Galana's fourth effort. "Never mind the quality feel the width".

[Tdgraves]

@Galana the faster shutter speed helps to compensate for movement (yours and the birds). 1/200 And even 1/320 would be lower than I would aim for

 

you are correct that your blackbird at 1/1250 should have been fine. I wonder if that was a contrast problem causing issues with focusing?

[TonyQ]

@Galana  Is there any way of knowing with your camera what lens length it is using for a particular shot?

Shot number one looks like camera shake to me. It could be if you are using a long lens length that 1/200th is too slow. One thing I do when taking a shot where the shutter speed is low is to take a burst of photos in the hope that one of the burst will be sharper than the others (and there usually is one).

Photo 2 has similar settings to photo 1 but is sharp. (Nice photo!) Were the lens length settings similar for the 2 pictures? It looks like it might be at a shorter lens length

 

One of the things with higher iso (especially with a small sensor) is that you may get less detail than at low iso. You can only really find out by systematically varying the settings (at the same lens length) and checking the results. You don't have to have a cooperative bird to do this. Any object with a fair amount of detail would do.

 

(I was writing as @xelas was!)

Edited May 10, 2020 by TonyQ

[PeterHG]

All good points made by our fellow-BY-shooters! I don't own the camera, but a 'safe' method for shutter speed vs reach was always: shoot at 1/focal length. So for a 400 mm lens that would be a minimum of 1/400. This is based on the 'real' reach of a full-frame sensor. The Nikon P900 has a small sensor, enabling the incredible optical reach. That reach equals (I think) 2000mm. This would mean a shutter speed of at least speed 1/2000. The image stabilisation of the camera helps to lower that number, of course. With the 5 stops stabilisation Nikon claims even down to 1/60, but in real life  that would be difficult to maintain, unless you resorted to series of shots as others suggested. (A lot more photos to browse through is the downside to that method ;)). This sounds to me like a camera where shutter priority (with something like 1/500) would be the way to go, certainly on subjects farther away. There the depth of field matters less. For closer subjects aperture priority would pay off. The trade-off with the higher shutter speeds is the iso, but noise is mostly easier to deal with than unsharp shots. I do agree on the excellent Dunnock and Blackbird shots!

[Galana]

6 hours ago, xelas said:

BTW, both the Dunnock and the second Blackbird are excellent images!

Thanks. Hard to believe that a shutter speed of 1/320 came so much better than 1/200. All my shots are hand held. Maybe my posture varied or I just needed a drink?

Thanks to all that have helped.

6 hours ago, Tdgraves said:

you are correct that your blackbird at 1/1250 should have been fine

That was my puzzle too.

 

6 hours ago, TonyQ said:

Is there any way of knowing with your camera what lens length it is using for a particular shot?

It is almost always on full optical zoom due to small targets. I do go less for larger birds but a Wren at 20 paces needs the full travel to prevent heavy cropping later to get an image.

I gave up on bursts/continuous as I got more irritated by having to wait for the sequence to store before camera was ready for use (usually coincided with the target doing something really interestng) but I will try anything.

Both 1 and 2 were at full 2000mm.

Thanks also @PeterHG I may try shutter priority at 1/500 and see what happens..

 

Once more thanks to all my helpful friends on BY.

[Peter Connan]

I also agree that the 1/200th shot's problem is probably mostly motion blur due to a too-slow shutter speed. However, I suspect the first of the two blackbirds is possibly "soft" from high-ISO noise, which is reduced by in-camera noise reduction. I suspect the "operating range" here is quite narrow, as the extremely long lens needs a lot of shutter speed but the very small sensor struggles with the resulting high ISO.

 

Crass and gauche as it is, there is a place for experimenting with newspaper stuck on the wall. Because at least it is not flitting about.

I would use that (or a book, or even a face-brick or bare stone wall) to determine how fast a shutter speed you need at a given focal length to reasonably reliably eliminate motion blur.

 

As others have said, it pays to take multiple shots, and especially so when you are pushing the envelope with regard to shutter speed. In bad lighting conditions, I will often start at my "standard" shutter speed (which is 1/2000th, just to bring this into context), and, if there is time, I will reduce the shutter speed by half, take a couple of shots, bring it down some more, another couple of shots. On birds, I don't ever really drop below about 1/250th or so. That whole process can be done in less than 10 seconds.

 

But I am not sure we should be coaching you to this extent, as we do need an EBC champion here!

[Galana]

1 hour ago, Peter Connan said:

But I am not sure we should be coaching you to this extent, as we do need an EBC champion here!

I do so agree. This coaching is most welcome as once I know how to get better results I can take steps to avoid doing so.

[Soukous]

17 hours ago, Galana said:

It is almost always on full optical zoom due to small targets. I do go less for larger birds but a Wren at 20 paces needs the full travel to prevent heavy cropping later to get an image.

 

There is an argument that using a shorter focal length will give you a sharper image which can then be cropped to give a better end result than a shot taken at full zoom.

[Galana]

3 hours ago, Soukous said:

There is an argument that using a shorter focal length will give you a sharper image which can then be cropped to give a better end result than a shot taken at full zoom.

Thanks. I am wrestling with that argument myself but worry that the image on a small sensor like mine won't take the cropping needed. However there will, one hopes, be side benefits of less shake and faster shutter all other things being equal.

I did just that this morning but am running late and have yet to see what the result was/is.

Watch this space (or not!)

[Soukous]

56 minutes ago, Galana said:

I did just that this morning but am running late

 

Oh Lord, don't tell me the ceilings need painting again

[Galana]

34 minutes ago, Soukous said:

Oh Lord, don't tell me the ceilings need painting again

Noooo! Something much more mundane.

 

Anyway here are two comparisons:-

Woodpigeon. Taken at about 30yards/metres. I have cropped to try and keep image size similar.

Top was full 2000mm. 1/1000 f.6.5

BTM.   550mm 1/1250  f.5 Somewhat cleaner but to my eye a bit stark.

 

 

 

Greenfinch. Maybe 45 yards so I was really pushing it just to see if it worked.

Focal length 2000mm  1/1600  f.6.5 

 

950mm.  1/1600  f.6.3.

Again a more 'useable' image. (Not up to my standard at all!)

 

All images at ISO200.

[Galana]

Finally for today

There is no doubt that full Sun does play a major part in this.

2000mm. 1/1000  f.6.5.  Maybe 15-20 yards.

[TonyQ]

@Galana

Woodpigeon. I think the second photo looks clearer and has a bit more detail, look at the leaves as well as the bird.

What do you mean by “stark”?

Greenfinch, I think the ones at 950 are clearer than the one at 2000

A useful experiment and worth continuing I would think 

[Galana]

Thanks. I tend to agree that it was/is worthwhile and I will press on.

Stark? Somewhat severe in appearance. It sorts of jars with me in an unnatural way.

[Dave Williams]

I knew you'd get technically interested eventually Fred! The camera is very capable within it's own limits. One of the things I'd also consider is the fact the camera itself is so light you might not feel as if you need to support it as you might with a heavier outfit. It will still pick up your movement though. 6 pints was the minimum that snooker player needed pre match to steady his nerves, mind you everything might appear as an EBC at that level!

Anyway, you are keeping the Hare ( and Mrs Hare for that matter)  at bay for the time being. Good you at least can legitimately get out and about again. I haven't taken a bird shot in several weeks now and probably won't for. few more either.

[Galana]

3 hours ago, Dave Williams said:

Anyway, you are keeping the Hare ( and Mrs Hare for that matter)  at bay for the time being.

It won't last! He has not got to Sunbirds yet. I know their score as I had to ID most of them for him otherwise he would still be stuck on Bulbul.

I may be getting out and about a bit more but am running out of options without some lucky breaks. Went looking for BlackCap and Sedge warblers but no luck. I should get some regulars but was to have had a good run in Scotland from next week but even if I could get off the island the wee Krankie would throw me in Barlinnie jail if I crossed the border.

[shazdwn]

Well I’m late to the discussion but I would agree that shutter speed is at least part of the problem. I won’t shoot birds at less than 1/500 and prefer over 1/1000 - mind you I am hand holding heavier kit and have to account for that. To be honest I often shoot on with the camera set on minimum aperture (usually f4), 1/800 or 1/1000 and auto ISO. You do need a camera that performs well on high ISO for this method to work in low light situations though. 

[Peter Connan]

7 hours ago, shazdwn said:

Well I’m late to the discussion but I would agree that shutter speed is at least part of the problem. I won’t shoot birds at less than 1/500 and prefer over 1/1000 - mind you I am hand holding heavier kit and have to account for that. To be honest I often shoot on with the camera set on minimum aperture (usually f4), 1/800 or 1/1000 and auto ISO. You do need a camera that performs well on high ISO for this method to work in low light situations though. 

 

Actually, the heavier the kit is, the slower it's natural frequency, and thus the easier it is to hold it steady, assuming you can hold it at all, and probably only until you are fatigued.

 

@Galana, I know it can be a royal pain in the backside, but I suspect using a monopod might improve a lot of your photos more than any amount of fiddling with the settings. Of course, it will also lower your count due to the amount of time it takes to set up and maneuver around.

[Galana]

Thanks to both @shazdwn and @Peter Connan. all good advice.

I don't think I will bother with a monopod though I know it would help. I have quite enough to handle with Bins and Camera whilst trying to hold on to my hat with the third one.

 

  I did this short video from my lounge at tea time this evening in an attempt to share with everyone as a change from blurred stills. Now you can have blurred video instead.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Galana

[shazdwn]

3 hours ago, Peter Connan said:

 

Actually, the heavier the kit is, the slower it's natural frequency, and thus the easier it is to hold it steady, assuming you can hold it at all, and probably only until you are fatigued.

 

@Galana

 

Interesting.  And here was I thinking I was superwoman for being able to hand hold 😂😂😂. I’ll have to test out some slower shutter speeds and see what sort of results I get

[xelas]

7 hours ago, shazdwn said:

I’ll have to test out some slower shutter speeds and see what sort of results I get

 

Modern cameras and lenses with vibration control helps, only that the subject has to be still; which is easy with lions but not that easy with hummingbirds .

[Soukous]

13 hours ago, Peter Connan said:

I know it can be a royal pain in the backside, but I suspect using a monopod might improve a lot of your photos more than any amount of fiddling with the settings. Of course, it will also lower your count due to the amount of time it takes to set up and maneuver around.

 

Unless he gets one of the belt gadgets your brother makes Peter

[Soukous]

9 hours ago, shazdwn said:

And here was I thinking I was superwoman

 

For all we know you may indeed be Superwoman. It's a secret identity after all. 

[shazdwn]

6 minutes ago, Soukous said:

 

For all we know you may indeed be Superwoman. It's a secret identity after all. 

💪🏻💄😂😂🤣🤣

[PeterHG]

12 hours ago, Galana said:

I did this short video from my lounge at tea time

What a view from your lounge!

[Galana]

3 hours ago, PeterHG said:

What a view from your lounge!

And it's FREE! Sorry if anyone got queezy but it was hard to pan when other targets presented.

I liked the bit at 03.30 when 5 dived together.

 

One last visit to the testing.

I could not get a Teddy bear to practice but this Robin decided to help out by sticking around long enough to change settings with only Full 2000mm, ISO200 and 'range' maybe 50 metres constant.

First up..Next two are at 1/125 f.6.5.

Given the distance I would be normally happy with that but some others were more 'shaky'.

 

Then I cranked up to 1/1000se at f.6.5

Shaky.

then same settings...

That's proof it can be done.

 

So what about Aperture? Set f.8. (speed came down to 1/250)

This was the only one I got before the bird flew so not conclusive.

Speed wins.

If the bird will come back I will mess with ISO.

And all of this is NOT helping move my BY on. Trees are now in full 'May Miracle' leaf so finding a darn BlackCap is not going to be easy.

I may test the lockdown boundary tomorrow and head up the hills for a Hen Harrier.