Shutter speed above 1/4000

[jaomul]

You do what you need to do. I find your threads go kind of tangental and don't always make sense to me so I think I'll bow out now. Ciao

It could the the language barrier, i don't always understand what you are saying.

That's a fair point. Sorry about that. Your English is far better than my Flemish or French

 

[nzmacro]

Ever tried stopping the wings in flight of a Sparrow, Finch. Kingfisher, Swallow, etc, etc. My main shutter speed for small birds in flight is 1/4000 ........ because I don't have 1/8000 On a fine day I could hit 1/8000, F/4.5, ISO 400 - 800. I can already hit 1/4000, F/4.5 at ISO 200, it would be very useful to have 1/8000.

So while 1/4000 is great, 1/8000 could stop wing movement more easily. For BIF's, there is no such thing as too fast on a small bird.

Danny.

 

[Braineack]

Say your camera can go up to 1/8000, what would you shoot with this that you couldn't with 1/4000?

A stop less of light.

 

[astroNikon]

This topic is purely about shutter speeds and doing anything and everything to get the speed you need. If there are strong shadows then i will only go down one stop, if there are soft shadows i will push to two stops, and if there are nearly no shadows, i will push it to tree stops underexposed.

You can always pull out shadows in post .. since you have LightRoom and PhotoShop it is really easy.

 

[hamlet]

This topic is purely about shutter speeds and doing anything and everything to get the speed you need. If there are strong shadows then i will only go down one stop, if there are soft shadows i will push to two stops, and if there are nearly no shadows, i will push it to tree stops underexposed.

You can always pull out shadows in post .. since you have LightRoom and PhotoShop it is really easy.

Sure, but if the shadows are too strong you could lose an eye or two.

 

[hamlet]

Ever tried stopping the wings in flight of a Sparrow, Finch. Kingfisher, Swallow, etc, etc. My main shutter speed for small birds in flight is 1/4000 ........ because I don't have 1/8000 On a fine day I could hit 1/8000, F/4.5, ISO 400 - 800. I can already hit 1/4000, F/4.5 at ISO 200, it would be very useful to have 1/8000.

So while 1/4000 is great, 1/8000 could stop wing movement more easily. For BIF's, there is no such thing as too fast on a small bird.

Danny.

The d7x00 can already achieve 1/8000 of a second, that camera is a steal.

 

[Braineack]

This thread makes me lose my mind...

 

[colnago1331]

I think a faster shutter speed can also be useful for subjects moving toward or away from the photographer. The relative speed in those situations is much faster than in across-the-frame movement shots.

 

[bribrius]

Ever tried stopping the wings in flight of a Sparrow, Finch. Kingfisher, Swallow, etc, etc. My main shutter speed for small birds in flight is 1/4000 ........ because I don't have 1/8000 On a fine day I could hit 1/8000, F/4.5, ISO 400 - 800. I can already hit 1/4000, F/4.5 at ISO 200, it would be very useful to have 1/8000.

So while 1/4000 is great, 1/8000 could stop wing movement more easily. For BIF's, there is no such thing as too fast on a small bird.

Danny.

The d7x00 can already achieve 1/8000 of a second, that camera is a steal.

I have one but I don't find it to be such a steal and read above on how often I go to high shutter speeds. Granted, I have some lens investment to do before I really get full benefits of that camera.

 

[astroNikon]

In bright sunshine for kids sports I've used 1/8000 @ ISO 100 on my d7000
the other day on my d600 I had to go to 1/4000 and ISO 80 or 50 to get a normal exposure during a really bright stretch.

 

[Braineack]

I shot this at 1/4000 with f/2.8 last week. 1/8000 might have helped bring down the exposure had 1/4000 been over-exposed--actually it was slightly, but I'm lucky to have so much recovery in RAW.


Giraffe by The Braineack, on Flickr

That shutter speed was a must because I shot it at 800 ISO because I had the ISO set for a darker area, just prior, using A mode, and didn't have a chance to set it back to 50/80/100 once I was back in direct noon sunlight. Can you even tell? The hardon for low ISO is annoying.

 

[bribrius]

In bright sunshine for kids sports I've used 1/8000 @ ISO 100 on my d7000
the other day on my d600 I had to go to 1/4000 and ISO 80 or 50 to get a normal exposure during a really bright stretch.

no way!!!!!! 1/8000 for soccer!!
what lens?

 

[hamlet]

In bright sunshine for kids sports I've used 1/8000 @ ISO 100 on my d7000
the other day on my d600 I had to go to 1/4000 and ISO 80 or 50 to get a normal exposure during a really bright stretch.

Oh yeah, sometimes there are barely enough buckets to carry all the light in.

 

[Derrel]

I seldom ever shoot at 1/8000 second. The last time I DID was in the evening along the Oregon Coast back when my 85mm f/1.8 was a brand new lens and I wanted to see how well it could shoot right into the low, direct evening sun over open ocean water from beach level: one of THE toughest tests for any lens. The water and low angle makes a very efficient reflector and the sunlight was almost blinding in its intensity as I looked toward the setting sun. I shot at f/2.2 with NO lens hood on the lens!! 1/8000 second with AUTO ISO giving me ISO 140.

[ _D3X8857_1400_screen-2.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

1/8000 second was fast enough to freeze even the smallest water drops. I used Auto ISO because I wanted the fast speed, but could not make adjustments as he went from blinding, overexposing backlight, to just "normal" evening sun backlight on each skim board run. This is an example of where shooting in a "manual" model will give absolute sh!+ results because you cannot adjust the camera's setting fast enough for the 3-second bursts, and you need automatic adjustments to make the roughly, oh, I'd guess 10-stop adjustment range needed.

 

[kundalini]

Say your camera can go up to 1/8000, what would you shoot with this that you couldn't with 1/4000?

Freezing bumblebee wings with only ambient light against a white wall in the mid-day sun, possibly?