That and the heat coming out of the house.

Interesting. Using an online DOF calculator, if those birds were only 50
ft. away, your camera and lens would only have a useful DOF of 9.9 inches.
I'm guessing that's probably pretty close to the situation, considering the
blurriness and their seemingly apparent positions on the twigs. Or else
they might even be closer, diminishing the DOF even further.

In order to get the same useless DOF with that focal length on a 2/3"
sensor P&S camera, I would have to use a 450mm EFL at about f/0.8 (?
possibly even wider). Instead, I can always get a useful DOF of about 22
inches at f/2.0. But since my favorite wildlife P&S camera only opens up to
f/2.4 at that focal length (f/2.0 at shorter focal lengths), then I get 26
inches of useful DOF to adequately capture both of those birds in sharp
focus. The other upside is that I can shoot at that same ISO noise-free
(easily) but use a shutter speed of 1/700s instead of the 1/125s that was
used, which probably also added to your image blur. What with that shutter
and mirror slap and all adding to the blurriness too.

With a 1/2.5" sensor P&S camera then at widest aperture of about f/3.5 on
most of them with that focal length, then you would get a 55 inch DOF at
that distance with that focal length. Still a much more useful DOF and both
birds would have been in sharp focus. Plus that's still 1.3 EV stops
advantage, meaning it could be shot at a shutter speed of 1/320s.

Well, that was a fun thing to calculate.

1.3 to 2.3 stops aperture advantage to the $250-$350 P&S cameras and both
providing a useful DOF. Then you would have come back home with a useful
printable image. Rather than what you have now. One that can't even stand
up to being published at 968x648 pixels, which means it can't even be
printed at 3-4 inches in size horizontally. Seems that an awful lot of
money was used to attain all that wonderful DSLR blur that everyone brags
on. What a shame.

Boy, the cost of that thing must be really burning about now.

Thanks for providing yet another example that proves P&S camera excel for
wildlife photography.

On 2/8/10 5:00 PM, in article ha51n591hb9r2hh5pil1vtkih3fvu3k5vr@4ax.com,

We ALL wish that you would "get back home".

Another day, another sock...

<Guffaw!!>

If simpleton trolls like you didn't exist, we might have to invent one now and
then, just to remember what a hearty belly laugh feels like in these trying
times.

Bob

Adequately proving that you've never used any camera in your lifetime. In
sunlight the sunlit patches of snow will be tinted to 6500 Kelvin, those in
shade tinted by the blue sky, nearer to 9300K. If they are not balanced
properly it will not look correct. The same two shades of white are also
used by every painter who has ever painted a snow-covered house, field, or
mountain. During sunrise and sunset then you also have to include hues of
red, purple, and even greens. No different than clouds in a sunset due to
the subtle shades occurring in the alpenglow and alpen-scheine bands in the
sky, clouds present or not.

Go back to whatever other discussion groups where you can still pretend
that you are fooling people with your "expertise". You'll be happier there,
rather than you constantly being revealed as an ignorant troll in this one.