Nikon D300 Eagle flight settings

[timcurtis]

<p>I've tried higher ISO's and f/stops, faster shutter speeds and slower ones, 51 area focus and 21. All done with continous focus. I can't afford those 8K lenses so I'm stuck with what I have. I'm using a Nikon 2x AF-s teleconverter with my 70-200 f/2.8VR. Just about all the flight shots I've taken are shot in manual exposure rather than shutter priority or other settings. Of course the 2x jacks up my f/stop to 5.6 but I don't believe that is the problem I'm having. I have yet to achieve a sharp flight shots. The frustration is overwhelming. Do I hear a Canon in my future? Just trying to get an idea of what settings I should be utilizing.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Of course the 2x jacks up my f/stop to 5.6 but I don't believe that is the problem I'm having.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is the problem you are having. That combo makes $2000+ worth of lenses into a slow 400mm/f5.6 that is not very sharp.</p>

<p>Trying using the 70-200 by itself and see whether you can get sharp images to begin with, and then figure out how to buy into more focal length.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<blockquote>

<p>Do I hear a Canon in my future?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you really think that a different camera brand will let you take better pictures?<br /> I don't have so much problem getting birds IF as long as they are on my reach. I use an AFS 300 f/4 with a 1.4x or 1.7x converters. An AFS-300 f/4 is cheaper than your zoom.<br /> The 1.7x TC makes me get a max aperture of 6.3, maybe the IQ is degraded a bit but they are sharp enough for my use.<br /> Good luck!</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>You don't mention the conditions under which you are shooting - lighting and background to name two important ones. With a clear background and good light, the camera should have no problem focusing even with the TC behind the 70-200. Using 51 AF fields is certainly not the way to go (it's too slow) - I'd try 9 or 21 at most, but would begin by using AF-C and single area mode (just the center area). Acquire focus early and keep panning with the bird. Exposure mode isn't all that important, I prefer S and also turn AutoISO on. This way, I can choose the appropriate shutter speed, and Auto ISO will save the shot in case the lens is already wide open. Of course, the setting is not ideal if you want to stop the lens down all the time; I'd switch to manual mode then.<br>

Am fairly certain that changing brands won't help the matter one bit.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>Plus no one can explain if your panning technique or skill is good without seeing a image that (to your standards) has poor focus.</p>

<p>Here is one shot of a flying pelican. Camera-Nikon D300; Lens-AF-S 70-300mm VR Nikkor; ISO 320.</p><div></div>

[timcurtis]

<p>I think I have a fairly steady hand when panning. I twist at the waist. I've considered using a monopod but I feel it might be restricting. Most of the shots I have are on overcast days. I try to expose for that, but I can go from light to shadows rather quickly. Auto ISO is a good recommendation as well as shutter priority. As far as buying into more focal length, I really see the nikon 24-70 as the next big purchase. It took me nearly a year to pay off my 70-200. Here's a sample shot of an Osprey I took a couple of days ago. I see blur and or noise.</p><div></div>

[arthuryeo]

<p>Tim,<br>

If smaller birds in flight is what you want, there's no substitute for longer lens unless you build a blind and sit in there for hours. Even with a blind, people still use longer lenses.</p>

<p>You may try the more affordable lenses such as the 70-300VR, Sigma 50-500mm when you get a change to test them out in the store.</p>

 

[peterafle]

<p>I'm no expert, and without all the data, it's tough to say, but one possibility is that your shutter speeds are too slow for hand-holding with the focal lengths you are using, if you use the old standby reciprocal rule (eg, a shutter speed that is at least the reciprocal of your 35mm equivalent focal length). One difference between Jerry's tack-sharp pelican and your fuzzy osprey is that he's shooting at 135mm (~200mm equivalent) at 1/800 sec. Your osprey was shot at 600mm and 1/500 sec. At the ranges you're shooting at, I'd have a really hard time panning while holding the camera steady enough to get a sharp shot without a faster shutter. And as Shun points out, the TC is "slowing" your lens, so you're ending up with slower shutter speeds, not to mention any degradation in IQ that comes from the additional optical elements in the TC. <br /> That said -- aside from the sharpness concerns, that's a nice capture of a beautiful bird! Good luck.<br /> Pete</p>

[johnr78735]

<p>I've had the identical problem for the last couple of months. After several hundred shots I isolated my problem to one area...shutter speed. I moved up to 1/2000th and more and now my shots are sharp. I shoot a D300 with 70-200 - 80-400 Nikons and a Sigma 150-500.<br>

John</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>I can't afford those 8K lenses so I'm stuck with what I have</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Most of us can't either. So what do we do?<br>

Take full advantage of our understanding in technique and apply some common sense.</p>

<p>A expensive lens is not always the answer if we try to photograph a small bird a 1,000 yards...seems simple; right? Yet many try to do just that; exceed the capability of the lens.</p>

<p>The example of the Pelical above for instance. I'd venture a guess it was less than 100 yards away from the photog. Big bird, not too far away, slow moving= a pretty good shot. Common sense shot.</p>

<p>While wild life photography is not my area of expertise, I do love it when I get the time.<br>

None of my lenses are over 200mm and I am not an advocate of TC's.<br>

That said; I have captured some magnificent shots of geese, ducks, small birds and a few eagles.<br>

What I <strong>don't</strong> do is attempt the "eagle grabbing a fish from a stream" shot at 400 yards...Not with my equipment; that would be a waste.</p>

<p>Even photographing ducks (which can be great fun BTW) is not as easy as some might think.<br>

A duck flapping it's wings in flight for instance will blur even at 1/1000 sec exposure.</p>

<p>My advice based on what you have:</p>

<p>Get close<br>

Shoot high shutter speeds based on what you are shooting<br>

Avoid high ISO's if you can<br>

Don't shoot backlit subjects unless you want the siloette look.<br>

In flight photos while cool are not always the best photos of birds.</p>

<p>Shooting AF-C, 9pt..21 pt or 51pt will depend on WHAT yu are trying to capture...again, some common sense will rule the day.</p>

<p>Seagulls as an example are not particularly fast birds, but they change direction remarkably fast..so AF-C 21 point seems best for them or even AF-S! yes..AF-S will work for seagulls.</p>

<p>Lastly, (Focus & Release) will help get more bird shots in focus when in AF-C.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<blockquote>

<p>I see blur and or noise</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I won't say anything about noise in such a small file but blur is good..... at least for my taste....<br>

For example, the pelican above is completly frozen and to me it looks like is falling from the sky instead of flying.... you need a some blur to show the motion on the shot....</p>

 

[hayward]

<p>Photographing birds on flight is hard.</p>

<p>Pelicans are relatively easy. Depending on where you live, they may be common, they are large, relatively slow and predictable, and let you get relatively close. Raptors are harder. You may not see them very often and when you do, it is often unexpected and they fly fast. You often get them against a brightly lit sky, which an fool your camera's meter. Mostly, you can't get close -- certainly not as close as a pelican.</p>

<p>I have used the Sigma 50-500mm extensively, as well as the Nikon 300mm f/4 plus 1.4x & 2x teleconverter, and the 300mm f/2.8 plus 1.7x TC. The Sigma is okay to get you started. The 300mm Nikon rig is better, and the 300mm f/2.8 is best. I also have the Nikon 80-400mm but haven't used it enough yet to draw any conclusions. I suspect a Nikon 500mm or 600mm is even better, but I haven't gotten there yet. The tradeoff for the 300mm f/2.8 is size and weight. Since you are renting, I would try all your options. </p>

<p>Realistically, you are not going to get good eagle photos with a 70-300mm lens with any camera body, unless they are in a zoo. Since budget is a concern (as is the case wit most of us) I'd try the auction site and some of the more reputable used sellers. Depending on the model, you may pay 30% to 60% of the cost of a new lens. </p>

<p> </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>No way you can shoot an osprey (or any large bird for that matter) in flight with 1/500s shutter speed at the focal length you used. 1/800 is the absolute minimum; I usually try for 1/1250 or 1/1600 (and faster the smaller the bird).<br>

<br /> I don't understand what Kevin Delson is trying to say. No one will attempt to shoot a fish-grabbing eagle at 400 yards - that's digiscoping distance and not anything that can be done with a telephoto. Not even 100 yards - well with an 800mm lens, maybe. I shoot with 400mm and 500mm all the time (on DX bodies) - and usually don't venture past 50-60 yards for large birds in flight. At 400mm and with a pelican in flight coming straight at you, at 35 yards you'd be clipping wing tips.<br>

<br /> AF-S for seagulls - they better not be moving at all then; I can't count the occasions where I had the camera on AF-S from a previous shoot and produced all OOF images - until I realized and switched to AF-C. In AF-S, the override works on some occasions - when the AF detects motion during focus acquisition - but I rather not rely on it.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Just to illustrate what I wrote above - shot today - 400mm, 1/800s, f/8, ISO200, -1/3 EV, S mode, AF-C, focus distance - about 30 yards.</p><div></div>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't understand what Kevin Delson is trying to say.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I was making a point Dieter, albeit a exaggerated one; that too many photogs try to use their equip beyond what it is capable of.</p>

<p>As far as AF-S...Perhaps you have great success with AF-C as have I..But I will reiterate, it is possible and sometime preferable to photograph seagulls in AF-S.</p>

<p>AF-C is mistakenly used to track everything where AF-S would have provided a more predictable result as in the following photo..Shot in AF-S.</p>

<p>Since the bird was neither approaching nor receding at the moment I squeezed off the shot; AF-S was preferable.</p>

<p>Target acquisition requires understanding subject movement.<br>

There is more than one way to skin the shot.</p><div></div>

[marc_felber1]

<p>Have you consider purching an older Nikon older 500mm lens model, they are usually much cheaper, then the newer models. What works for me is using 1/1250 and countious mode. in 10 fps and panning mode. You may need a camera with a 1.3 with a bigger chip can make a difference.</p>