Gwyn

Thanks for your reply, much appreciated. Enc photo of something larger, still very soft. Excuse wonky orizon. Taking note of what you put, it does look to be a retro step to focus manually , etc on a £1900 lens. On my old canon 30d and 70-200 f4 shots were crystal and even all those years back the focus was almost always spot on. I'll try what you have suggested. Thanks again.

5.6, 1/1800, 400mm, iso400. Please note: I have tried other apertures with same results.

F5.6, 1/1300, 400mm, iso160

F5.6, 1/1220, 400mm, iso400

I know this has been brought up more than once and I've looked at many suggestions. Most of my images are soft. Today for instance I have shot quiet a few photos of birds perching. Most at 350-400mm. Checking on the screen every few shots nothing I altered made any difference. IS continues, IS shoot only af, IS off. custom centre increase iso to bring shutter speed up. ( most over 600). On and off monopod. Afterwards took snap shot of my dog and it is sharp. Camera works great with 10-24, 50-200 and kit lens.

I appreciate what you are saying but that takes me back to my comment about camera design and using it. We could all be using 15 yo digital cameras and latest computer software and still get reasonable but in my opinion unrealistic scenes. How many of us, me included, read camera reviews ? The sensor is capable of this and that, the processor can do this and the other. The camera can cost many hundreds even thousands. Only to work the cameras results. Yes I know about raw but within reason you work that result on the pc using what could be set on the camera. My photo was exactly as the scene. My point is that I would rather take a photo using the camera and my knowledge than "work" it on a computer. Photos I have seen look fantastic that are post " manipulated " but like I said very really do they resemble the actual scene presented. When I developed all my films and prints I could alter time , temperature to push or pull the outcome but my aim was to always getting the print to look like the scene I captured. What I'm basically trying to say is that there is room for both and to get results some photographs get on PCs is brilliant but, if I was just starting in photography and look at some of these worked photos I could get rather disheartened that I couldn't get something similar by using just my camera. Being new I possibly wouldn't know about work done AFTER the picture was taken. This is my opinion but like I put there is room for both as long as folks starting off are educated to what is possible just with the camera.

Still finding my way round on here so forgive me as I put this on winter landscapes. Reason for posting this is that I have always tried to take the best photo I can without post processing . Many years ago I saw a photo and thought I would like to take that same image. As the scene was not to far I travelled, camera in hand but couldn't recognize the area. Yes there was the odd tree and rock I remembered but nothing else. Reason was although the photo was stunning it was heavily processed and had no relation to the "real" scene. Camera manufacturers spend millions on camera design so why do we not use their knowledge and experience and take the photos the best we can and learn by our mistakes. Don't get me wrong there is a place for processing but I think it can give people especially newcomers a goal that cannot be reached by just pointing the camera. To me a good photo is one that replicates the actual scene without working on a computer. The photo I have uploaded was just that. I was lucky because it does not happen every time but I keep trying.

One of my favourites. As taken with xt1. I try to take what I see without any post this or post that processing.

Just enlisted. Live in Nottinghamshire UK. Been into photography since I was about 5 yo, I'm now 67 so many shutter activations but still learning. Lol.