It seems strange that one goes looking for poor examples to show how good the shot of the hawk is. You can find bad examples with any camera. I know the OP is a very good bird photographer as I have seen other shots with the same camera. The light on the hawk looks perfect, but as others have pointed out, the FZ100 doesn't seem at its best when stretched to the limit of its zoom. Any birder knows that to pull in detail at distance requires perfect conditions, especially light, then it needs a lens and camera that can retain detail at a distance. Sharpening an blurred image may make it look sharper but it doesn't add any real detail.
One very good birder on the forum has the FZ100 and has I think the FZ35, even he concludes that the FZ100 can't retain the detail at the long end. The lens I use for birding is mediocre quality, and considered too soft for serious use, but when combined with a model that has excellent sharpness, the E510 as opposed to the E520 or E620 and you get acceptable results.
Your owl shot was obviously taken under very tough lighting, and it is obvious no PP was applied.
--
Oll an gwella,
Jim
Post message:
[email protected]
Subscribe:
[email protected]
Unsubscribe:
[email protected]
List owner:
[email protected]
