Nature Photography Dilemma - Raise ISO or Drop Shutter

[GorgeWalker]

Hi All,

So getting along on my learning journey, however, something that always stumps me in the field, particularly when photographing birds, are the following things:

- Is there an ideal shutter speed for stationary, small birds?
- What's the better compromise, slower than ideal shutter speed? Or to go to a higher ISO, i.e. ISO 3200? For example, if my shutter speed is a little slow at 1/250 but ISO is already at 1600. Do I stick with that shutter speed or bump the ISO (i.e. What's the better compromise?)

I hope this makes sense? I'm often left trying to work out if I should just deal with a slower than ideal shutter speed or if I should just bump up the ISO, and hence the noise?

Camera is a Nikon d3500 using a VR 300mm lens.

Brendan

[I Like to Watch]

Ultimately, the shot must be in focus. If the chosen shutter speed doesn't allow this (due to subject or camera movement), then of course, bump up the ISO. This is assuming you have no further room to move with your Aperture setting.

[ameerat42]

Well, your questions have raised one for me:
Do your lenses have optical stabilisation (OS mostly, but sometimes IS, for "image").
To continue, some camera bodies have IBIS, which sounds ornithological, but which
means "In-Body-Image-Stabilisation".

A part-answers to my own Q is: I don't think your camera body has IBIS. Anyway, if you
think that 1/250sec is still rather long for stationary birds, then some form of O/IS may
be needed.

Back to your questions:
For me, make it a "no" to an ideal shutter speed...
For the compromise, it's also a non-definite answer. It's a decision you'll have to make.
That's what makes you a photographer. As you describe it, you're in the position to test
both situations. Whatever you come up with can be called your experience, and can be
shared here.

Just a recap: If your travels take you into serious wildlife territory, consider a "longer,
OS-capable lens". In such an acquisition, get one that is full-frame capable. If you
eventually end up with an IBIS body, you can switch OFF the lens OS.

[paulheath]

as I Like to be Watched has said, the subject has to be sharp and the eyes in focus......... your camera and lens will give ok results at a higher iso ( any noise reduction program can help you eliminate unwanted noise ) ...... now iv shot birds for quite a while, and iv shot birds at 1/30 as i didnt want to push the iso boundaries, and still tack sharp...how??....Tripod...tripod.....tripod.... a good , and i mean good, not cheap ( you WILL regret buying a cheap tripod ) can help you out .. learn how to 'feather" the shutter button, learn back button focusing. now unless your shooting into heavy wooded/forest/mangrove/rainforest.... you should be hitting well over 1/300 with f9-10 iso 800 on an average Aussie day.... a sumwhat rule is "shutter speed over your focal length ie 300mm lens=1/300 or more shutter speed.
Hope this helps somewhat... just keep practising and enjoying yourself.

[GorgeWalker]

Well, your questions have raised one for me:
Do your lenses have optical stabilisation (OS mostly, but sometimes IS, for "image").
To continue, some camera bodies have IBIS, which sounds ornithological, but which
means "In-Body-Image-Stabilisation".

A part-answers to my own Q is: I don't think your camera body has IBIS. Anyway, if you
think that 1/250sec is still rather long for stationary birds, then some form of O/IS may
be needed.

Back to your questions:
For me, make it a "no" to an ideal shutter speed...
For the compromise, it's also a non-definite answer. It's a decision you'll have to make.
That's what makes you a photographer. As you describe it, you're in the position to test
both situations. Whatever you come up with can be called your experience, and can be
shared here.

Just a recap: If your travels take you into serious wildlife territory, consider a "longer,
OS-capable lens". In such an acquisition, get one that is full-frame capable. If you
eventually end up with an IBIS body, you can switch OFF the lens OS.

My lens has VR, vibration reduction apparently. Assume it’s the same thing? Doubt the camera has - it is entry level after all.

And I don’t necessarily think 1/250 is slow. Just seems the consensus has been that it was. But I think my primary issues have been focusing up until now.

I’m definitely starting to think about a longer lens, such as the sigma. Baby steps.

- - - Updated - - -

as I Like to be Watched has said, the subject has to be sharp and the eyes in focus......... your camera and lens will give ok results at a higher iso ( any noise reduction program can help you eliminate unwanted noise ) ...... now iv shot birds for quite a while, and iv shot birds at 1/30 as i didnt want to push the iso boundaries, and still tack sharp...how??....Tripod...tripod.....tripod.... a good , and i mean good, not cheap ( you WILL regret buying a cheap tripod ) can help you out .. learn how to 'feather" the shutter button, learn back button focusing. now unless your shooting into heavy wooded/forest/mangrove/rainforest.... you should be hitting well over 1/300 with f9-10 iso 800 on an average Aussie day.... a sumwhat rule is "shutter speed over your focal length ie 300mm lens=1/300 or more shutter speed.
Hope this helps somewhat... just keep practising and enjoying yourself.

Do they make walking around uncomfortable?

[I Like to Watch]

Do they make walking around uncomfortable?

Referring to Tripod.

A tripod will overcome "most" issues with low lighting as it will enable slower shutter speeds. Of course, this assumes a stationary subject (which you have indicated is often the case).
When using a Tripod, try using 'Timer' function...or purchase a trigger cable (remote or direct). Also, turn off VR/OS/IS as this can confuse the camera when mounted on a tripod.

With the right camera bag, Tripods can be strapped in/onto the bag so not overly inconvenient. I remember reading a comment somewhere that if you can't get your Tripod into a good position for taking a shot, then change your position .
While it isn't always possible, this was an indication of the importance the photographer placed on using a tripod.

[ameerat42]

^Tripods certainly are handy. Another way to carry one if you don't have a camera bag
(back-pack type) is to sling it over your shoulder via a strap, as in some of these pics.

Another way of minimising your movement is to brace yourself against anything handy,
like a tree, fence post... - with the VR/I/OS switched ON. I have managed 1/100sec at
F=500mm many times like this, and sometimes down to about 1/50sec. There is more
to the technique, though, as you have to ensure your shutter press motion doesn't induce
extra movement.

Also when using tripods, unsteady and unbalanced camera attachment can result in
some blur when the shutter fires (and mirror moves).

[Glenda]

I honestly don't think there is such a thing as a stationary bird. It might not be in flight but usually will move a little. I'd always opt for higher ISO to allow a high enough shutter speed when shooting hand held.

[Bensch]

Great advice so far

1/250th is more than acceptable for capturing a bird that isn't in flight, but as has been mentioned previously, proper focus is a must.

VR or IS will help a great deal to smooth out the small movements when holding a camera, and also a proper stance will reduce shake, just a matter of practice and perseverance.

Here's an example of a bird sitting on a branch, which was taken at 1/160th, ISO 800, f/11, 600mm (handheld).

[Tannin]

Birds are highly visual creatures. In general, they don't have a "critical distance" closer than which you cannot come, they have a "critical visibility factor". You can get much closer to a bird, especially a small bird, in bad light than you can when everything is bright and clear. Now you can think of this as one of life's cruelties, but it's more useful to see it as opportunity. When the light is poor, with care, you can get very close indeed to your subjects (or rather, you can allow them to approach very close to you). USE THIS! When the light is bad, get closer, and you don't have to crop as much. You can use a higher ISO AND get a cleaner overall result even so.

Now I'm a big fan of fast shutter speeds for bird work, but I'll let that speed drop as far as I dare when the light is bad - typically, I draw the line at around 1/250th with the 600/4. I can go lower than that handholding the 100-400 II - it's an amazing lens with brilliant IS - but don't usually do that birding.

Remember, you can use higher ISOs if you get close enough to avoid cropping. Close is good.

[GorgeWalker]

Thanks for all the responses guys. Food for thought.

Although I'm gertting some decent shots at the moment - I'm still getting a lot of shots that just look washed out or soft. I don't know if it's the shutterspeed, higher ISO, lack of stabilisation or plain and simple focus issue. Or is it equipement, i.e. lens?

Examples:

Gray Fantail

Welcome Swallow

[Glenda]

Don't for one minute assume we all come back from an outing with nothing but good shots. Most of us will probably delete more images than we keep after a birding outing. As for the lens, you just have to accept its limitations. I have an older Sigma 150-500 which works well in good light but I know it will be a waste of time shooting a bird against the light or in deep shade. Yes I can lift shadows etc in PP but it is just so much better to concentrate on the subjects which are in good light which will give much better results and be far less problematic in post.

[ameerat42]

...I have an older Sigma 150-500 which works well in good light but I know it will be a waste of time shooting a bird against the light or in deep shade...

Glenda, as the OP has been hinting of the need for a longer lens, please expand on the above point.
IMO it would be partly because of the f/6.3 maximum aperture at f=500mm, but this would apply to
lots of same-class lenses.

[Toddyh]

I think Glenda touched on the issue there. Both those birds appear to be in the shade. Both images appear noisy which is likely a result of the 1600iso. Some cameras do create noise at that kind of iso. Yours being entry level is likely one of these.
The focus does also look soft.
Have a go at finding some subjects in good light that allow you to drop your iso and practice your focus. Doesn't have to be a bird. Put a can of coke on top of a fence post and practice focus on that.

[I Like to Watch]

...I'm still getting a lot of shots that just look washed out or soft. I don't know if it's the shutterspeed, higher ISO, lack of stabilisation or plain and simple focus issue. Or is it equipement, i.e. lens?

Do a simple test with your lens. Place a Ruler on a surface facing lengthways away from you (a 1 metre ruler or tape measure would be more useful for larger focal length test). Using a tripod, Focus on a given point on the ruler (eg 20cm) and take the shot. Check the shot on your PC, and see if the lends did actually focus on the nominated point. It is not uncommon for a lens to forward or back focus and some camera bodies allow incremental adjustments for this. (Note : you could also set up some small objects like Chess pieces in a line for a similar test)

[Glenda]

Glenda, as the OP has been hinting of the need for a longer lens, please expand on the above point.
IMO it would be partly because of the f/6.3 maximum aperture at f=500mm, but this would apply to
lots of same-class lenses.

In low light this lens struggles to focus which is the main problem. So even if a bird is in shade at midday it will hunt for focus and quite often not find it. Also wide open at 500mm definitely decreases detail and its sweet spot seems to be f8.

[ameerat42]

Edit: Sorry, Glenda. I thought the OP wrote that post , and my reply was for him. /Edit

Try that with another lens. The focusing motor is in the lens, but ultimately it is controlled
by feedback from the camera's AF system. I fear you'll "get another lens and..."

There's nothing like a simple test (but I know you know that ).

Edit: "...you...", "..you'll..." refers to the OP. /Edit

[Glenda]

Edit: Sorry, Glenda. I thought the OP wrote that post , and my reply was for him. /Edit

Try that with another lens. The focusing motor is in the lens, but ultimately it is controlled
by feedback from the camera's AF system. I fear you'll "get another lens and..."

There's nothing like a simple test (but I know you know that ).

Edit: "...you...", "..you'll..." refers to the OP. /Edit

This particular lens is notorious for AF problems in low light Am. Works fine in good light. My 70-200 f2.8 will focus happily in low light that the Sigma would fail in.

[ameerat42]

^Then I wonder why? I can only think that the AF works with aperture wide open, making it
two stops dimmer at f/5.6 than at f/2.8. This is why I said to try other lenses, but sadly I did
not specify "of the same max f-stop". Ie, it's not a matter of assigning the result to the lens
alone.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm persisting in clarifying this issue because two separate systems are involved - camera and lens.
If you're (the general "you") saying that this lens does not focus well in low light because of its a
relatively "slow" lens, then OK, but that is the reason, not an implied inherent deficiency in its design.

Of course then an f/2.8 lens - which is relatively "fast" will do better, but that doesn't mean it has an
inherently better design. It's trying to force a comparison between unlike fruits.

To the OP: You might want to look up "fast" and "slow" lenses, just for jargon's sake.

[ricktas]

Either your lens is back-focusing (focusing behind the subject) if you are using autofocus and are correctly choosing the focus point, or you are missing the focus point yourself. The sharpest part of your photo is just behind your subject.

When you take the photo are you slowly pressing the shutter 'gently' and making sure you are not moving the camera slightly at the time. It could well be technique. But it could also be your lens needs adjustment. Not sure with your model, but Nikon have in-camera lens specific adjustment options to correct this, rather than seeking to get the lens itself calibrated.

49894451582_a19ffddbb8_b-edited.jpg