Godogs57:
Cookie has a couple of the Canon 100-400's. One is the first edition sliding telescope model and the second the newer screw model. Regardless of body, they both generate great images across bodies. Her 500 mm works well across the same units. She also has a couple kit lenses, and I know they're not to be used on her newer full frame unit due to some mechanical issues. Those are fine too on both of her crop bodies.

Quality or not, one might post up a couple images here with your assessment or concerns listed. The old picture equals a thousand words ......

Might also go out his back door and set up some test shots of some subjects close in and far out to assess how the finest of details are rendered. We usually keep her stabilization on for both hand-held and tripod shots. One might shoot some test shots as well with that feature on/off. About the only time we turn IS off is when trying some star shots and we don't see much difference there either.

One mentioned some distant elk/eagle shots. Is one using a single point focus or perhaps one of the more regional multi-point SPORT settings? We find the regional settings rather poor for nailing focus on specific points and go for a single center point trying for an eye if one is near enough. Even then, an intervening branch or blade of grass might get the camera's attention and cause issues. If there's a lot trash in the frame, it's best to switch off the auto focus and go totally manual. See example pheasant below. Near and far are blurred, but the eye looks good. We will use the regional settings on occasion for things like birds in flight when the sky is the background. Down on the level, the camera really can't sense what one wants when both the background and subject are in motion.

Low light and extreme ISO's are also prone to introducing noise regardless of ones camera generation. Yes, the newer models are a little better, but I don't see quantum leaps in quality there.

Also, any filters involved? Years back we tried some skylight filters (mostly for lens protection) and images were good, but just seemed to lack that super pop out effect. Flat glass in front of a well-engineered lens just takes something away. Despite cost, they went to the round file. It took some test shots with the filters on and off to make that determination and it was a loss of the really fine detail that came to light in that instance.
Last, we for the most part find RAW files to be quite good. Yes, some can stand a little tweaking perhaps for brightness, sharpness, etc. The Canon software (Digital Photo Professional), Photoshop, Topaz, all seem to be equally functional for handling RAW files as well as their conversions to tif, bmp, jpg, or whatever. We do everything in RAW and never overwrite the originals.

If one has some nearby acquaintances with similar gear he might touch bases with them. Even Nikon folks might know what one is talking about. On the slight chance that one has accidently tweaked some setting, one might also go into the setup mode, put back to the factory defaults, and start anew from there.

Keep at it and do come back with your findings please,


[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]


Last edited by 1minute; 03/10/22.
1Minute