Ive uploaded the file to here http://upload-drive.com/22825/IMGP0896_DNG

Thanks

Went out this morning for a few test shots after the advice given about shooting birds.
Was shooting at 1600 iso, +0.7 ev with the Sigma 120-400mm @ 400mm.
Personally i think they all look god awful but im no expert at that focal range so i was hoping to upload a Raw DNG to somewhere so some of you guys can give me advice.
To me it seems my pictures are getting softer by the shot and the picture quality is degrading by the shot.
In all honesty there is no reason why it should look as bad as it does.
Tripod, SR OFF, extremely calm if a little overcast but nothing out the ordinary.

On a side note i looked at the LCD and my first thoughts when i zoomed them on the LCD were. "wow that should be a topper".

That DNG file wasnt cropped m8, it was just a straight 800 pixel cut of the original.

Will give that a try, its probably a combination of not having used the K20D long enough and only recently took up shooting birds.
Life was so much easier with my studio lights and a light meter lol

Checked Raw Convertor, according to that it was +0.50 underexposed which isnt a great deal off.

Have to confess i didnt, i assume you mean target a darker area, lock the exposure and recompose? Or do you mean Over expose with the exposure compensation?

Sorry, should have pointed out that the jpeg @ same size as original dng is just as bad.

In all honesty it could just be user error hence the reason i was asking the question.

First shot is the Robin after pp and saved to 800 pixels.
Light was good and it dosent look to bad.

[IMG]http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj132/CraigF1969/private/robintest.jpg[/IMG]

This however is the DNG @ 800 pixels.
[IMG]http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj132/CraigF1969/private/robintest2.jpg[/IMG]

Jesus...Graytop, that black part of the fireplace with mine would be a Big Noisy shambles @ 400 never mind 800 and i would not even attempt it @ 2000.