Fast Shutter speed v Lens speed

I have been needing to use quite an adverse set of adjustments when hadholding with my 55-300 esp at 300mm, for eg - in average outdoor light not summer, to keep my lens at anything near to its sweet spot of f8-f11 and yet avoid camera shake, i am needing to select 320/sec or higher, this in tern is requiring an Iso of 400 minimum - probaly affected by me adding 1 stop of ec for ettr as my camera tends to lean towards underexposing for the shadows and keeping the highlights from blowing out, i feel i also need the ettr to help the noise at 400 or more.
Any other ways around this as it sometimes can be a viscious circle

P.

Welcome to a fairly typical dilemma that many face Pagman . It's not unusual.

You could adjust your aperture down to the f/5.6 - 8 range, with not too much appreciable "sweet spot" difference in sharpness. That will allow you to at least double your shutter speed. You could then potentially keep the ISO 400 and drop the 1-stop of ettr, or even use a lower ISO.

I suspect that any visible noise that is THAT noticeable is due to significant underexposure in those particular areas of the image. Underexposure almost always aggravates noise. Try that and see what happens - good luck sir.

You should not need 1/320 to arrest camera movement at 300 mm with a lens with IS/VR such as yours, even on APS-C. There is another issue. Are you giving the IS/VR sufficient time to fully engage before releasing the shutter? It can take several hundred milliseconds.

xarqi wrote in post #16634215
You should not need 1/320 to arrest camera movement at 300 mm with a lens with IS/VR such as yours, even on APS-C. There is another issue. Are you giving the IS/VR sufficient time to fully engage before releasing the shutter? It can take several hundred milliseconds.

Hi, it varies to be honest, if im following say a plane at 20 ish ooo feet up i tend to follow the plane so the Vr should have plenty of time, but some other times i need a Grab focus if i suddenly see something like a bif, then i know iwould need a faster shutter speed, but again same dillema with f stop, as with my lens at 5.6 the iq is not that great, would zooming back abit to 200 or something help, would that give me more shutter speed/ap, but again to get round the noise situation with cropping to get up to the 300mm and more, circles circles.

P.

I know it boils down to the same thing - Better glass allowing faster f stop yet without iq issues and ca that my lens does suffer from at the long end.


P.

Pagman wrote in post #16634190
... to keep my lens at anything near to its sweet spot of f8-f11...

Don't do that then. The lens opens wider for a reason.

Pagman wrote in post #16634249
...would zooming back abit to 200 or something help, would that give me more shutter speed/ap, but again to get round the noise situation...

I've been following your recent posts. I've yet to see any obvious noise issues in the images you've posted.

When it all boils down to gravy though, if pushing the limits of what your equipment can deliver doesn't give you an acceptable result, it's time to adjust your expectations, compromise on some aspect of image quality or upgrade the weakest link in your equipment chain.

xarqi wrote in post #16634279
I've been following your recent posts. I've yet to see any obvious noise issues in the images you've posted.

When it all boils down to gravy though, if pushing the limits of what your equipment can deliver doesn't give you an acceptable result, it's time to adjust your expectations, compromise on some aspect of image quality or upgrade the weakest link in your equipment chain.

Body or Lens? if the lens - what other lens would give better results -IQ/CA etc yet give me virualy the same reach both ends, i cant think of an L eqv for my nikon either nikkor or inde, and a 70-200 wont help much on my camera due to cropping etc.

P.

I had a similar convo about my canon 30d/nifty 250, but the difference there was if i could have saved up and got a f4 70-200 L USM my iq would have been a big step up, and the very low sensor noise would have alowed more cropping before out cropping the sensor, but my d200 is a different beast, yes full frame pics without cropping are good with poss better DR than my 30d, but they are not as good if cropped or higher Iso.


P.

For me its a head scratching situation - i got the d200 to get abit more DR and better colors, but i got more noise aswell, i then got a 55-300Vr because of its 4 stop ability, but again quality wise it seems no better than the nifty, i have not gained mutch realy and still need to do alot of work in post -more than the 30d to be honest.


P.

Pagman wrote in post #16634290
Body or Lens? if the lens - what other lens would give better results -IQ/CA etc yet give me virualy the same reach both ends, i cant think of an L eqv for my nikon either nikkor or inde, and a 70-200 wont help much on my camera due to cropping etc.

P.

If noise is really an issue, the remedy is a better sensor/electronics, so a better body. There are also noise reduction software products available.
If it is image quality, the answer is usually a better lens.
As to what, I can't help as I have no familiarity with Nikon's offerings.

Pagman wrote in post #16634316
For me its a head scratching situation - i got the d200 ... but i got more noise aswell,

Show me.

xarqi wrote in post #16634342
Show me.

I will have to dig some 30d/d200 comaprison pics both showing planes in flight as these are the most critical because of clean area noise from blue sky etc, the difference i see betwen the two are - although more dynamic range from the d200, the 30d was smoother but not as dynamic, the differencies are less so with more normal photography with objects filling the frame.

P.

And on the other post/s i have started on here i know the latter pictures i posted are good, but i think they also show alot of pp that was needed, yet perhaps they are a little too ott, but without as mutch they would be a little dull, i sometimes think they lack the smoothness and cleaner colors of more modern equipment, esp from posters on here, and even basic cameras nowadays are very good - sharp and clean.


P.