Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

You have failed to take into account the length of the OP's lens. He's shooting with a 70-300, fully extended. The Nikon is a 1.5 crop sensor, which means that you take the longest length of the lens and multiply that by 1.5.

300 x 1.5 = 450.

1/450 is the slowest that the OP (Original Poster) should be shooting at with the 70-300 fully extended, especially when it's a hand held shot. But if the OP's hand's aren't steady, then the shutter speed needs to be even higher to begin with.

When you add in the distance from the camera to the subject in the shots posted on this topic, you need to increase the shutter speed because camera motion is magnified at longer distances. It's a matter of the pivot point of the camera magnified by the distance to the subject. Think of a 12" Ruler vs. a 36" yardstick. If you move the 12" ruler 3 degrees, it travels a shorter distance on a surface than if you move a 36" yardstick does over that same 3 degree movement. Mark the starting and ending points on each of them, and compare the distance between the marks if you don't believe me.

The woodpecker picture was shot at a distance of 100', and you can see the long lines of camera movement in the spots on the woodpecker's back.

The first Squirrel at 40' and the Robin at 45' show the least amount of camera movement.

In the case of these shots, he was shooting through an open window under cloudy conditions, if not rain, and he was really way too far from his subjects. So under the low light situation the ISO would need to be jacked up to compensate for the needed faster shutter speeds.

But also the OP needs to determine what the upper reaches of his camera's ISO is. To do this, a controlled test should be run. Shoot at a white background sign with the camera mounted on a tripod, and steadily increase ISO to find out where too much noise or grain ends up in the shot. Once you determine where this happens, set your camera to never go beyond that point when it's set to Auto ISO. Some cameras will handle a high ISO much better than others without showing much noise or grain in the shots.

In the shots that the OP posted on this topic, his ISO settings ranged from 800 to 6400, and there doesn't seem to be any or much noise or grain in them. But only a controlled test using a stationary object will tell the truth.

anotherview Loc: California

You did the math re effective focal length and its relation to shutter speed. Thanks.

I agree: "So under the low light situation the ISO would need to be jacked up to compensate for the needed faster shutter speeds."

I also agree with your suggestion for determining a higher ISO setting at which the image remains relatively free of noise.

As a rule of thumb, I try to stay with an ISO setting of 800 or less. The use of IS helps keep it low by allowing me to shoot at a slower shutter speed.

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

If I remember correctly from earlier in this topic, the particular lens in question doesn't have IS, but I'm not going to go back through 8+ pages to verify it.

So for low light, moving objects, and extreme distance, to get the higher shutter speed the ISO will have to be jacked way up, because the OP also needs to increase the depth of field to get more of his shot in focus.

anotherview Loc: California

You have it with the practicalities in mind.

I like to believe an experienced photographer can find a way to get that shot. This pursuit goes with the craft of photography.

bobsisk Loc: Chandler, Arizona

Naw, not quite true. At least not for me. I'm no professional and probably just a rank amateur, but my first and major photo learning experience was in film SLRs. I don't have time to enumerate the multitude of things I learned in that manual world. My film SLR went on the fritz just about the time the first digital cameras came on the scene. I used several different ones and got lazy with the ease of operation. Along came DSLRs with the 'Auto' feature. Again, I was lazy for awhile until I discovered that I could pull up everything the camera had automatically set for each photo. What a boon! I would have had to do that with pencil and paper in the film world. Now, by downloading the photos on my computer I could have the photo and camera settings side-by-side and see if that was acceptable or if I would rather have done differently with one or more settings. The added beauty is if I change one or more settings manually the camera will record those too along with the respective photo. So what 'Auto' did for me was to help me become familiar with the camera and use it as the tool it's supposed to be. Are there other ways to do that? Certainly, but that worked (so far) for me.

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

I cut my teeth in photography decades ago, back in the film only days. I started with point and shoots, then used a range finder, before getting my first SLR. I learned to use a hand held light meter in combination with with those early cameras and shot mostly black & white film. So using your example that was during the pencil and pad era.

But in today's modern technology era, an advancing amateur photographer doesn't always take the time to sit in front of their computer to analyze their work.

I take the time to review my shots in camera for exposure settings, but not many newbies do, or know that they even can do this. All many of them care about is capturing their snapshots.

But we digress, the OP asked for help with his shots.

It turns out that in his shots, he was battling a lot of problems.

Distance from subject; he was way too far away with this lens and camera combo, and cropped the shots severely, to the point that there weren't many pixels left to work with.

Camera shake; the OP shot through an open window and was hand holding his camera. He needed to be using a tripod in those situations. Yes others have said that using a tripod when trying to do it live animals or birds isn't practical, but when you're shooting at such a long distance it's almost mandatory.

Low Light; it was a gloomy day with heavy cloud cover, the OP needed to jack up his ISO settings to allow for both a faster shutter speed and a higher f-stop.

If a shooter doesn't make adjustments to their settings in the field, under the above mentioned conditions, they're likely not going to end up with anything worth saving and working with in Post Processing.

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

Each camera will have it's own sweet spot when it comes to the maximum ISO setting.

For my Canon T5, I can't shoot any higher than an ISO setting of 400, but in reality 200 is better.

I actually prefer to shoot at an ISO setting of 100 for the best quality shots when it comes to the least amount of noise or grain in my shots. My body isn't good at all in low light situations, so when you add a longer lens, you lose even more light. I've learned that at a close enough range I can add light with a hot shoe mounted flash set at about a 45° angle and used as fill. But the OP was too far away in all of his shots to make using a flash effective.

If I shot in low light more often, I would likely buy a full frame body. But I don't, so I have my eye on a model that's rated for high frames per second instead for a future upgrade.

Necessity often guides an educated, prospective buyer to the equipment that will fulfill their needs. How often does an inexperienced buyer know what they need beyond a camera in their hands?

bobsisk Loc: Chandler, Arizona

Well, having re-read my post (and yours), I'd like to clarify some things if I may. First, what you wrote to help the individual would be helpful to all (including me). It was very well done. The next-to-the-last sentence about not learning much if you always shoot in "Auto" was a spot on summary. On the other hand, the last sentence was inaccurate at best and came across as condescending - not at all in keeping with the quality of the rest of your post. The inaccuracy came in stating that "Auto" was invented for P&S amateurs. Most, if not all, of the high-end cameras that UHH folks use have that Auto feature. The firmware needed to have that feature designed into the camera is not cheap. You can bet the camera manufacturers didn't just put the Auto feature on high end cameras so that P&S amateurs would buy them. I don't consider myself and some of my other friends P&S amateurs. Sure, we could go to a grandchild's birthday party with fixed aperture at 5.6 and shutter speed at 1/125 and probably get mostly acceptable photos. But why? Just put the thing on full Auto and start chasing the kids for photo ops. I'm betting the overall photo quality would be better in that case. Auto is a useful feature if it is used right. Here again, you are right. If that's the only feature someone uses he/she won't learn much.

anotherview Loc: California

I suggest setting aside the concern for shooting in the Auto mode. Concern yourself instead with composition, exposure, and the importance of subject.

Worthy photography has more to do with effective composition than to do with anything else. Even a mundane subject can look more interesting via composition.

Exposure takes second place although arguably equal to composition for producing a worthy photograph. After all, today, one can readily adjust exposure later in post-processing -- within limits, of course.

The importance of subject stands in third place after the first two while arguably as key as composition and exposure to a worthy photograph. In fact, the subject if interesting enough can rise to the top because the human perception will excuse subpar composition and poor exposure.

Everything in the craft of photography flows from composition, exposure, and the importance of subject, and their mutual relation.

Study and apply these three parts to photography, and your photographic results will improve significantly.

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

So are you saying that you would rather see a "photographer" leave their shooting session to chance, and not check the quality of their shots while they're still on site, possibly saving thousands of dollars in travel costs to re-shoot their scenes? Then there are those once in a lifetime shots that can't be recreated.

That's where most photographers are going to disagree with you and your train of thought.

Believe me when I sat that I've been through those early lerning experiences during my film days when I've blown my settings and didn't find out for several weeks, after I got my prints back.

With the advanced technology available in digital cameras, there is no longer any reason NOT to review your shots right there on sight.

I've been known to stand in the same spot for several minutes, shooting the same subject at various different settings to obtain the optimal results.

Oh yeah, did I mention that I shoot in Manual mode most of the time, and that I shoot in both Raw and JPEG?

Why Manual? Because it gives me the most control of my final results.

During my last photography class, we were required to shoot a week in each Mode, and another assignment was to shoot white objects at all of the white balance settings.

Why Raw and JPEG? Because JPEG allows the immediate ability to send your shots right out, while Raw allows the most latitude while editing your shots in Post Processing (PP).

The only time that I shoot in straight JPEG, is when I have a need for fast fps, because my current body has a very limited capacity for fps. It's limited to 4 fps in Raw & JPEG, and 5 fps in just JPEG before it buffers. So what I'm shooting dictates which setting I shoot in between Raw & JPEG or straight JPEG. No, it's not the speed of my card, it's the design of the body. It was never intended for sports or nature photography where fast fps is needed.

To me it's frustrating to shoot in one of the priority Modes, knowing what I'm trying to get for results, and seeing the camera's rendition instead. Having an eye for composition, only to see that the camera provides you with it's version of settings gets frustrating and old real fast.

As a photographer improves their skills, they need to have faith in their ability to experiment with changing settings and Modes. Learning the limits of their equipment and pushing it to it's limits is the mark of an improving photographer. An improving photographer needs to allow their knowledge to take over, and experiment in the different shooting modes.

I'm going to stand by my statement. They limit their growth by sticking to "Auto".

anotherview Loc: California

Agree with this shooting practice:

"With the advanced technology available in digital cameras, there is no longer any reason NOT to review your shots right there on sight.

"I've been known to stand in the same spot for several minutes, shooting the same subject at various different settings to obtain the optimal results."

For my part, I do something similar, taking two or more shots of the same subject as "insurance" shots. My experience inspired this practice.

bobsisk Loc: Chandler, Arizona

Yes, and I'm glad you stand by that statement. If you truly read my previous post you have to agree that I stand with you 100% on that. What I disagree with is your statement that Auto was invented for point-and-shoot amateurs. I stand by this statement, that manufacturers would not put Auto on high-end cameras if they didn't see the need for it. It takes more time and expense to develop it for high-end cameras than for beginner level ones.

And let's not be disdainful of point and shoot amateurs. After all, you and I started out that way. My humble photographic beginnings started when I was about to board a plane for basic training in the USAF two weeks out of high school. I had never owned a camera, but my Mother was trusting enough that she gave me her Kodak Bullet that she got for her high school graduation in 1940. Kind person that she was, she knew that I would want to preserve some memories. Her only instructions were that it took the best pictures on cloudy days. Simple operation? Oh, yeah! Unscrew the lens barrel to its stop, raise the two view-finder eye pieces on top of the camera and frame the photo. Press the shutter lever down until it clicked. Then wind the film to the next number. I'm guessing your beginnings were just about that humble too. Bouncing forward in time a bunch of years, yes, I've had my gripes about Auto too and they're very much the same as yours. But just as you know what to do about it, so do I because we chose to learn. Other point and shooters will become curious enough to learn as well. Still others will fall by the wayside, photographically speaking, and will drift off to other knowledge pursuits. That's just the way life is. 'Nuff said.