# Flash for wildlife - Nikon body.



## Dyslexicbloke

Hi folks, first post...

I currently have a D90 and have decided to upgrade to a D7200
I know it isn't the best but it is there best I can afford, used, and it's a big improvement on the D90, not that that is bad in the first place.

I know basically nothing about flash photography, over and above the obvious.

I also know that any flash will have a rapidly decreasing efficacy as range increases. so I am not expecting to be able to catch a BIF at 100m, pin sharply and at 100 ISO with my Random 600.

That said I dropped think a flash with a good reach will be useful and I am aware that some units cash be focused or that there is an option to add a lense.
BetterBeam and MagBeam and the like.

So specific questions...
I assume I want the most powerful flash I can reasonably get, but wouldn't know how to read a special to determine that.

Do flash extenders work at well and it so is there a downside.

How far is too far, before the flash isn't helping, extended or otherwise.

And the buggy... What should I look for?
I am assuming it needs to match the body and talk to it, TTL? but if mkI also wonder if adding a third party lense will make that conversation moot, in which case should I simply have a dumb flash and compensate using manual settings?

As I said... Clueless.

I guess my budget, used, would stretch to £100 but that is pushing it... I haven't run the body by her in doors yet... 

I will welcome any and all suggestions.
Cheers,
Al


----------



## baturn

Personally, having tried it, I wouldn't bother with flash for wildlife photos. The D7200 with the Tammy should be more than adequate in most light. The less gear you have to carry when out and about the better.


----------



## Dyslexicbloke

Thanks for the insight... Worth considering, I think sometimes it is easy to get blinkered.

Perhaps I should try the new body first before deciding.

I have to say though, I do like the idea of fill flash... Still... more kit to carry...
Korea thought I think.

Cheers.


----------



## ac12

A flash magnifier is simply a fresnel lens in front of the flash, at the appropriate distance from the flash for that fresnel lens.
This would normally be used for tele photography.
Warning:  This kind of setup can quickly get very clumsy to use in the field.
A shoe flash with that kind of a snout in the front will be very front heavy, and have more surface area to catch the wind.

If you use a flash magnifier, you probably want an iTTL flash, or you will be doing a lot of trial and error shots to determine the proper exposure.  Even so, you may have to fall back to full manual and do trial and error exposure.

I have no idea how the zoom setting of the flash head will affect the flash magnifiers.

The practical problem is that you have to align the flash+magnifier and your lens accurately.  If they are not aligned, the flash will illuminate one spot and the lens is looking a different spot.  And the higher the magnification of the setup, the tighter the resulting flash beam, and the more accurately you need to align the flash setup and lens.  This alignment has to be in both H and V axis.  When my brother did this, back in the film days, that was the biggest problem . . . how to align a jury rigged setup.  

And there is only so much off-balanced weight that the hot shoe can handle, before you break it off.
So, I would do this as separate off camera flash or use a flash bracket, to eliminate the stress on the hot shoe.  But then the aiming of the flash becomes much more difficult.  So you will be taking a LOT of test shots to align the flash and lens.  This means shooting at different places will become very difficult, as you have to first align the flash and lens.

As to how far . . . how high do you want to push your ISO?

As for reading a flash spec.  
Yes, there are MANY places where the manufacturers will try to fool you.

Flash power is typically stated in GN at 10 feet at ISO 100.  There is a metric method also.

Here are some GN issues
GN does not always represent reality.

GN is based on a standard shooting setup.  If your setup is different, which it likely is, your GN will be different.

GN from the manufacturer may not/likely does not match any of your shooting situations.
GN indoors with a reflective ceiling, walls and floor is higher than when outdoors where there is NOTHING to reflect the light back to the subject.  The difference is at least a full stop.


Here are some tricks that manufacturers use to distort the GN:

Some companies will use ISO 200 or higher, to get a higher GN than at the standard ISO 100.

There is no standard for what flash head zoom setting to use, so some/many use the tele position, to concentrate the light and give a higher GN than when set to wide or normal lens.  A flash with a non-zoom head will have a wide or normal lens flash angle.

The GN is not always directly comparable from one flash to another, and it comes back to HOW the manufacturer determined the GN.  Even though there supposedly is somewhat of a standard, there still seems to be variations.

Other issues

Flash head zoom settings are given for 35mm film/Full Frame sensor lens focal lengths.  If you have anything else, you have to recompute for your film/sensor.


----------



## Derrel

The Better Beamer was one of the old standards. $35 or so last time I looked at them, but that's been a few years. Gives an eye catchlight on birds and other wildlife. Flash would I think be considered sometimes needed, and at other times not needed.


----------



## Dyslexicbloke

Thanks folks...
I had considered weight and balance... and concluded that some sort of mount would be needed to take the load off the shoe... I hadn't really thought about alignment but it is a very good point, as is windage...

All sounding a little fiddly right now...

To be honest I wasn't even considering anything other than a fully Nikon compatible TTL with the camera managing it dynamically, and even then I was expecting a significant learning curve.

I think, based on comments this far, I should be looking for the most powerful flash I can afford, with an inherent zoom capability as long as possible, and seeing how effective, or not, that is without any modifier.

From there I will probably try to make a lense modifier for it... Just to play with.

SO...
I am looking for a big guide number, while remembering to compare apples with apples.
he I want something with a physical zoom capability as long/deep as I cash find.

Any specific suggestions?
Anything I should avoid?
Is all TTL the same with respect to functionality? (Assuming it is started as Nikon compatible)
Is Speed Light a brand, a specific functionality of just a term for something on a shoe that is TTL compatible?

Given that budget is a big consideration is 'older used' likely to out perform new, or has technology moved on so much that new and relatively cheap will be as good as older kit that was originally more expensive.?

Any thoughts on this...
Used Metz 52 AF-1 Flashgun, Nikon Dedicated


----------



## BrentC

Unless you are shooting birds in a forest or jungle area or at night I wouldn't bother with flash.

Having said that:

For a flash I would get one that works with TTL on your camera.   Take a look at Godox, Metz and possibly Newer for cheap alternatives.
GN52 minimum

For flash extender, and you will need one, flash not enough, there are a couple.   Be VERY careful though.  Those flash extenders will melt your flash and camera if you don't be careful and point it into the sun.   You can easily start fires as well.

Better Beamer is easier to carry around since it folds away.   But harder to adjust and to keep it adjusted

MagBeam doesn't fold away so takes up more room.   Easily adjusted and once adjusted stays that way.


----------



## ac12

You need to read specs very carefully, and if not indicated research the flash.
There is the older TTL flash as used on film cameras, then iTTL for digital dSLRs.
The older TTL flash can work on a dSLR but will not provide TTL funtion on a dSLR, you need the newer iTTL flash.


----------



## astroNikon

FYI, you are probably shooting roving animals.

But if you ever want to shoot birds at a bird feeder than you can use wireless flash by the bird feeder while you are still plenty far away.


----------



## dennybeall

My opinion is that you won't need the flash to get the picture of the bird. You can capture the shot using the controls on the camera and the added weight and bother of a flash, big enough to really reach out, would be a real pain in the butt.
As Derrel said, a flash to put some pop in the birds eye can be useful though. And that flash doesn't have to fully illuminate the subject.


----------



## RowdyRay

Very helpful information. What about the Rogue Safari flash booster? Anyone try it? Would it help?


----------



## BrentC

RowdyRay said:


> Very helpful information. What about the Rogue Safari flash booster? Anyone try it? Would it help?



Never seen it before.   Looks interesting.  Small and decent range.  Reviews are good.  For the price I would have picked one up just to try it but I don't have a built-in flash.  Your camera does, so I would say go for it.   It's worth giving it a shot for $20.

ExpoImaging Rogue Safari DSLR Pop-Up Flash Booster ROGUESAFARI


----------



## RowdyRay

BrentC said:


> RowdyRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very helpful information. What about the Rogue Safari flash booster? Anyone try it? Would it help?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never seen it before.   Looks interesting.  Small and decent range.  Reviews are good.  For the price I would have picked one up just to try it but I don't have a built-in flash.  Your camera does, so I would say go for it.   It's worth giving it a shot for $20.
> 
> ExpoImaging Rogue Safari DSLR Pop-Up Flash Booster ROGUESAFARI
Click to expand...


Believe it or not, I found one at a thrift store for 5.00. Haven't tried it yet, but should. Been having trouble with the undersides of birds in flight with a bright sky behind it. Even after bumping up the EV as another member suggested. Frustrating. Especially when you track the bird properly, nail focus and the underside is still dark. Maybe I'm doing something else wrong.


----------



## Dyslexicbloke

Interesting... both the comments arguing against and for...
Looking at the Safari review, and assuming it can't make light so would be less effective than a speedlight with a comparable lense, I have to say I think that there are situations where I would get good use from a flash.
Obviously BIF and anything long is out of the equation but small birds, and the like, at moderate distances where a long lens is in use to fill the frame as opposed to getting ready, seems like a reasonable fit, especially as stuff is often in undergrowth or below gedges,

I am not convinced that simply magnifying true pop-up is going to cut it but I am tempted by some of the cheaper i-TTl stuff. Thanks for the heads up RE old TTL.. I didn't know that, I thought i-TTL was a Nikon thing. In fact I planned to research what functionality TTL would give me on a Nikon body... Which would have been pointless.

Any thoughts RE Neewer 750II. The Nikon variant is i-TTL, aparantly
It looks capable to me... but what do I know.


----------



## BrentC

RowdyRay said:


> BrentC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RowdyRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very helpful information. What about the Rogue Safari flash booster? Anyone try it? Would it help?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never seen it before.   Looks interesting.  Small and decent range.  Reviews are good.  For the price I would have picked one up just to try it but I don't have a built-in flash.  Your camera does, so I would say go for it.   It's worth giving it a shot for $20.
> 
> ExpoImaging Rogue Safari DSLR Pop-Up Flash Booster ROGUESAFARI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, I found one at a thrift store for 5.00. Haven't tried it yet, but should. Been having trouble with the undersides of birds in flight with a bright sky behind it. Even after bumping up the EV as another member suggested. Frustrating. Especially when you track the bird properly, nail focus and the underside is still dark. Maybe I'm doing something else wrong.
Click to expand...



Knowing why you want to use it I can say you don't need one and I am not even sure that using one is going to help.    Never heard of anyone using one for bifs.  Are the birds within 30' feet of you?   If not definitely not going to be of use.   I would say this is more for stills up to the 30' range for small birds.

Your issue sounds more like a exposure issue.   Are you using spot metering?   How much of an EV adjustment have you tried?  Do you have a photo showing your issue that you can post?


----------



## Dyslexicbloke

Exposure... More likely lack of both talent and knowledge...
Onward and upward I guess.

al-pics | photo.net

Just setup Flicker account, the above simply isn't busy enough to get constructive critisisum.
Nothing uploaded yet. (Flickr that is)

Have a look at the house Martin's drinking.

Spent circa 6 Hrs getting those and to be honest none of them are good.
OK so they will print at A4 and look reasonable, until you get close, but from a technical perspective they are pretty poor.

That said, since I have been new going with RAW processing I am increesingly of the opinion that asthmatics, final image, is probably more important than seeing everyone last wisker and feather, but I will confess that junk in always produces junk out.

I am reasonably pleased with some of those... Not that I don't want you do better but to do that I need to remain positive and accept it will take time and practice to get where I want too be.
I also realize, now at least, that I will not be buying a 1500mm F3.5 any time soon, in fact ever, so I have to manage my own expectations.

It's sort of why I am here... My expectations are ultimately high, my skill level is lacking at best and although kit will help it isn't going to maker me better.
However as I learn, I am realising that kit can help when it becomes a limiting factor.

I like the technical aspects of the hobby, hence playing with a flash, I also appreciate some of the boundaries. My lense is likely the best I can justify and ther D90 isn't making there best of it...
Bring on there D7200

No that will not fix me, but it will give me more wriggle room to get batter whilst feeling reasonably good about a few shots, and I guess that is why I decided to try a flash.

Yes I did sorry... functional but we'll used SB-800 in thr post.

Heck at £75 it will come in for something and will likely teach me a thing or tweo even if it doesn't help with house martins. drinking.

Keep it clean coming folks... Learning loads
Thanks.

BTW... Feel free to comment, in any major, on my pics.
There is literally nothing I couldn't do better and likely loads I don't even know I am doing badly in the first place.

Cheers,
Al


----------



## Dyslexicbloke

House Martin Drinking on the Wing 2 | Photo.net

This is an example of where I like the result but at the some time realise I could have done better with what I have too work with and also was probably pushing the boundaries in the first place making improvement harder.

It is well within flash range... Fill light would probably have helped and if my overall focus mechanisme, probably settings as well as kit, had been faster I could have taken it with dynamic focus as opposed to manual.

I set up at a fixed focus send them took bursts when there was a subject passing through.
Dumb luck technique as opposed to anything optimal.
Tooooo many settings and a lack of of detailed knowledge making it very hard to know what to change, for any given setup, or even to know what to attempt to set up in the first place.

Al


----------



## Derrel

The move from the D90 to the D7200 will bring a significant boost in your image-making potential. The D90 was decidedly "old-school" in terms of the sensor, whereas the D7200 was, just a couple of years ago, the absolute state of the art as far as the APS-C sized sensor in the camera. You'll gain over two full stops' worth of dynamic range, as well as the ability to under-expose and then "lift" the shadows in post, to a degree that was simply impossible with the D90.

The Nikon SB800 is a very good flash unit. I use one. It's been very reliable and solidly-built. Good power too.


----------



## BrentC

Dyslexicbloke said:


> House Martin Drinking on the Wing 2 | Photo.net
> 
> This is an example of where I like the result but at the some time realise I could have done better with what I have too work with and also was probably pushing the boundaries in the first place making improvement harder.
> 
> It is well within flash range... Fill light would probably have helped and if my overall focus mechanisme, probably settings as well as kit, had been faster I could have taken it with dynamic focus as opposed to manual.
> 
> I set up at a fixed focus send them took bursts when there was a subject passing through.
> Dumb luck technique as opposed to anything optimal.
> Tooooo many settings and a lack of of detailed knowledge making it very hard to know what to change, for any given setup, or even to know what to attempt to set up in the first place.
> 
> Al



First of all the Martin pics aren't bad considering.   Martins are fast and hard to get even with fast AF.   Even your method of pre-focus would be hard to get good Martin shots so hats off.  Its hard to comment because I cannot see the EXIF data on the photos so do not know what your camera settings are.   Are you using Auto-ISO or manually setting?   What metering?   What editing did you do to the RAW file if any?
I don't know the Nikon models well but you should be able to ditch the Pre-focusing and use AF with the D7200.  But don't think AF is going to make getting Martins a whole lot easier.  If this is your first subject trying bif you picked a very hard one.
I think with these shots, putting aside the D90 limitations, your issue is with exposure.

Can you give all the camera settings for the martin photo?


----------



## ac12

In the spirit of walk before you run.
Catching birds in flight is HARD for many/most people.
And the faster more erratic they fly, the harder it will be to catch them in flight.
Start with the slower predictable flyers, then as you get better move to the faster birds.

I would concentrate on them when perched, where it will be an easier shot.

As for camera
The newer cameras have better Continuous AF than the older cameras.
And predictive AF also.

I would go up to the D7500, rather than the D7200.  
The high ISO is 1 stop faster.
And it works properly with the new AF-P lenses.
The AF-P lenses can be used on the D7200, but you CANNOT turn the VR off, which you need to do when on a tripod.​
re flash
Note that IF you use a flash you will only have ONE shot.
It will take about 3-5 seconds for the flash to recycle, and the flying bird will be long gone by then.​


----------



## Dyslexicbloke

From the gallery, click there image... as you did.

Now can pick the title to the right, top, and you will get a bigger view.
scroll down, settings below, comment icons.

Clicking the image again will get you have full size pic... No settings in this view.

Silly interface if you ask me, hence Lickr account.

I know it's hard, believe me I know well, but then isnt that the point.
Had I picked something easy I wouldn't be able to cut myself any slack !!

I don't bespectacled I will ever be a great photographer but I don't plan on letting that stop me trying and challenging myself seems like a reasonable way to get better.

Rawtherapee, also something I need to work on.

You are likely right RE exposure and I suspect I should be shooting wider and cropping more too.
in addition I didn't know at the time about the sharpness sweet spot associated with The stop.
I do now but I don't know what to do with that info or how to go about optimising settings for my kit... O wait, latest kit... More to learn.

I am pleased thought didn't think the manual pre focus and pray method wasn't entirely silly.
That shot was at ISO 1000, because I was attempting too get as much depth of field as possible.

Just bought a blind too, perhaps closer will help.
The little b......s will drink anywhere but where you focus if they can see you.
I was sitting on a foot bridge and there was definitely less activity when I was there than when I was looking on from a distance.

Thasnks,
Al


----------



## Dave442

I used my SB-600 and the Commander Mode to use it off-camera to have the flash closer to birds in the backyard. A pair of birds kept coming in to perch on same spot so I set the flash about 2.5 meters away at about 45 degrees from my position of 4.5 meters from the perch. Then it was just sitting still in a makeshift blind and waiting for them to stop by. I would not try BIF with flash.


----------



## Dyslexicbloke

7500... That boat sailed I am afraid, 7200 it is.

Spent ages reading and thinking, finally decided, on Ballance, the 7200 was the one.
7500 looks marginally better better, ISO noise wise, but has less resolution.
Also saw plenty of comments about the 7500 being a mix of features from other kit as opposed to a well planned unit.

Decided to keep the extra few hundred quid to chuck at other stuff.

Perhaps I will regret that decision in time but however you stack it there are points ford and against both bodies with the only clear fact being trust both are FAR more capable than their 90.

The old me would have worried... Chilled me thinks it is what it is, it made sense at true time and I will roll with it.

Cheers,
Al


Thasnks though.


----------



## Dyslexicbloke

BIF with flash... I think I agree with you but the Martin thing is more akin to the peach scinario.

I suspect AF isn't going too cut it anyway so if using MF at some point and waiting I still think flash may help. Although I take the one time exposure thing on board.

Will the SB-800 not do burst at lower output? given its strobe capability I thought it might.

Al


----------



## BrentC

Dyslexicbloke said:


> From the gallery, click there image... as you did.
> 
> Now can pick the title to the right, top, and you will get a bigger view.
> scroll down, settings below, comment icons.
> 
> Clicking the image again will get you have full size pic... No settings in this view.
> 
> Silly interface if you ask me, hence Lickr account.
> 
> I know it's hard, believe me I know well, but then isnt that the point.
> Had I picked something easy I wouldn't be able to cut myself any slack !!
> 
> I don't bespectacled I will ever be a great photographer but I don't plan on letting that stop me trying and challenging myself seems like a reasonable way to get better.
> 
> Rawtherapee, also something I need to work on.
> 
> You are likely right RE exposure and I suspect I should be shooting wider and cropping more too.
> in addition I didn't know at the time about the sharpness sweet spot associated with The stop.
> I do now but I don't know what to do with that info or how to go about optimising settings for my kit... O wait, latest kit... More to learn.
> 
> I am pleased thought didn't think the manual pre focus and pray method wasn't entirely silly.
> That shot was at ISO 1000, because I was attempting too get as much depth of field as possible.
> 
> Just bought a blind too, perhaps closer will help.
> The little b......s will drink anywhere but where you focus if they can see you.
> I was sitting on a foot bridge and there was definitely less activity when I was there than when I was looking on from a distance.
> 
> Thasnks,
> Al



There is nothing won't with pre-focus.   Especially capturing birds flying to a feeder.  Its great when you have a point of reference like a feeder or a perch that is used often.  
I did finally see the settings but it looks like that the hosting site has added some 0's are on some of the measurements or its in some weird format.   Let me know if this is correct, 400mm (it displays 4000/10) , 1/800 (it displays 10/8000),  ISO 1000. f9.9 (weird)

If so then here are my thoughts.   
Shoot wide open.   I know that when you pre-focus you want as much depth of field but this is too high for bif's.   Easily corrected with your new camera since you will be using AF.   
1/800 is to slow, especially for Martins.   1/2000 minimum.  This will sharpen up your images.  If it was 1/8000 then too high.
You may have to compensate exposure by a stop or more for small dark objects with brighter background.

Closer is always better.


----------



## Dyslexicbloke

I didn't understand it either... 

I wash probably shooting with stabisation ON.
400 sounds short, 500-550 is where I would typically be but I wasn't too far away, perhaps 15-20m so it may be correct.

1/800, possibly, pretty sure it want 8000.
the crop factor for that lense is circa 1.5 and with no better guide I may well have gone with a tad less than the effective focal length as a guide for shutter speed.
Had I had stabilisation off I would have gone faster...
Not wasting that is correct just that it is what I likely thought at night time.

1/2000 is fast would I not need silly ISO to go that fast at F5.6 (wide open at 600 (900) mm.

Showing ignorance again... I really should know how to calculate this stuff.

ISO was in auto and capped at 1000 so that would likely be correct.
Bright hot day, sun behind and left

Thanks,
Al.


----------



## BrentC

The general rule is that with a still object and non-stabilized lens you should shoot your focal length.  So a 600mm lens you should shoot 1/600 - 1/800.   With stabilization you can go slower.  Shooting perched smallsbirds I wouldn't shoot lower than 1/500 even with stabilization to account for any movement of the bird.
But with bif's you are shooting a moving object and require a faster shutter to avoid motion blur.  Large birds you can get away with 1/1250 but with something fast like a Martin you will need at least 1/2000.   With a hummingbird 1/4000.
Your images aren't sharp because of motion blur.
Shooting wide open will allow you to shoot faster and keep your ISO down.   I don't know what the D90 is like but I would imagine it can handle a little higher ISO.   With your new camera don't cap it.

And light is very important.  Always try to keep the sun behind you.


----------



## ac12

My theory on ISO is that I would rather have high ISO noise on a sharp picture than low noise on a blurry picture.
So raise the ISO to what you need to get the pix.
The D7200 will let you shoot higher ISO with less noise.

I regularly shoot night sports under lights at ISO 12800, and the images are fine.
Bud very oddly, shooting at 12800 in the gym, I get more noisy images.
So you will have to shoot and see what YOU get with your camera, and how it looks.

I agree with BC, shoot wide open.  Unless you NEED the additional DoF.
That lets you shoot at a lower ISO and a higher shutter speed.
Then trust the AF to get the bird in focus.

The faster the "apparent" speed of the bird, the faster your shutter speed has to be.
This is a bit tricky, cuz the "apparent" speed increases the closer the bird is to you, and slows the farther the bird is from you.
Example a jet at 30,000 feet altitude is easy to shoot at 1/125 of a second, because the "apparent" speed is relatively slow.  But the same plane at 1,000 feet altitude will seem to move much faster.​So what should your shutter speed be?  You have to shoot and experiment.  And take notes, so that you can study them later, to see what shutter speed worked for what types of shots.

As for flash.
If you lower the power level, to get a faster recycle; you reduce your flash range, because of the lower power level.  
Trade-off, there is no free lunch.


----------



## Dyslexicbloke

Apparent speed...
Can't believe I didn't clock that...

They were flying basically toward me as you can see, hence the attempt to get a bigger DOF.
Max burst on the D90 is a little under 4FPS, although now I think about it that may be mirror up, it could be under 3...

Anyhow that's a big chunk of distance with a subject moving so fast.

High ISO performance on the D90 is not good, in modern terms, anything above 1600 needs so. much noise reduction that though loose detail and if you have to drop into a small subject it's just awfully.

Looks ok as a 6X4 provided there isn't too much flat colour but why bother!

I should probably have tried shooting from the side, later in the afternoon, if nothing else I would have realised, when I just got a streak, that the shutter was too slow.

All good points, some of which I hadn't previously considered.
Very much appreciated.

Take notes... Oh dear I am going to have to stay braking this stuff seriously.
Makes sense though. 
I as going to ask about test subjects but I guess that is answered... too variable, pay attention when shooting anything and make a note of what works/dosnt

I am going to have to go out on Sun and see what can find to point at.

Anyone know how to attract a red kite, several nesting pairs locally but usually too high to bother with in flight. If I was in the garden with the camera ready I may get one lower down but there isn't anything I have found yet that causes them to come back to one place, buzzards are much the same.

I realise there power distance trade-off thing RE flash, it's one of the reasons I think a lense may help, assuming I can set it up and the wind didn't catch it.

What I was getting at is that I thought the SB-800 could fire more than once, in i-TTL mode, provided the first flash hadn't fully discharged it. Cycle time is in seconds, even with the best possible PSU so that isn't going to help at all, in burst.

Is there anything like a focused PIR or movement detection based on an image that could be used as a shutter release when pre focussed and framed.

I now some security cameras trigger recording when the image changes by some step margine.
Anything in Life view that can trigger a capture in a similar way?
If not perhaps there should be...

I think I feel a project coming on.... Raspberry PI with composite feed from the camera, who knows.


----------



## BrentC

I would also practice on larger birds and develop your panning skills.   Fast shutter speed helps a lot but you need to be able to pan smoothly with the target.   Seagulls, dicks and geese are great subjects to start with and practice on.


----------



## ac12

Trick to learning to track/pan.

Go to a LARGE park or open area that is next to a road.
Set up about 500ft or more from the road.
Practice tracking/panning cars L->R and L<-R.
As you get better and confident, move closer in steps, maybe 50 feet at a step.
The closer you get to the road, the faster the apparent speed of the cars.
Important, when you pan is to keep following the subject even after the shot(s).
I use a stance that is based on a shotgun shooters stance, so I can do the L->R and L<-R track, with minimal feet movement.

gud luk


----------



## Dyslexicbloke

Well some of my new toys turned up...
Just need to lesrn how to use them now.

I am a little confused RE exposure when using flash and I expect I will be even more confused when I go manual on the body, auto ISO and TTL flash.

I took some test shots in the house, zoomed in on old woodwork at aout 8m.
The flash, without an extender as I was intensionally trying to shoot stuff outside its range, seemed to cope well. I realise I can alter the output but I am not sure about what the camera is telling me.

Will it lift the ISO, as if trying to use naturna light, and then back off the flash?
that seems logical as the available light isnt known, but is somwhat counter productive.

I guess what I am asking is thr method I should be using to set things up.
Obviously I realise that no answer will/can contain actual settings for as given shot but I suspect there atre strategies/settings I should be using and dont know about.

I bought ba flash extender, that I habvent tried yet, because I thought it wise to learn to work without one first, bassically because if I dont know what to expect without one it will be imposssible to judge the efgfectivenes, or otherwise, of asdding one.

HSS seems to work well as dose TTL on the cheap cable.

I also bought a book but the 900+ pages are gvoing to tsake some reading.
I am sure the book will cover flash but I doubt it is gong to cover a flash setup modified with a lens.

If anyone can suddest the things that are most pertinant and how to mo about taking test shots ro learn I would be most greatful.
I am happy to play about but with so many settings I am a bit lost and feer I may set off down the wrong path.

Al


----------



## greybeard

ac12 said:


> My theory on ISO is that I would rather have high ISO noise on a sharp picture than low noise on a blurry picture.
> So raise the ISO to what you need to get the pix.
> The D7200 will let you shoot higher ISO with less noise.
> 
> I regularly shoot night sports under lights at ISO 12800, and the images are fine.
> Bud very oddly, shooting at 12800 in the gym, I get more noisy images.
> So you will have to shoot and see what YOU get with your camera, and how it looks.
> 
> I agree with BC, shoot wide open.  Unless you NEED the additional DoF.
> That lets you shoot at a lower ISO and a higher shutter speed.
> Then trust the AF to get the bird in focus.
> 
> The faster the "apparent" speed of the bird, the faster your shutter speed has to be.
> This is a bit tricky, cuz the "apparent" speed increases the closer the bird is to you, and slows the farther the bird is from you.
> Example a jet at 30,000 feet altitude is easy to shoot at 1/125 of a second, because the "apparent" speed is relatively slow.  But the same plane at 1,000 feet altitude will seem to move much faster.​So what should your shutter speed be?  You have to shoot and experiment.  And take notes, so that you can study them later, to see what shutter speed worked for what types of shots.
> 
> As for flash.
> If you lower the power level, to get a faster recycle; you reduce your flash range, because of the lower power level.
> Trade-off, there is no free lunch.


I have the D7500 and I like to shoot in manual mode with auto iso.  I usually set my shutter speed to 1/1000 and my 150-600 at f/8 or f/11 and let the ISO float.  These new cameras like the D7500 and D7200 are so much better at higher ISO that the rules we used with your D90 generation of cameras  just don't apply to these newer ones.  




Golden Finch by TOM STRAIGHT, on Flickr

This was shot at ISO 1250  1/1000 sec and f/11 at 600mm.  I used minimal noise reduction in PP.


----------

