Image Quality Indoors

[Alan Stein]

After years using a 1 megapixel digital (Olympus D400), I decided it
was time for a newer camera. I was generally pleased with the quality
of the Olympus except for indoor photos with flash, which had poor
quality if I was more than about 10 feet away.

I picked a Canon SD400, mostly because of its convenient size, knowing
I couldn't be sure of the quality until I started using it. I was
expecting some improvement over the old Olympus, but I'm finding
indoor photos are still extremely disappointing, particularly with
flash. When I have a tripod or something to lean on to use available
light without camera shake, the quality is much better. But that's not
always feasible.

I've tried different settings, including different ISO's and indoor,
with little difference.

I still use film for anything serious, but it's much more convenient
to use a digital for a lot of stuff, particularly ordinary snapshots
and stuff I want on the web.

Any suggestions?

--
Alan Stein

[Charles Schuler]

"Alan Stein" > wrote in message
...
> After years using a 1 megapixel digital (Olympus D400), I decided it
> was time for a newer camera. I was generally pleased with the quality
> of the Olympus except for indoor photos with flash, which had poor
> quality if I was more than about 10 feet away.
>
> I picked a Canon SD400, mostly because of its convenient size, knowing
> I couldn't be sure of the quality until I started using it. I was
> expecting some improvement over the old Olympus, but I'm finding
> indoor photos are still extremely disappointing, particularly with
> flash. When I have a tripod or something to lean on to use available
> light without camera shake, the quality is much better. But that's not
> always feasible.
>
> I've tried different settings, including different ISO's and indoor,
> with little difference.

BIG interiors cannot be effectively illuminated by a puny on-board flash.

> I still use film for anything serious, but it's much more convenient
> to use a digital for a lot of stuff, particularly ordinary snapshots
> and stuff I want on the web.

I am not sure why anyone, with the needs you posted, would make a statement
like that ... "film for anything serious". Are you serious or are you a
troll?

[Whiskers]

On 2005-11-19, Alan Stein > wrote:
> After years using a 1 megapixel digital (Olympus D400), I decided it
> was time for a newer camera. I was generally pleased with the quality
> of the Olympus except for indoor photos with flash, which had poor
> quality if I was more than about 10 feet away.
>
> I picked a Canon SD400, mostly because of its convenient size, knowing
> I couldn't be sure of the quality until I started using it. I was
> expecting some improvement over the old Olympus, but I'm finding
> indoor photos are still extremely disappointing, particularly with
> flash. When I have a tripod or something to lean on to use available
> light without camera shake, the quality is much better. But that's not
> always feasible.
>
> I've tried different settings, including different ISO's and indoor,
> with little difference.
>
> I still use film for anything serious, but it's much more convenient
> to use a digital for a lot of stuff, particularly ordinary snapshots
> and stuff I want on the web.
>
> Any suggestions?

Ten feet is probably beyond the effective range of any built-in flash gun.

Have you tried placing additional 'remote' flash guns with triggers
operated by the small flash from the camera's own gun, to get lighting 'in
depth'? I don't know how well that would work with an automatic camera,
but if you have a manual mode that lets you set the aperture and exposure
time, and operate the on-board flash, then the experiments might be
rewarding. It's a bit more than 'point and shoot' though, and not really
a digital-versus-chemical thing either.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~