>>4019263Says me. I've been shooting for 20 years and have done at least half my work shooting wildlife at 300mm and beyond. The single biggest contributor to fuzzy garbage images at long focal lengths is vibrations and sway. Longer focal lengths massively amplify minute disturbances. Early on in my experience I took a 300mm in for maintenance because my images weren't sharp. Then I learned to never shoot below 1/400 and began consistently producing tack sharp images.
>>4019288"Underexposing to get a sharp image" has a basis in running higher shutter speeds at the expense of perfect exposure in-camera. You can compensate for underexposure during production and frequently get deeper tones and better contrast as secondary result. I slightly underexpose almost every image I shoot, even at wide focal lengths, in order to get that benefit. If you don't understand that raising your shutter speed reduces exposure you're much better off leaving your keyboard alone and lurking so you can learn from people who know what they're doing.
I shot this image at 300mm with a goddamned T3i and EF 70–300mm IS I was using as a backup when I didn't have access to my 80D. It's sharp as fuck because I use stabilized lenses and shoot high shitter speeds. Was it right "in camera"? No. But it sure as shit was right when I exported it from Lightroom.
