Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

All you have written Robin, and all you have shown, indicate how eager you are to have sharper pictures. ANd
most of the replies have mentioned that, yes, some of the latest high end models handle hi ISO well. So Auto
ISO does have its use, particularly where the light changes dramatically from one shot to another. The explanation
usually given for that use then is an onstage concert, and for there some noise is acceptable. But for general use, you
really do need to stay with the light of day, and the lowest possible ISO will really give you the least noise.

Let's get the best out of the camera then by concentrating on what the camera can do, as adding PP to the result is
only a step to fix something that wasn't understood and might have been achieved in the camera. If you have a
tripod, you might do some tests right at home. Hope this helps.

robinboulton Loc: Madison WI

No, they weren't cropped at all.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I think you have an equipment issue. I often shoot at ISO 1000 to 3200 when using a high shutter speed 1/1000–1/2000 and I get sharp clear images. I primarily use either a D500 or D810 and a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 FL lens. I'm usually at f/5.6 and I shoot raw and process in LRCC/PSCC. I know a Canon shooter who does the same with Hummingbirds. Pelicans often fly in V-formations that are incredible.

robinboulton Loc: Madison WI

Thanks, all of you, for sharing your knowledge and wisdom (even if I didn't want to hear some of it!) :)

I take all the points about sensor size, camera shake, etc. I even knew in my deepest heart that these factors were all in play. I'm 65 and have shaky hands, and while I do use a tripod for landscapes, for instance, these birds were moving quite fast (windy day, as can be inferred by the ripples in the water) so to get the shots, at those distances, I had to be mobile (I was actually driving along a county road which runs alongside the marsh). I would try a shot or two, the birds would move out of range, I'd get in the car and drive half a mile to the next vantage point, try again... rinse and repeat.

The black specks are actually the tips of reeds/bulrushes/whatevers that are poking through the surface of the water.

Amfoto1, thanks to you in particular for the time and effort you put into your reply. The point about sensor sizes is telling. I may have to recompose myself (he he) as a landscape-only photographer, or be content with what I can do with my older Nikon D40. dpReview says that camera has a 23.7 x 15.5 mm sensor, which would yield about 367 mm square... can that be right? It seems large for a camera of that vintage. Oh but that limiting 300 mm zoom lens...

Yes, I acknowledge the limitations of my camera which, amplified by my own, are proving difficult to overcome. Yet, withal, it IS still an amazing piece of work, and unless someone has one of those $120,000 Canon lenses lying around that they are prepared to lend me, the SX 60 is what I have to work with. The comment about never submitting a photo from one to a stock company is sobering, as I had hopes of that avenue, but the sad truth is that it was the most camera I could afford at the time - and still is. Until I get those royalties rolling in upgrades are not us.

Thanks again to all of you - I really appreciate your time and interest.

anotherview Loc: California

If I properly understand the function of the ISO setting, it has nothing to do with focus.

Further, as the contrarians (or realists) here like to remind, ISO in a digital camera really refers to the amplification of the signal that the processor receives from the sensor. Consider that the sensor records only so much light for a given image. The processor then may boost (amplify) this recorded light to increase the "ISO."

Photographic film came in different sensitivities, stated as a value; for example, ISO 400. The media itself actually presented a more sensitive surface for recording additional light.

Before I get in too deep, let me close by noting that for practical purposes, borrowing the use of ISO from the film era keeps the concept of an increased sensitivity to light simple in the digital era.

Surely if I have mis-stated anything here, others will offer correction.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

The basic problem with these shots is that they are not in focus. Best of luck.

srt101fan

Good point. If you can't control the light, and you want to set the shutter speed and aperture, and you can't use a tripod, you have to let the ISO ride!? What else can you do aside from walking away from the shot? For me the acceptability of high ISOs depends on subject and mood. For wildlife closeup shots noise may be a problem, for moody, "film noir" kind of night scenes maybe not so much.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

looks like you might do well with a lens support. it worked with my "heavy" long lens.