Faster or Closer?

[TriggerHappy]

Some of you may have noticed my previous kingfisher thread, this follows on from that.

I've identified several sites the kingfisher frequents and am all setup to test my patience. The only question I have remaining is whether or not to use a 1.7x teleconverter on my 300mm f4. Unfortunately the perches i've identified are all on the far side of the river and the kingfisher will be fairly small in the frame. Not tiny, but smaller than ideal. As it stands though I'm getting 1/50th second exposure at F4 ISO800 and with the D200 that's the top I'd freely use although may stretch to 1250 if necessary, 1/50th is also fairly slow although I will be on a tripod it limits me to just pictures of the bird stationary. If I were to go the teleconverter route I'd obviously get the bird to fill the frame suitably but would drop to f/6.7 and consequently i'd be looking at around ISO 1600 to get a similar shutter speed. If you could vote on the poll for the option you'd go for that'd be much appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Woodsie]

Invest in a 300/f2.8
How small are we talking?
If the image will be of poor quality due to cropping then you may as well use the TC.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Probably looking at a 50% crop which will still retain some of the surround.

I'll need to have finished university and spent a several successful years working before I can contemplate dropping £4k on lens!

Edit - Ok, own up! Who told me to give up?

 

[littlemonster]

I was going to vote TC as you only need them to stay still for a second for a great picture... but then I noticed you're only shooting at 1/50th of a second anyway, which is quite slow actually.

But then I suppose the basic principle does stand.. and having watched kingfishers, they do sometime stay quite still as I've seen when looking for a fishy to eat..


Is the D200 a rubbish camera then, I can shoot outside on an overcast day at 1/500th of a second at f/5.6 and only be on ISO of 800, you seem to not have much choice!

 

[TriggerHappy]

Is the D200 a rubbish camera then, I can shoot outside on an overcast day at 1/500th of a second at f/5.6 and only be on ISO of 800, you seem to not have much choice!

Not at all. My understanding is, and I'm more than happy if someone can explain otherwise, that the camera makes no difference to the level of light hitting the sensor. All cameras in the same situation would produce the same shutter speed at the same settings...hence why lightmeters are universal. The problem is that the river is fairly wooded along the banks which means low light levels over most patches despite having had several days of uninterrupted sunshine. 1/50th is the lowest I've noticed in various situations but it's rare I see over 1/100th.

 

[littlemonster]

Not at all. My understanding is, and I'm more than happy if someone can explain otherwise, that the camera makes no difference to the level of light hitting the sensor. All cameras in the same situation would produce the same shutter speed at the same settings...hence why lightmeters are universal. The problem is that the river is fairly wooded along the banks which means low light levels over most patches despite having had several days of uninterrupted sunshine. 1/50th is the lowest I've noticed in various situations but it's rare I see over 1/100th.

Silly question, are you doing this on auto/A/S/P or manual then?

Just if you did it on manual you could possible underexpose it a little then photoshop/gimp it or whatever, perhaps allow a bit better shutter speed?

 

[TriggerHappy]

Silly question, are you doing this on auto/A/S/P or manual then?

Just if you did it on manual you could possible underexpose it a little then photoshop/gimp it or whatever, perhaps allow a bit better shutter speed?

Have been in aperture-priority but taking a meter reading and using manual with a shutter speed a touch faster isn't a half bad idea. Any ideas how many stops can be safely recovered in lightroom (shooting in raw, of course)?

 

[littlemonster]

Have been in aperture-priority but taking a meter reading and using manual with a shutter speed a touch faster isn't a half bad idea. Any ideas how many stops can be safely recovered in lightroom (shooting in raw, of course)?

Not a clue, I'm still learning this myself + I'm using GIMP... I've recovered a couple of early morning images that were about 2 stops out (underexposed) though with success, from what I can gather it's ok either way so long as you don't have blown highlights or whatever the opposite of those is :shrug:

I think it also depends how good you are with other tools, earlier I took a picture of one of my Dad's carp and due to water 1 or 2 spots were blown out, but I just cloned them out, took about 5 minutes :shrug: And as said, I'm still learning!

 

[TriggerHappy]

Not a clue, I'm still learning this myself + I'm using GIMP... I've recovered a couple of early morning images that were about 2 stops out (underexposed) though with success, from what I can gather it's ok either way so long as you don't have blown highlights or whatever the opposite of those is :shrug:

I think it also depends how good you are with other tools, earlier I took a picture of one of my Dad's carp and due to water 1 or 2 spots were blown out, but I just cloned them out, took about 5 minutes :shrug: And as said, I'm still learning!

The background is just a brown muddy bank with some small green plants growing so nothing that will cause particular light or dark patches, and as the area will be shaded I should see minimum reflections and shadows. Thanks for the suggestion I think i'll take a couple of trial shots as I settle in and see what the histogram shows and if i'm good for even half a stop that'll help hugely, and if it's more then even better! Thanks for the suggestion, it's something I wouldn't have though of myself.

 

[andy182]

def speed over focal length

 

[robmiller]

Not a clue, I'm still learning this myself + I'm using GIMP... I've recovered a couple of early morning images that were about 2 stops out (underexposed) though with success, from what I can gather it's ok either way so long as you don't have blown highlights or whatever the opposite of those is :shrug:

Doing that is just the same as using a higher ISO, and will produce just the same noise.

 

[hollis_f]

Have been in aperture-priority but taking a meter reading and using manual with a shutter speed a touch faster isn't a half bad idea. Any ideas how many stops can be safely recovered in lightroom (shooting in raw, of course)?

Zero.

Boosting exposure in PP is a sure-fire way to produce more noise than if you'd shot with a higher ISO originally.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Doing that is just the same as using a higher ISO, and will produce just the same noise.

Zero.

Boosting exposure in PP is a sure-fire way to produce more noise than if you'd shot with a higher ISO originally.

Thanks guys, fortunately I did a test beforehand and found out just that. Always learning

 

[Kaouthia]

I put "make do with the 300mm". I have a 300mm f/4 AF-S myself and love it. I wouldn't consider switching to the f/2.8 personally considering the difference in cost vs. 1 extra stop of light and the VR isn't going to help if you're on a tripod.

But, some possible options. Is there any way you can setup a good powerful flash or two (like an SB-900 @ 200mm or even some cheap older SBs or YN560s @ 105mm zoom settings) to send light over from your side of the bank to help augment the natural light a bit?

If the sun is coming from roughly behind you, a couple of flashes giving a helping hand wouldn't really be all that noticable as artificial light in the shot, and it might afford you that extra stop and a half for the 1.7x TC.

I have a D200 too and won't get rid of it, but possibly consider trading in for a D300s (or whatever Nikon presents to us in the eventual D400 if you can't currently justify the cost of a new body upgrade) for some higher ISO goodness to get a faster shutter speed? I love my D200 and, as I said, I won't get rid of it, but I never take it above ISO800. The D300s I could happily shoot all day at ISO3200 (which would bump your 1/50th up to 1/200th).

 

[TriggerHappy]

Yeah, it's no fault of the lens or the camera - I do love both - it's just the subject and situation makes for very challenging conditions that pushes the limitations of both, not to mention my own limitations of skill and patience!

I've now come back from holiday so won't have the chance to try other things at that location again but I am on the hunt for a kingfisher spot local to me. The bug has definitely bitten!

I've been fighting off the temptation of a getting a new camera body and think I may hold out for at least another 12 months. The release of the D400 and D4 will be of great interest to me, as will the fall in price of the current D300s and D3s models. It's easy to justify the upgrade from a bridge camera to a DSLR (a move I made a few years ago) but I struggle to justify the bigger price leaps for smaller improvements when upgrading DSLR equipment.

 

[Kaouthia]

The release of the D400 and D4 will be of great interest to me, as will the fall in price of the current D300s and D3s models.

Same. I'm happy enough where I am on a stills basis, although picking up an FX body would be nice I am interested in how Nikon's gonna compete with video in their next generation bodies. If I can get 1080p @ 24, 25, 30, 48, 50 & 60fps, live histogram, and full manual control in a D400 or D4 then I'll get one of those. Otherwise I'll be picking up a second hand D3s and a 5DMk2.

It's easy to justify the upgrade from a bridge camera to a DSLR (a move I made a few years ago) but I struggle to justify the bigger price leaps for smaller improvements when upgrading DSLR equipment.

I went from a D100 to a D200, I got the D100 shortly after they were released (and then 2 more D100s over the course of the next few months), and the D200 shortly before they quit being made. It was definitely worth the upgrade, it was a whole new league of camera. As I'd just so recently bought the D200, I didn't think the D300 was worth the expense of upgrading, but once the D300s came along, it was definitely worth it to me (especially as Nikon were throwing in a free SB-900).

If you did cave and sell your D200 to fund a D300s, I don't think you'd regret it (given that we don't know how long into our future we're looking for a D400). But, if you're happy overall with your D200, stick with it and wait. Personally though, shooting 8fps tracking birds in flight, and a bigger buffer with faster read/write access to the memory is heaven.