One third of a second is really difficult but there are several ways to do it successfully. One trick I use is putting my shutter in fast continuous mode so that I take 5-10 shots while trying to be as still as possible hand held. Next, the shutter release has to be remote to get the value of your tripod but instead of remote you can always put the shutter release on a time delay say 6 or 10 seconds to give the camera time to stop moving after you touch the shutter release button. You definitely can increase your ISO and shorten your shutter but that introduces a host of other problems including decreased DR and color depth. You could put some light into the equation and solve a lot of problems. If you don't have speed lights try a couple shop lights. You will need more than one source or you will have detracting shadows but you can use nearly anything that is white as a reflector for a second source if you don't have more than one light. One other thing you might do is borrow or rent another camera/lens combination. One more thing you can do is get a lot closer if you are using a non-constant F:stop zoom so that you can open it up farther. If you have a nifty fifty, or 85 prime that will go to 1.8 or 1.4 for instance you can reduce your shutter time without sacrificing your ISO. You can put your tripod on something to get it very close to the nest with a remote shutter release and surprise yourself with what you can get. The bird will get used to the camera after just minutes.

Hopefully some of these ideas will be useful to you. There are others on the forum that will likely have many other even better tips for you. Good Luck!

When I had the 5500 I loved it. When I had the D300 I loved it, not enough to keep it though after seeing the 800. When I had the D800 I loved it. When I had the D810 I loved it. When I got the D850 I decided I would have it for life. It is heavy but takes unbelivable pictures. I also have the Tamron 150 to 600. I use it sometimes with a TC201, these are nearly usless with out a heavy tripod. I'm in my 70's and hate to carry the stuff around but when I get back and review my shots I find it was well worth the effort.

What camera you have is not the most important thing you have. Shot selection and knowing how to best use your camera/lens/tripod combination is VERY important. One thing I will say about the Nikon D810 and D850 is that they have ISO 64 which is the most wonderful feature I have ever had on a camera. Dynamic range at ISO 64 is about 15 stops on both cameras.

Full Frame will cost more than just the camera, new lenses will have to be purchased too. The reach is not significantly different between full Frame and cropped sensors, it is an apparent difference. If you crop the FF you get pretty much the same thing but your field of view is larger so you have more area to choose from when cropping. I'm glad I went to Full Frame but it was an expensive decision and it took me a few years to complete my kit.

Your comments are interesting to me, I always shoot RAW, I also shoot jpeg because I can't always review RAW on all platforms. Generally I review in jpeg and decide which photos to import into Photoshop Camera Raw. Photoshop is not cheap at $10 a month but the camera raw filter to me is worth it. I have attached a couple pictures I snapped yesterday, they are nothing special but when I compared them after the raw filter to before, the after is much better even though I have made them small to I could upload them. These were taken with a Nikon D850 and a Tamron 24-70mm. The dynamic range and color depth are incredible, it's just a casual handheld snapshot.

I am not using lightroom, I could do the same thing in LR but I have gotten in the habit of using PS, so , to each his own.

(Download)


(Download)

_____________________________________________________________________________

Shooting in manual basically means you make the decisions instead of the camera.

In the old days when I shot film, that was in the day when some cameras had built in light meters but there were no automatic exposure settings, in those days there was no ISO. In those days you set the exposure based on a chart after you checked out the light meter. You set your F: stop, you set your shutter speed but you didn't set your ISO, you had a fixed ASA rating depending on the film you used. If you wanted faster ASA you had to change the film, that was the biggest reason for buying 24 exposure film instead of 36. You had to rewind the film back into the canister and that canister was done even if you only had a few exposures. The other way was to have multiple cameras with you.

Compared to modern cameras film was slow. You could push it when you developed it, that is you could warm your chemicals and use longer or shorter soak times, there were charts for that too but that usually led to noisy film.

You can do the same thing today, that is you can consult a light meter, set your own F: stop, shutter speed but you can also set in your ISO. You could change the ASA speed dial on the old cameras but it wasn't necessarily connected to anything it was just a reminder to you when you made your settings. Later film cameras coordinated the ASA setting to the other settings. I remember my first Pentax and how wonderful that coordination was.

On today's DSLR's and even the mirrorless cameras you can adjust the ISO like a volume control knob on your radio. You do get increased noise as you turn up the ISO just like you get increased noise on the radio but it is often the only way to get the shot.

One of the modes I like most on today's cameras is "Auto ISO". You tell the camera your are shooting in manual mode but then let the camera decide what ISO you need for your settings. For instance if you are shooting something that needs a fast shutter but you want to close down the aperture the camera will let you do this and compensate for your crazy settings by turning up the ISO, like turning up the volume to hear better.

Some cameras do better at higher ISO's than others. I mostly shoot with Nikon so I'll use that as examples in what I'm trying to explain. The Dxxxx's are nice cameras starting with the D3500 and going up to the D7500 they are very nice but their 24mega pixel sensors don't work as well in high ISO modes as do the professional cameras like the D5 or even the DXXX's. While the D500 has a sensor that is the same size as the D3500 the 500 does much better in low light. The D850 while not nearly as good in low light as the D5 is similar to the D500. The 850 however is 47 mega pixels but is larger in size so that the each receptor site is similar in size to the 2400 mega pixel sensors found in the crop sensor cameras.

Just because a camera uses a sensor of the same or near same size does not make it the same sensor. The D800 for instance even though it has the same size sensor as the D800e and D810 does not have the same sensor.

I say all this to come down to this. Hardly anyone focuses in manual, hardly anyone shoots in manual (true manual). Yes some of us do, but even those of us that do don't usually shoot in manual all the time. I will step out a little and say that many of us who shoot manual don't really because we cheat and use auto ISO.

I told myself I would not get into this argument but after reading some of the comments I couldn't help myself.

People spend thousands of dollars to get one or two stops of extra dynamic range. People buy medium format cameras for dynamic range. To say you can't tell the difference between 100 and 6400 is crazy unless you have never shot with a camera that can easily tell the difference.

The questioner didn't say what kind of camera he was using and that can make a difference. With say a D850 Nikon from 64 to 400 there is very little difference and you can usually get usable results to 6400 but there is a difference, especially in landscape. When you have a hundred thousand leaves in a scene and you want each one to be sharply defined you will have to use a very low ISO to get the results you really want. If you use a high ISO you may get usable results until you see the shot at 64 then you will notice the difference, even in good sunlight. Things that are nearly imperceptible like color depth and sharpness. Oh how shadows can be recovered at low ISO's but can't at high ISO's. It is similar to the argument between raw shooters and jpeg shooters. Certainly you can get usable pictures in both modes but there is so much you can do in raw that you just can't in jpeg, this ISO argument is very much the same.

A lesser capable camera than the newest cameras like Nikon or Newer Sony's or Nikon's D4, D5 D850 all have extreem DR and allow you to shoot at higher ISO's than base but most photographers will not go above base unless they have to in order to squeeze all the DR out of the shot possible just in case they need it and to make the picture pop when it is printed.

________________________________________________________

Once I got the 850 I got rid of everything else. Wow how I love my 850.

The only bad thing about the 850 is no popup. I love Nikon's CLS and have 4 speedlights but now I have to control them with the SB900 instead of the popup. Maybe one day I'll get one of the wireless systems that most people with 850's are always talking about.

If I had a 7100 I would be looking for a used SB600 and just control it with the popup. It's a really nice system and it works.

_________________________________________________________________________

No matter how good the glass is without a good sensor you won't record a good image. It takes two to tango.

If sharpness is your thing then perhaps mirrorless is good for you because that will use the sensor that records the picture to focus with, a DSLR will focus via the mirror to a separate focus sensor.

I too like sharpness but I shoot DSLR. When it just has to be tack sharp then go to mirror up mode to zoom and focus using the display, you get the best of both worlds.

The advice to use a faster shutter, depending on the camera is likely the best thing you can do when shooting in front of a window. Then when you get back to photo shop reduce the highlights and bring up the shadows and you just might get lucky enough to normalize the picture.

Using speed lights in front of windows is a possibility but it would take more than one. If you only had one and bounced it off the ceiling (if the ceiling was low enough) might overcome some of the window light but in the environment you were in it would take full power on the flash.

________________________________________________________________________

I feel your pain, likely most of us have been in a similar position.

Back when I had a 24mp sensor but a more amateur frame a friend convinced me to get a Nikon D300. I did and was horrified in the lackluster performance after all the wonderful things I had read about it and went back to the old camera. After that I moved up to a Nikon D800 36mp sensor and thought I was in heaven until I shot a friends D810 which was much sharper and maybe even a little better dynamic range.

While in Arches summer before last I was shooting with the D810, loving it when I met 3 different photographers, all from Germany and all of them shooting the D850. They all told me I would throw rocks at the D810 if I ever shot the D850. I didn't believe them and imagined I was getting better pictures then they ever would.

Some months later I was at Noah's Arc in Kentucky and again I met some shooters using the D850 and they again shamed me.

Now I'm shooting with a D850 47mp sensor. Friends tell me I should have gone with the Z7 but I will tell you that I don't know how I could get better pictures than what I'm getting. It is hard to get a bad picture, there is so much room in the dynamic range that even poorly exposed shots can be recovered really well. If you are a pixel peeper though you will have to move up to good glass and careful shooting, short exposures will become your friend.

I don't do a lot of portraits except when the grand-kids ask and with 22 of them that happens a lot. Anyway I like birds, flowers and landscapes, my favorite pictures have all been landscapes including a lot of sunsets. With landscapes it's all about lugging it around to a remote area and getting a lot of dynamic range, especially for sunsets.

I suppose a 50 megapixel medium format frame would do a good job but at 47 megapixels I'm nearly there with the D850 so, right now I think I'm where I need to be. I've got a very nice carbon fiber tripod but it isn't as steady as my old aluminum clunker so I take the clunker. When I'm on location I leave the camera case in the car and use one or two lens belt hangers or a fanny pack, a strap a friend gave me that distributes the weight of the camera it's weight isn't a problem and using the tripod as a walking stick makes it's weight not so much of a problem. I'm an old guy who doesn't like to walk but I do like the shots so I walk anyway and complain for a couple days after but that's ok I'm usually sitting in front of PS for a couple days anyway.

The old cameras are gathering dust. I would have never imagined not using the 810 when I got it I thought it was heaven sent but now I leave it at home.

I have found that glass is a very important part of the equation and fortunately once I moved up to full frame and got new glass I haven't had to change while moving up through the Nikon D8xx's to where I am now. Many people will talk of the Nikon holy trinity and while I have some Nikon glass I have not found them to be remarkably different or better than some other brands. I have a cheap Tonika 14mm 2.8 that is wonderful, I got the Tamron 24-70 instead of the Nikon because I found it to have superior vibration control. I got an older F:4 Nikon 70-210 that is unbelievably sharp and the new Tamron 150-600 G2 is rather spectacular at nearly all settings and lengths. While "Nifty Fiftys" are all good I guess I found the old Nikon 50mm 1.4D and the Nikon 50mm 1.8 better than the Nikon 50mm 1.4G. You take a chance whenever you get glass.

The reality is that photos are so much more than just a camera.

I've got a camera I like, I'm happy with it and will be until the next one comes along and blows it out of the water.

Jpeg will never match the dynamic range of a good camera raw filter or processor. Jpeg does averages you can process what you want.

Jpegs are wonderful for review but I will assure you I can always do better than the built in camera jpeg processor.

I mostly agree but someone convinced me to purchase an old Nikon/Nikor 70-210 f:4 constant some time ago. I have never seen a lens so sharp. I used to think my Nikon 50mm f:1.4 was the sharpest tool in the bag but this 70-210 is simply amazing. My Tamron 24-70 2.8 is VERY sharp but I have never seen anything do as well as the 70-210. There is another version that is not a constant aperture I'm not sure how that performs but the constant is pure tack sharp. I've had good sharpness with several lenses but the worst I ever shot with was my Tamron 70-300. I got rid of that and replaced it with a Tamron 150-600 (G2) and it does very well until about 550mm or so when it starts getting just a little soft, especially at the edges.

I never had a problem with the Tamron 70-300 until I got my first 24 megapixel sensor, it showed a lot problems. When I got the D800 and went to 36 megapixels the softness just got to be more than I could deal with. The D810 was even sharper and showed more flaws than the 800 and when I got the 850 if made the Tamron 70-300 just unusable.

I like my primes but my zooms allow a lot of flexibility. I'm a lot older than I once was and the ability to take different shots from the same spot is very nice. I would never go to just shooting with primes.

I shoot Nikon. I have used several different Nikon cameras both cropped sensor and full frame. I currently use both a D810 and a D850. I shoot RAW and Fine Jpeg. I use Photoshop CC to process my shots. The camera raw filter in Photoshop allows me to process my shots even better than the jpeg processor in camera. The camera does a good job but with the raw filter I can do a great job. As an example of the difference I will show you a picture I took this morning. Now I realize this is an extreme example but it is what camera raw will do for you if you learn how to use it. The raw file is a flat file, it is not designed to be seen as is but it is to be used to extract the usable data out of it to make a good picture, it does if it has the data.

People talk about dynamic range, one of the most important specifications of a camera. Without camera raw you greatly reduce the apparent dymanic range. Notice that the pictures I attached are the exact same picture, one the camera processed as jpeg and the other I processed in "camera raw" and saved as a jpeg.

If you never have any challenges in your picture taking jpeg will probably do for you most of the time but if you ever have to have brightness and dark areas in the same shot you need to take advantage of camera raw.

In the last couple years the camera raw processer (filter) in PS CC has come a long way with the addition of texture, and dehaze sliders.

If you don't want to take advantage of RAW then I suggest you tell your camera to record both. Maybe you will never need the extra processing and if not you can delete the raws but if you take them and need it you will have it.

Good luck. By the way, the D850 is the finest camera I have ever used. While it has video functions I don't use them but for still shots, just wow! I was in Utah shooting at Arches Park when three different German photographers told me the D850 was head and heels above the D810, I was shooting with the 810. Well, I don't know about head and heels but it is one really fine camera.