Pentax K-r, 70mm F:2.4 (at 2.4 and F:13), 1600 ISO, Photoshop fx.
Not much light, so some (like the top one) I shot at 1/30 second. With a 100mm-equivalent lens, I was sure I couldn't hold that still, so I used the trick of setting the camera on continous firing, and fired off 3-4 shots of each. This will, amazingly enough, usually give one shot which is sharp.
But the in-body Shake Reduction of the Pentax must be better than I thought, because all the shots were sharp!* Very interesting. I guess it means if I use both methods, perhaps I can get sharp shots at 1/8 second with that short tele. ... Hey, why not test it?
No sooner thought than done:
It's decidedly dusk outside, much darker than it looks in this picture. (Yep, ten minutes later it's night.) It's F:6.4 at 1/8 second, and pin-sharp! Kewl. I took four shots in a burst, the first two were blurred, the last two were sharp.
Below is a 100% view (if you click for full size), first fresh from the camera, then with application of sharpen and de-noising filters. Remarkable.
Update:
By the way, "sharpening" in the computer does not create more detail in the photo. What is does is simply enhance the contrast at the edges, which gives the appearance of sharpness!
That type of sharpness is called acutance. An old Agfa film developer called Rodinal created the most amazing acutance, photos seemed so wonderfully sharp. But it had the same downside as Sharpening in software has: it also sharpens noise ("grain" on film), so the noise become more prominent. So it's a whole science to use this (and anti-noise filters) to the best effect.
*I dunno how "sharp" the leaf-pictures seem to you, cuz I did not process towards that in this case, I did not apply any sharpening in Photoshop, which is otherwise pretty standard, and furthermore I used a filter to get that "soft-focus"-like glow the pictures have. Just for fun, now we're talking about it, here's a more standard processing:
