If I had time, I'd mask out the hare and apply specific noise reduction and sharpening to it, separately from the background. for some reason Panasonic files are huge though and slow up on my machine too much for this to be practical in AfterShot 3 (I have other stuff running I cannot shut down presently). Raw Therapee is more efficient but I don't know it as well as I do AfterShot.
Note that when using a raw file, things like colour balance and contrast aren't fixed in the original image - there's metadata telling you what the camera thinks is correct, but you get pretty much what the sensors got, unmolested. Much more adjustment is possible than with jpeg files, as no choices were made automatically before the image arrived in the editor. So you have more control and leeway, usually.
That said, this image has two biggies (From the EXIF metadata: ISO 80, 1/125 sec shutter, f/6, at 200mm focal length*):
1. sensor noise: given there's plenty of light this is the controlling issue. It's making any kind of NR/sharpening really hard to do, surprisingly so.
2. camera shake: there is sufficient to lose detail like the hare's whiskers. The two images below (1:1 screengrabs from AfterShot) show the problem - the hay blade at the animal's hind leg has obvious blur, and the whiskers were obviously optically sharp (2nd image), but not captured as such. It's not clear if this is the shutter/mirror (does it have either?) or it being handheld.
The camera has a tiny sensor, so if this is actual focal length, the optical zoom would be at well over 1000mm for a full 35mm frame sensor. A prime lens for my 6D of that length would be north of $30,000 (Canon don't make one!), so it's a huge ask for a bridge camera.
That said, in the old chemical-camera world it was a thing that, to handhold you should choose a shutter speed 1/focal length in mm or faster, to keep camera shake to an acceptable level. Otherwise choices are either tripod/monopod, beanbag or increase the shutter speed and ISO setting. I guess the lens is already wide open (EXIF: f/5.9).
Try some camera shake experiments:
- Find a static subject, such as a sign, outdoors at a decent distance.
- Start with a similar ISO and shutter speed to the hare pic.
- Try increasing the shutter to around 1/1000 or higher, leaving the camera on shutter priority (so it adjusts aperture and ISO as necessary).
- Find the slowest shutter speed you think is sufficiently sharp, and bear that in mind when zoomed right in handheld.
- If the camera has anti-shake of some sort, try it both on and off. This will tell you how much you gain, and what if any are the artefacts.
Good camera bags make excellent beanbags too. I used one like this for years:
Ebay photo - the item is here.
It is intended to go under a rucksack (there's a waist belt and hip pads built in). The soft top is ideal as a beanbag, and the lid's overhanging bits fold upwards so lenses don't roll off when you swap them over. I've changed lenses in all sorts of conditions and never dropped one off the top of the bag. It also cushions a camera perfectly.
Overall it's an excellent design and I've had several very like it - my first one was sold to me by the MD/owner of CCS back in the 1980s when the company was tiny, based in Clevedon, Somerset. They got their break selling custom bags to the BBC Nat Hist Unit for film cameramen to take round the world doing Attenborough series.
In the digital age I've had to move on to a larger bag, which is annoying, but it's still CCS (I have a collection of them now). I haven't bought a brand new one since the first though! They're very rugged and extremely good value secondhand, although there are now far too many models on the secondhand market to choose from.
Finally, I've tried to find a good crop for that image. This is very much personal choice (I'm a fan of dividing thirds, etc.), but bear in mind cropping also means reducing the information content of the image - in effect making the pixels bigger.
With a bridge camera you really need to get close to filling the frame with the subject if you can, otherwise you'll run into detail issues like the above.
*not sure if this is actual 200mm or converted to '35mm equivalent' I suspect it's actual, having looked on the DPreview site..