Don't trust noise reduction in LR that much and esp. don't oversharpen using the sharpening tool. Also, luminance noise (if not excessive of course) is not that much of a problem IMO. It may actually have a nice grain to it, and the noise "character" of the OM-D is quite good in my eyes. Chroma noise is what you have to fear more.

__________________
http://500px.com/Eyes_Unclouded_Photography
http://eyesunclouded-photography.blogspot.gr/
http://www.facebook.com/eyesunclouded

...use the luminance slider.

(not my feeling btw...although I rarely touch it).

__________________
Olympus OM-D E-M5
Panasonic Lumix 12-35mm F2.8
Panasonic Leica Summilux 25mm F1.4
Panasonic Lumix 45-175mm F4-5.6

I'm still on the newbie end of the spectrum myself, but I like playing with toys so I've used a wide assortment of lenses

Here's my input as someone who takes a lot of indoor and low light pics (particularly fireside and outdoors at night since I camp frequently). You'll probably want faster glass than any of the zooms currently available on the market if you're shooting indoors or in low light *and* want to keep your ISO at an acceptably noise-free level. The Panasonic 12-35 zoom just coming out now is promising at f/2.8 but still a full 2 stops below the PL 25mm f/1.4 for light gathering.

My experience is based on a G3 but I believe it would be comparable to the OM-D. I find that ISO 3200 is the absolute max I'm willing to use, and 1600 is as high as I want to go for what *I* consider a clean image. To put this in some perspective, if you use stops as a rough gauge, that means going from the 12-50mm's max aperture of f/3.5 @ 1600 ISO in the same lighting with a PL 25mm f/1.4 wide open at same shutter speed, you could be at roughly ISO 280 (assuming my math is correct). Obviously the other caveats about thin DOF etc. other folks mention still apply; I'm talking purely light gathering ability here.

As far as buying another lens, it's all up to what you're likely to be most happy with and get the most use out of. I love my 20mm and 25mm lenses as a general use lens and if I pick only one prime to take with me it's going to be a 25mm. But if want to do mainly portraits and moderate telephoto is more useful to you, then the 45mm f/1.8 is a great lens. Another thing to consider if the upcoming Olympus 75mm f/1.8 is an option, something like the 20mm f/1.7 or 25mm f/1.4 and the 45mm f/1.8 as a pair. That would cost you about the same but you'd have a decent portrait lens and a great walkaround prime lens. Sort of have your cake and eat it too

__________________
500px | flickr

“The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.” -- Dorothea Lange

I agree to you , I also find the images a little bit grainy , not bad but you see it even on a well exposed images and especially so in a shadow areas . But I still find the noise to be perfectly acceptable.

I have compared the 200 ISO from the OMD to A 100 ISO image taken with My D3x nikon. The nikon is smoother .. But anyway , I don't see it unless pixel peeping at 100% so as I said , I can accept that and live with it ;-). The dynamic range is VERY good , the colors are very good and the general quality of the image is Very good in my opinion. I´m sure next OMD will be smoother at base ISO.

Nicely said.

To the OP: it boils down to what level of noise you are willing to tolerate and for what application.

The second photo you posted is superb: it has a great composition, interesting tonality and, resolution wise, you can print it at A3 size and hang it on your wall. That is, if printed on a printer that can match the resolution (which is easy today). Believe me, nobody is going to get at 5 inches from your photo with a magnifying lens.

We get so caught up in pixel peeping sometimes, that we forget the real photographic applications. What do you want from your photos? At what final size are you going to view/show them? IMO this is the measure by which to decide if a given exposure is good enough.

I shot a lot of indoor, low(ish) light photos yesterday, half of them with the 12-50 kit lens. Most were at 1250-1600 ISO and they were for the most part good enough to make large prints, and even more for viewing on large, high resolution monitors. As I mentioned I happen to like the "noise signature" of the OM-D files. Even 100% crops of tiny details look "natural" IMHO, there are not ugly looking areas that I noticed. That's why you have to define your own personal standards in this area, because what is good for another person may not be acceptable by you.

__________________
http://500px.com/Eyes_Unclouded_Photography
http://eyesunclouded-photography.blogspot.gr/
http://www.facebook.com/eyesunclouded

I also want to add that the noise increase is very gentle on the OMD with higher ISO , Im gonna compare images from my D3x to the OMD at higher iso , I´m not sure the D3x is any better than the OMD when your at 800 iso and higher.

the images turn out much better in good sunlight. I am going to assume the limiting factor is the kit lens. I cant be happier with the results I get from outdoor shooting in the sun. I really need to invest in a faster lens for indoor shooting.

thanks for all the advice guys!!!!

__________________

you will also find that some of the lenses being referenced (pana 25, oly 45, pana 20) are sharper than the 12-50...I compared them and wound up with primes, and the well regarded 14-45 (for zoom stuff)...but the primes will give it to you...I also use the Olympus Viewer to convert raws....you might want to try it....

Are you doing anything with sharpness (unsharp mask)? Depending on how this is set it can accentuate the noise of your shot.

If you are sharpening, try different radius and amount.

Personally, I use less noise reduction and less sharpening and am happy with the results.

Of course, low light has it's challenges and compromises. I don't mind a bit of noise if the shot is good.

P.

The noise reduction in Lightroom 4 is very very good. But you need to master it. And don't expect miracles.

Generally a bit of luminance noise isn't really a problem. When really bad your images will get a bit gritty which can be either a pain or an artistic choice. Using too much is usually worse than using none at all. Be gentle. And hold down the alt key when your adjusting the slider to see where the NR is being applied.

Colour noise on the other hand is almost always ugly. That's the slider you want to be using first and more agressively. Zoom to 100% and play with the colour noise slider. Even at this reduced size I can see some colour noise in your images. At 1600 ISO my start point is the luminance slider at 10, the colour slider at 35 and the detail left as is.

Combine that with a good exposure (expose for the highlights and adjust the rest in LR) and you should get very good ISO 1600 results.

Gordon

__________________
Central Coast Wedding Photographer

An Introduction To Colour Management for Photographers

Flash is completely mirrorless.