UKH

I use a Nikon D3200 with a Sigma 600 mm lens. What would be a good upgrade for a tangible improvement in image quality  (Needs to be Nikon so I can use the lens).  
 

Edit: I don’t shot in RAW - simply don’t have the time for editing - but know I should.

What are the problems with the image quality from your D3200?

Dave

The most obvious upgrade would be the D500, which I don't own but is a very highly regarded wildlife camera. Better autofocus and frame rate are some advantages. 

Think it is possibly now discontinued but if you want one I'm sure you could find one new or used. 

I'm  not a Nikon expert, but I suspect that your IQ is limited by the Sigma lens (no disrespect to the lens), so changing the body is unlikely to make much difference. Better technique (do you use a tripod? Getting closer to subject) and post processing are your best options.

Also - sorry if this sound rude - but if you 'don't have time' to process raw images then you can't have enough time to get good wildlife pictures. Good wildlife photography is *very* time-consuming (you spend a lot of time waiting and waiting and...)

I reckon they could be sharper (when I compare them to other peoples).  

Tripod: I used to, but it broke with my telescope already jammed in place, so I’m now hand held but spend time in hides which gives good stability.

No, you don’t sound rude, but I much prefer being out and about.  I’ve just spent over 30 hours the last three days birdwatching.  Photos to follow.  I do think that I may have to spend a bit more time processing though.  

Have you tried topaz labs software. You might discover that many wildlife photographers have improved sharpness over you due to this. Also raw shooting will really improve your ability to have control over detail in images. These two things probably have a greater ability to improve images than a new body. 
 

James
 

Use RAW+jpeg and you'll have the jpegs for quick use but if you take an amazing image, you'll have the RAW available which will allow you to get the best out of your image. This is especially true if you underexpose or blow highlights ever.   You'll need RAW if you want to enter any wildlife photography competitions ever as well.

At the risk of going off-topic a bit, my experience of Topaz (SharpenAI and DenoiseAI) seems to be that it can help get an already good image slightly better, but doesn't really help much with less-than-good images. Particularly with jpg images (tends to accentuate jpg artifacts). Works better with raw images, but still has 'issues': For example with something like a bird in flight where the body is sharp but the wings become somewhat blurred towards the tips, the software sharpens the body and base of wings nicely, but then looses the plot completely part way down the wings. You end up with a somewhat unrealistic transition from very sharp to very blurred (a bit like focus stacking). Similarly with any subject where there is limited depth of field. I also distrusted it's tendency to manufacture detail that wasn't there (e.g., unrealistic feather patterns). Overall, it's OK software if used carefully (more work checking and limiting its inventiveness), but it won't turn a mediocre image into a good one. Your experience?

My experience is similar. De noise is to my mind the best part of the software. I haven’t really used it with jpegs so am not aware of issues here. Used sparingly, it can be helpful. I don’t really do loads of wildlife and not in any serious way.  For landscape and especially for drone images, ( Atlantic Coast topo pics at present) denoise does clean up images well. I find that I really dial down the de noise settings all of the time otherwise Too much texture and detail is lost. For me the results are better by creating a tiff in topaz as in16 bit and then exporting to jpeg from Lightroom. 
James

I suggest you start with the simple things: Making best use of the camera's raw dynamic range (most of it's thrown away when it generates a jpg) and local contrast enhancement (as opposed to global). How you do it depends on your software tools. And don't over-do it!

Having said that, part of trick is learning when it's worth digging out the raw file and spending time on it and when it's not. That only comes with experience and knowledge of your camera and of what you can do in raw development. Sometimes - particularly under good lighting conditions - you might not be able to improve on what the in-camera jpg conversion can do and shouldn't waste your time on it. It quite a learning curve!

All my images are shot in RAW, I never shoot jpg.

The trick (within LR at least) is spending time getting a baseline global RAW processing Preset that you apply to all the RAW files on first import.

That way, you'll get an immediate 'jpeg' equivalent upon import.

In my experience, the 'hassle-free' RAW-Preset processed image is always better than any in-camera processed jpeg could be.  Its a win-win.

(Unless you are working with a >40 MB sensor, the only minor downside is you'll need a bit more storage).

I think that depends on the camera. With my Canon 6d I'd agree (never shoot just jpg). With the Panasonic G9, not so sure. Assuming I don't have blown highlights I often find it hard to match the in-camera balance of noise reduction/sharpening in post-processing (I don't have Lightroom and I have the noise reduction/sharpening dialled right down in the camera settings). Either way, still always shoot raw+jpg to have all the options.

With Capture Pro Express (the basic free version for Fuji), I can preset it so that if I export without doing any processing at all I get a jpeg identical to an out of camera jpeg. I very rarely do any processing before exporting other than simple contrast, highlights and shadows stuff, but I can then get far more out of the shadows and highlights with nicer results than I used to get processing the out of camera jpegs.

So it really takes me very little extra processing time with RAW files than it used to take me with jpegs (really just the exporting) but the results are often far superior.

To the OP: I don't think anybody has mentioned image stabilisation. I don't know how yours currently is, but I would have thought it is key to wildlife without a tripod. You can react to animals/birds far more readily without a tripod anyway.

A camera with a more advanced autofocus setup would definitely help get a greater percentage of sharp shots, and nothing beats expensive fast glass, but you should be able to get some tack sharp shots with the setup you have. It will be hard handheld though.

The thing that improved my wildlife photography the most was a monopod. Hand holding a 600mm lens is tiring, and low percentage to get a sharp shot. Not saying it’s not possible at all, but a lightweight monopod makes things much more reliable. Makes the camera easier to carry too.

That's interesting, as I've used the approach on Canon DSLRs and three different Fuji-X cameras. But not owned a Panasonic ...

Exactly: win-win

Lack of sharpness could be caused by a number of factors - shutter speed too low, aperture not at the sweet spot, front or back focussing but I would have thought the lens is going to have more effect on sharpness than the camera body.

Have you shot a static subject in ideal conditions to check out how the camera/lens combination performs, to help rule out any equipment problems?

Dave

The first thing I thought after reading the lack of use of a tripod was get a monopod. Much lighter, easier to use, and doubles up as a walking pole too. 
A new camera body isn’t going to improve sharpness (unless of course you go up the consumer chain and spend £££ more to get much better ISO performance and therefore can increase aperture/shutter speed to negate motion blur, poor optics etc), so working to improve what you have is probably the best bet. 

Dear All.

Thanks for these ideas and tips. I’m reckoning on sticking with what I’ve got, buying lightroom and buying a decent monopod (I’ve got a cheap one but it’s a bit rubbish). Also need to really suss out different camera settings as well.  When I’m out and about I’ve sometime got a telescope, binoculars and camera. Sometimes a tripod and often a springer spaniel!  
I’ve took loads photos these last few days, will post a few.  

For completeness, there are a couple more factors:

1. At 600mm atmospherics can be a limiting factor, especially if the air is cold and the sun is warming the ground. Expect several pixels worth of blur just from that with a distant subject.

2. Close up subject with a tele lens quickly run out of DoF if you don't stop down. My own rule-of-thumb is that anything smaller than a dog, filling half the frame (linearly) and you need to stop down if you want all of it to be sharp. That of course means longer exposure or higher ISO, but nobody said it was going to be easy!

Looking at the photos you have just posted, do you make use of point exposure metering? I find it really helps with wildlife when the animal or bird is darker against a brighter background.

Lenses and technique  tend to be the limiting factor with sharpness rather than the camera, however a camera that has better high iso performance and better/quicker autofocus will help and in body image stabilisation is a game changer for hand held stuff.

shoot raw or raw+jpeg as a lot nor can be done with a good raw photo.

Check your lens and auto focus basically focus on something with a fine pattern, a newspaper angled away from you at 45degree at your usual wild life distance, Make a note of what bit you focused on, use a tripod, mirror lock up timer and anything else to prevent camera shake.

check that the point you chose is the most in-focus point then do a bit of pixel peeping to see if your happy with the level of sharpness, try it for the next 1.5 stops up.

I haven’t used topaz, I did take a group of wildlife photographers out recently who all swore by it, but as others have pointed out it unlikely to recover a blurred photo.

Topaz denoise is pretty amazing for wildlife if you have to shoot hi ISO (so pretty much all the time for me). The performance at reducing the noise but retaining the detail is outstanding. 
The same can be done with other software I’m sure, but not so easily.

Given that you sometimes have a load of gear and dog I think you can be fairly pleased with your results. It is never easy juggling equipment and, as I know every morning, having a dog with you moves things into a different and more challenging area.

Keep posting.

Dave

DenoiseAI is very good at removing noise, but I'm not so keen on its 'enhance sharpness' effect. Cosmetically it's fine, but as noted above, it does produce somewhat weird artifacts when deciding what needs sharpening and what it can't do. Used judiciously it's OK, but it's not magic. I don't particularly like the sharp-but-fictitious look it is prone to generate - an AI version of unsharp mask halos. Yes, as with any sharpening technology, you can do masked blending of the result with the original to control its excesses, but that's hard work, particularly given how unpredictable the 'enhance sharpness' effect is. Personally I prefer the wavelets or deconvolution methods (depending on the subject matter) simply because they're much more predictable and controllable.

No doubt, it’s very easy to over do it (as for most noise reduction/sharpening). Definitely works for me though most of the time, although I only use it for wildlife when I’ve had to use high ISO.

I find for things like astro it leaves horrible artefacts, and for landscape, usually not necessary in the first place, as it’s much easier to get the exposure correct with lower ISO.

Totally agree about using wavelets and decon for astro, but I’ve never bothered with that kind of detailed approach for terrestrial stuff. I like to go for a nice and quick approach.

I’m a professional sport photographer so very familiar with long lens use and their foibles, if you’d like me to take a closer look at a few of your pics and see if I can pinpoint what’s causing any softness or other issues then drop me an email through my profile and we can sort out you sending me some over

If you're thinking to use Lightroom it's currently 30% off on Amazon.

For those already using Lightroom I hear the discount can be used for your annual subscription and will commence on your renewal date. Don't quote me on it though, buyer beware and all that!