maybe 1.5 feet back from the monitor. I wouldn't generally stand that close to a 16" print on my wall, and I shouldn't really analyze my pictures by looking at it 1:1 on the monitor from my chair.

Consider native resolution: http://www.hypercontrast.com/WilliamJosephBlackwood/January-2012/i-NPtFD4f/0/O/MAB-20120115-7013.jpg

Very noisy.

Typical viewing size: http://www.hypercontrast.com/WilliamJosephBlackwood/January-2012/i-NPtFD4f/0/X2/MAB-20120115-7013-X2.jpg

Looks fine.

 

Invest in a bounce flash most important to any flash photog.. If there is nothing to bounce off of try a great diffuser on direct flash...No great shot ever has been taken with the cameras own flash..they really should do away with those Pieces of Crap and make the hot shoe lower.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?&ci=655&N=4288586347

 

They work in a pinch. As long as large pentaprisms don't preclude including a flash, there's no reason not to. Some thin white cloth will diffuse them fairly well for short range portraits.

 

not properly used it isn't...