Will do. Mike.
Thanks, what does this confirm?

Roger.

Thanks, Roger.

This is from 10m away.
K7.
Tripod.
Manual focus (v. carefully!) on the junction of the post & the top rail.
OS off.
1/200th.
F6.3.
ISO 400.
Mirror-up.
Remote release F.




I don't believe this is sharp (enough).


Notwithstanding the noise, this is more what I would expect straight from the camera:





This was put through PSE9 unsharp mask, default settings FOUR TIMES!

Roger.

Am sticking with the testing, etc.
But I'm beginning to have more doubts re this lens/my K7 combination.
Particularly having seen David Robinson's Kestrel post on The Gallery & his other 150-500 images on his website).

Just a thought...
could the fact that the K7 is still on ver. 01 firmware have any effect on IQ with this lens....?

Sorry to go on about it but....!

Roger.

Thanks again, all.

TBH, what I think I'm after is confirmation that it's the accessory behind the K7 that's faulty, not the (expensive, for me!) lump of glass in front of it!
I'm not expecting to get the hang of a new lens in minutes; I am, however, keen to know as soon as poss. what I can reasonably expect from the Sigma & adjust my abilities to suit.
(Bearing in mind I have the SRS guarantee period to sort it out!)

Thanks again for your advice & patience.

Roger.

Thanks to you both for that.

I'm aware of the rule-of-thumb re the reciprocal of the focal length is the longest shutter speed to be used, but presumed on a tripod with mirror-up & delay selected, the shutter speed would virtually be irrelevant...


Roger

Hi, everyone!

Could you please let me know if this level of IQ is usual/acceptable, with the following exposure info.?

K7.
Sigma 150-500.
100th. sec.
F8
ISO200
Lens set to 500mm., OS off.
Tripod. mirror-up/3sec.delay

Focussed very carefully (auto., checked on manual) on the lower left insulator.


Jpeg straight from camera.



[IMG]http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/af340/rogerhlane/IQTest002.jpg[/IMG]



Thanks,

Roger.

From our pond , this afternoon.

Captive in a small, home-made aquarium.

(Returned to the pond.)


K7, 100mm D FA Macro, built-in flash.
PSE9 crop, adjusted & sharpened.



[IMG]http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/af340/rogerhlane/Lesserwaterboatmanetc032crop.jpg[/IMG]



As always, C&C most welcome.

Roger.

Remembered achieving a Sabattier effect in the darkroom many years ago & thought I'd try it digitally.

Original converted to mono.
Copy layer inverted, gaussian blur applied
Contrast & levels adjusted.
Layers blended.

I'm sure there was more to it than that....don't think I could repeat the process!


[IMG]http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/af340/rogerhlane/cgmonosabattiercopy.jpg[/IMG]


I'd be interested to receive any comments or criticisms.


Roger.

Amen, George.


Roger.

Good evening, Gary.

I've found your bird images most interesting, their technical excellence is fantastic. I'm generally not a fan of flash for the birdies, however, since , although they're as sharp as a sharp thing, I think they tend to flatten the body of the creatures & , perhaps, take away some of the character of the individuals.

However...

Your no.2, of the chiffchaff, is very interesting in that in spite of (sorry!) the flash, modelling does seem to be there particularly under the tail.
Even better is the highlight in the eye....
Given the position of the highlight, how far off the lens axis was the flash. I'd have thought to put the h/l at " 1 o'clock" in a convex surface, the flash would have to be miles off the axis!???

Roger.