When I look at your exposure data (F9, 1/400, ISO 500) what I see is something that is half pregnant - i.e. not a fast enough SS at that FL with that pixel density and that distance on a small detailed object to 90% of the time get it tack sharp, and not a scenario I mentioned above trying for ISO 100/200 and accepting that 1 in 30 might work out. As an example your (F9,1/400, ISO 500) is equivalent to (F8, 1/800, ISO 800) - a SS more closer to getting a much higher hit rate (but still not 90% in my opinion) - or maybe even better for tack sharpness (F8, 1/1250, ISO 1250).
Expanding on the above, on ISO: don't be afraid to err on the high side (as long as it's not clipping highlights you wanted). In general, it will be no worse (and sometimes better) to have a slightly too bright image (as a result of a higher ISO) and reduce the brightness in post, vs choosing a lower ISO and increasing the brightness in post. It's a result of the various sources of noise in the camera - whereby increasing the ISO in-camera will boost some, but not all noise. Increasing the brightness in post will increase the whole signal - including any and all sources of noise that are contained in that signal.
I've found instances where, say, I've increased the ISO level one full stop, and the shutter speed by 2/3 of a stop (to ensure I freeze the action), and got a sharp image that's 1/3 stop over exposed. As long as I've not lost critical highlights, once reduced by 1/3 stop in post the result will likely be better than a potentially blurry image at the former settings.
I also find I tend to lift shadows in a lot of images, so having a slightly overexposed image in-camera helps greatly with the final quality. Note that this is less of an issue with the newest Canon bodes (80D, 5D4, 1Dx2) as there's much less penalty for underexposure (but the above thoughts about shutter speed are still valid).
