prayingmantis

This image clearly has as its limiting factor "atmospheric distortion" as mentioned by Haydon. Many photographers and non-photographers have seen atmospheric distortion in the summertime on hot days. A more familiar term used to describe it is the French word mirage (the French experienced mirages in North Africa, its an uncommon phenomenon in most of Europe). Atmospheric distortion results from the different refractive index of light in adjacent layers of air with different temperatures. It is particularly apparent (in my experience) at times of the day when the temperature gradient between the ground and the air immediately above the ground is greatest. That can occur on the ocean as well at times of day when the
air temperature is changing rapidly, either heating up or cooling. One clear tip off in the above image where the distortion is particularly exaggerated when you zoom in is the shape of the surface of the water. It appears very jagged and that jagged appearance is not from waves. The outline of waves would be much less irregular.

MikeMck Loc: Southern Maryland on the Bay

Thank you!

RRS Loc: Not sure

Get a good tripod, a much longer lens like 500mm to 600mm and maybe a 1.4 TC for starters! On the more serious side now, somethings are so far away that sometimes we need to just look and enjoy. You just can't take a long shot and enlarge it, use all the magic of Photoshop and expect a " wall hanger" it does not happen. Been there and tried that with birds and came to the realization that I needed a longer lens. Take some time off and buy a dozen steamed crabs and enjoy the end of summer.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

First of all the len's used by op is a 18-250mm lens the only thing that changes is the FOV on his APS-C Camera the picture is still a focal length of only 250mm at the long end not 450mm! the frame size of the image would represent 450mm the picture is still a 250mm lmage. The OP shooting at that range is futile for any sharp quality picture(s) at best to see anything decent he would have need an 1500mm or more! As most have said so much was going against this picture.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

MikeMck Loc: Southern Maryland on the Bay

Excellent idea. Thanks.

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

Lived in crofton for many years. My first experience with Bay photos was of tall ships coming up the Bay in 1976. Your problem is caused by atmospheric conditions between you and the subject. Not sure there is any way to avoid except to get much closer. Had same problem in 1976. problem :-(

MikeMck Loc: Southern Maryland on the Bay

Thanks.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Lighthouse once replied to a similar topic by saying that the image quality of an expensive lens against a moderately priced lens will be less than 10%. I have since found that to be an accurate assessment. What is more, that 10% difference can usually be considerably reduced with PP. I think that the OPs pic is way outside the difference between the ultimate and an acceptable 10% difference in quality.
But I do still agree with you - if 18-250 is the needed range then spread it over two lenses - or go super zoom bridge, where the necessary settings will have been taken care of by the manufacturer.

Dutzie Loc: I'd like to know

Your trying to make a silk purse from a sows ear...

MikeMck Loc: Southern Maryland on the Bay

I was, but now I think I have learned my lesson. I guess you are never too old to learn, lol!

DJO

I disagree- not nearly fast enough for a shot like this.

The shooting data here is the same combination as the majority of "soft image" inquiries on this site: hand held, long lens, moving subject.

The tripod is the most underutilized piece of equipment in photography. Always has been. "Too heavy or too bulky" to carry around? Buck up or be creative. I, along with others, am not as strong as I used to be. One solution just popped into my head: a small golf bag two wheel cart set-up, modified/ customized to your specific needs. Could carry a tripod and anything else that's heavy. Could be fitted with the largest backpack or other type of camera bag you can find and now all of your gear is perfectly balanced on 2 large wheels made for tough use in rough terrain. The rig is easily assembled and disassembled, collapsable and portable.

This might be a stupid idea, but the point is it took me less than 30 seconds to come up with it.

One day in a discussion of tripods on this forum I went to a link provided another member to a maker of high quality lightweight tripods. The very first sentence on the site?

"Let's face it. Nothing beats mass when it comes to stability". My Gitzo is tiny and weighs nine lbs. When I can no longer "buck up", quite likely in the not too distant future, I'll be creative.

cabunit Loc: SE Connecticut

I've scanned the pages here and may have missed it, but in addition to atmospherics, camera motion, and depth of field, there's another potential problem: lens diffraction. It can happen at small apertures (e.g., f/22), such that stopping down --if you're so tempted--does not always give you a sharper image.

If you're interested, here's a quick summary, with a helpful diagram: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

OP - listen to this guy!

idahoshooter Loc: Coeur d'Alene

So if the 5DmIII/70-300mm works well, its not atmospheric issues (if the scenes are comparable). Then I would try some other test shots to compare the T6S/Sigma combo. Perhaps leaves on a tree, or some other distant but sharp items.