Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Horoscope Fish" data-source="post: 345878" data-attributes="member: 13090">Well you have three options for controlling this, as is usually the case in photography so let's look at each one in turn.Option A: You use a wider aperture... Or do you? A 300mm tele at full extension is what, f/5.6 or so? If it's a really fast piece of glass, say, f/2.8 or so you're in luck! This extra flexibility is precisely what you paid (out the wazoo) for. Then too if your glass was that fast you probably wouldn't be having this problem to start with. Also, going THAT wide (f/2.8 or so) you risk not having sufficient depth of field to get really good focus as deep as you need it, and this can not really be corrected for in post processing. Going that wide is also moot point if you're shooting a more typical 300mm tele that has a maximum aperture of something around f/5.6 or so.Option B: You need to use a shutter speed *at least* one-and-a-half times as fast as the focal length with double the length being better in my opinion so that means you're looking at, say, 1/500 or so. Probably tough on a 300mm because the max aperture at full extension is slowing you down. You can opt to use the slower shutter speed and hope the stabilizers (VR, OS, whatever your lens calls it) get you a crisp shot, or use a tripod to keep things steady. You can also try removing any motion blur using Photoshop but the Motion Blur filter is sketchy in my experience, so again, avoidance is your best best which brings us back to hope or a tripod.Option C: You use a higher ISO and risk digital "noise". Personally, I'd much rather have "noise" than motion blur. (Unintended) Motion blur  ruins photos while a little too much noise makes them less than ideal. Also, "noise" is, in my experience much easier to remove than motion blur.Photographer, pick thy poison......</blockquote>

Verification