Sorry everyone for keeping this up - but would this be better than what I had before? and/or an acceptable level of sharpness? First picture is the crop - second one is the full picture resized. There is no artistic value in these pictures - it is just a consistent target for me to use.

With IS on, and f/9 @ 1/640 on iso 800 because i wanted to eliminate my shaking as much as posssible so blur was more important than noise. Did manual focus but confirmed by camera as being in focus (i think )

Attached Images

  

__________________
- Ravenheart

Raven, can you email me the original (RAW or JPG) image? PM me for my email address?

__________________
Another lame attempt to get to 2000 posts
M i C k E Y

2017 Tesla Model X
2014 Porsche Panamera-S e-Hybrid (sold)
2012 Porsche Cayenne
2001 X5 3.0 (sold)
2003 Carrera 911 Cabrio (sold)

thanks my next purchase will be a light meter as I think this will help me to get a better picture and to do the settings as manual as possible. I have been out for 2 hours tonight trying to get a dramatic sunset and I thought tonight that a light meter would have helped me a lot.

__________________
http://www.x-trail-uk.co.uk

“Attitudes are contagious. Is yours worth catching?”

Found the main cause of my blurry pictures - the filters I had bought at Best Buy screwed up the image quality quite badly. For anyone interested they were Sunpak UV filters. The one Canon filter I have (for the kit lens) blurs the pictures too - though not quite as badly. The reasoning I had for using said UV filters was to protect the front element of the lenses - obviously not worth it at the price of picture quality. Would like to write it off as one faulty filter - but all 3 lenses I have, with 3 different UV filters all have the same effect.

As you suggested in PMs the cropping did change the quality of the pictures some too

The previous picture I posted was without the filter and I think it looks better. Anywho - here is some more pictures I took to show the difference. Taken with my 70-300 lens at 300mm - with and without the UV filter.

Attached Images

  

__________________
- Ravenheart

AHA...unless you are willing to plunk down major moolah on filters, don't bother with the filters as the cheapo ones are just not worth it. I would rather use a lens hood and forget about the filter if the aim is to protect the lens. Remember this is an addition of another glass element in front of the lens and that will effect the PQ.

The picture on the right is much better from what I see...do remember that not all zoom/tele lenses are super at all focal lengths. The sweet spot for a 70-300 (usually a jack of all trades, master of not many) may be around the 150-210mm focal length. Your mileage may vary.

Now that you have the first issue taken care of, start looking into metering and more importantly lighting Have fun, this is a great hobby with rewards. Take thousands of pictures and don't be afriad to experiment.

__________________
Another lame attempt to get to 2000 posts
M i C k E Y

2017 Tesla Model X
2014 Porsche Panamera-S e-Hybrid (sold)
2012 Porsche Cayenne
2001 X5 3.0 (sold)
2003 Carrera 911 Cabrio (sold)

I use the shutter and aperture settings more and more now on my still pretty damned good Nikon D40. These settings do wonders in getting good shots, like depth of field, in difficult situations. In this respect I actually like my old manual camera better because I loath menus in cameras and anything else except restaurants.

I keep it in Auto when I hike around. If a mountain lion pops up I won't have time to screw around.

Most often I keep it in Program mode, programmed with my own default settings. This works for most situations.

Good thing about digital is that you can take a lot of shots! It took me a long time not to be cheap with my shots, since I was used to 35mm where one has to conserve film (and money).

Blown highlights are a universal digital problem. I have had the best luck underexposing them some because it is easier to fix the shadows later. Some shoot raw because it can sometimes extract detail out of some of those bright white areas. You still have to pay attention to those bright areas in your viewfinder.

Sharpness is an odd thing. Some camera makers have a default kind of low sharpness in-camera, expecting that you will sharpen your keeper photos on your computer. In the end, photos from cameras and lenses with similar specs will ultimately look pretty much the same if they are sharpened, adjusted, etc. properly on your computer.

Right now I am experimenting with film again, having it scanned and then I adjust the image and print it myself at home. Hopefully, I can get a good old film camera for landscape and architectural photography and get good results on the cheap.

Besides, I miss my old film camera and manual controls (for landscapes and other still subjects only. I am spoiled by automation.

I think the issue here is focus, not a filter. You need to experiment and find out why this happened.

Definatly a filter issue - I am not able to get a good sharp picture with one of those filters on - doesnt matter if I use manual or auto focus. After I took the filters off I am happy with how the pictures turn out

I did a series of tests with micro focus adjustments against a cloth surface and it just kept making the pictures more blurry - finally reset the focus and took the filter off and it was a world of difference.

__________________
- Ravenheart

Save your money.

Unless you are shooting in a studio or shooting film, you won't need one. Bracket your shots and use the histogram.