cannot get sharp picture

[gaddypaid]

i love taking photos of birds but when i get them home they seem soft. This image of a kingfisher was taken with a fine pix 30 exr a 16 megapixel took at 200-300mm lens i was about 30 feet away. this happens in most of my shots they seem soft close up. Is it cause im too far away, my camera is not upto spec.

 

[u8myufo]

Hi Gary,you have really have answered your own question.As an example this one is at 400mm and at about 18ft.In saying that though,you could zoom in when editing a bit and crop,this should give you a more acceptable image for viewing. But in general even a shot at 30ft you would be looking at a 500 - 600 to start getting a larger image of the subject in the frame. Forgot to add Gary,take a look at the KF shot by Mike P HERE It shows it how it is in real life for getting the shot you are looking for.

Bullfinch by Richard Venn, on Flickr

 

[gaddypaid]

as i got closer to the bird it flew away, since you was only 18ft away you must have master stealth skills. i am upgrading to a d5200 hoping for sharper pictures.
If i crop my picture down it looks more blurry and poor.

 

[den]

Hi Gary, Kingfisher shots are a lot easier to get than you think, and I am not saying that to be smug , when I started getting kingfisher shots from a distance with a Panasonic TZ10 I was in the same boat as you ,what I didn't realise was the hard work was already done by locating the bird and that is when its time to decide if you want more ,that's when time and dedication as to be factored in,Kingfishers can be creatures of habit when fishing in the same area and a good perch stuck in the river bank at around 45% will get the bird landing ,if its thick enough it may stun the fish on it for you ,I have been between 10 and 12 feet from the birds on many occasion ,to the point were they are quite happy to preen in front of me it can be done..Kit does play a part but I only have a 300mm and a 400mm and all my shots are taken using these ,sometimes you have no option but to try and get close without disturbing your subject ,doing it that way will give you more pleasure and rewards and knowing all that time and effort as been worth it .

 

[mex]

as i got closer to the bird it flew away, since you was only 18ft away you must have master stealth skills. i am upgrading to a d5200 hoping for sharper pictures.
If i crop my picture down it looks more blurry and poor.

Like many on here, we set up a hide to get (or maybe I should say attempt to get) the shot that we wanted, you really will struggle to get close enough to them without some sort of concealment. The problem we found with a permanent hide was the local vandals either wrecked it, stole it or set light to it, in the end a bag hide like this one was the answer http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Wildlife-Watching-Supplies-Camouflage-Throw-over-Bag-Hide-/121471796967?pt=UK_Camera_Cases_Bags_Covers&hash=item1c484886e7

Set yourself up on the waterside and push a perch into the bankside so it over looks the shallows, it may take a while but sure as sh@t one will sit on it for you as long as you keep quiet and still. There really is no substitute for getting close.

 

[rpsmith79]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the rather cluttered background and grass in the foreground as these could easily be confusing your autofocus system, especially as your subject is quite small in the frame, thus leading to a slightly soft image

Unfortunately i don't know a thing about that camera you are using, or the lens, but there is no substitute for half decent glass, i only got into wildlife about a year ago and have gone from a cheapo £100 70-300m Tamron lens (that was very soft at the long end, no matter what i did), to a more expensive Tamron 70-300 with VR, but i was still not getting the sharpness i was after, so i have finally settled on a Nikon 300mm f4 prime lens which is so sharp you could cut yourself on it , but at the thick end of £1200 it bloody should be

Unfortunately wildlife photography seems to be a slippery slope to spending a small fortune on glass, and don't even get me started on really fast telephoto lenses as i would have to remortgage my house to afford one of those

 

[u8myufo]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the rather cluttered background and grass in the foreground as these could easily be confusing your autofocus system, especially as your subject is quite small in the frame, thus leading to a slightly soft image

Unfortunately i don't know a thing about that camera you are using, or the lens, but there is no substitute for half decent glass, i only got into wildlife about a year ago and have gone from a cheapo £100 70-300m Tamron lens (that was very soft at the long end, no matter what i did), to a more expensive Tamron 70-300 with VR, but i was still not getting the sharpness i was after, so i have finally settled on a Nikon 300mm f4 prime lens which is so sharp you could cut yourself on it , but at the thick end of £1200 it bloody should be

Unfortunately wildlife photography seems to be a slippery slope to spending a small fortune on glass, and don't even get me started on really fast telephoto lenses as i would have to remortgage my house to afford one of those

Whilst I agree to a certain degree Rich there is equally no substitute for learning half decent fieldcraft and getting closer to your subject.The OP did state in his post that the camera was a Finepix 30,and he was aware that it does boil down to being a bit closer. I do not want to appear to be hijacking the thread here but an example of an EF70 - 200mm.

IMG_5643 by Richard Venn, on Flickr