When it comes to camera settings, shutter speed is the most important variable for bird photography. That’s because it’s the setting that you need to control the most. Optimizing your shutter speed is really the only way to maximize the amount of light you’re getting, while also freezing the bird’s motion.
Table of Contents
Why Shutter Speed?
In some genres of photography, aperture is the most important camera setting by far. For example, in portrait photography, a wide open aperture can give you a dreamy look whereas a narrow aperture may be more appropriate for an environmental portrait with front-to-back focus. Landscape photographers also need to select their aperture carefully to achieve the right depth of field.
Bird photography is different. Although there are some notable exceptions, you will usually be at the lens’s widest aperture most of the time. Not to mention that wildlife lenses are usually on the slow side in the first place, with maximum apertures of around f/4 to f/5.6 (unless you’re very lucky and have an f/2.8 lens). Even with an f/2.8 lens, you will generally stay in the f/2.8 to f/5.6 range for most birds.
It’s not that depth of field is unimportant in bird photography. But it’s usually acceptable and even desired to have part of the scene out of focus when photographing birds. And there is usually so little light that stopping down will require too high of an ISO. Especially for birds in flight, you will nearly always be at the widest aperture, and most of your attention will need to be on your choice of shutter speed.
Thus, aside from ISO, which doesn’t affect the amount of light entering your camera, shutter speed is the biggest variable that you can control in bird photography. You can use it to freeze motion or leave some motion blur in deliberately, and you can attempt to use longer shutter speeds to gain that extra little bit of light.
Since a bird can be anywhere from still to flying at over three hundred kilometers an hour, you need to select your shutter speed appropriately. Now, I already talked about shutter speed a little in my article on the best settings for bird photography, and Libor talked about it in his settings for birds in flight photography article. But I’m going to go in a little more depth today and focus just on shutter speed.
Standard Values
There are some standard values for shutter speed that will give you reliably sharp photos in a variety of conditions. They are the “set it and (mostly) forget it” settings for shutter speed. Here is a rough guide:
| Situation | Safe Recommendation | Typical Range |
|---|---|---|
| Perched, still birds | 1/400 | 1/40 – 1/640 |
| Walking or slowly moving birds | 1/800 | 1/500-1/1500 |
| Running or swimming birds | 1/1200 | 1/800-1/1500 |
| Birds in flight, slow | 1/2500 | 1/1600-1/3200 |
| Birds in flight, fast | 1/3200 | 1/2500-1/8000 |
You can set these shutter speeds in a few different ways, but I recommend using manual mode with Auto ISO. Then you can set the aperture (generally the widest available one) and carefully select your shutter speed, while the camera floats the ISO to give you the proper exposure. Of course, if the light is very strong and the camera is overexposing even at base ISO, then it is a good idea to quickly switch to aperture priority instead and let the camera choose a faster shutter speed automatically. But manual + Auto ISO mode works for me 99% of the time.
Going Beyond the Safe Shutter Speed
In the rare cases for when there’s actually an abundance of light for bird photography, you may end up using a faster shutter speed than the “safe recommendations” that I listed above. Like when photographing directly toward sunlight reflected on the water, you may be at 1/4000 or even 1/8000 second just to tame the light. But are there cases where you should go longer than the safe shutter speed?
Absolutely. The first case is when you want a bit of motion blur. Typically, if a bird is moving and you want a more abstract look, you can blur some part (usually the wings) or all of the bird to inject a bit of impressionism in your bird photography.
But there’s another reason to go longer than the safe shutter speed: when you need to capture more light. Yes, there is a high probability of motion blur (either from your camera shake or from subject movement). But it’s still worthwhile to try sometimes.
The technique is simple. If you have a sitting or perched bird, and they are very still, it can be possible to use shutter speeds much longer than you would expect. I’ve seen sharp photos down to 1/100, 1/50, and even 1/20 second sometimes. It helps to have a tripod, although it’s even possible to shoot handheld if your camera or lens has good vibration reduction.
First, start with a shutter speed that’s safe for you – probably around 1/320-1/400, depending on your subject and whether you’re handholding the camera or using a tripod. After that, gradually use a longer shutter speed in a sequence: 1/250, 1/200, 1/125, 1/80, etc. and take 4-5 shots with each, carefully supporting your camera and lens. It works even better when you are resting on the ground, and of course it works best with a tripod. Even without a tripod, though, I have successfully gone into the 1/50-1/80 range before.
Here is an example of a photo taken with this technique. I shot this image handheld at 1/80 second. At that shutter speed, only about one in ten shots was sharp. But that was enough, and shooting at 1/80 second allowed me to use a more reasonable ISO of 2800, compared to something like ISO 10,000 that would have been necessary at 1/250 second.
Here is a 200% crop to show the level of detail still possible at 1/80:
How far you can push the shutter speed depends upon how still the bird really is, and if there’s any wind shifting the feathers slightly. Remember, feathers have an enormous amount of fine detail, so any movement in them will show up immediatley in the shot. Of course, if one or two feathers show motion blur, that’s not a problem if the rest are sharp, and especially if the eye is still sharp. But just because you can get to 1/80 or 1/50 in a best-case scenario does not mean you can always achieve it.
When you should use this technique? Only when you know you’ll get more than a few chances with a bird. If it’s a rare bird, I would recommend playing it a little safer, especially if you might only have one or two shots before it flies away. But for more common birds or when you absolutely know you’ve already got a safe photo, it can often make your final image cleaner and crisper, with a lower ISO and less noise.
Of course, there’s only a point in using this technique if you don’t have much light. If you’re at 1/400th of a second and you need ISO 400 to get a well-exposed shot, I don’t think there’s much point in trying to get down to ISO 100 at the risk of some motion blur. The time could probably be spent finding a better angle before the bird flies away.
Conclusion
The number one camera setting I think about in bird photography is shutter speed. I’m constantly changing my shutter speed to accommodate not just the various levels of motion in birds, but also to get as much light as possible. It’s the variable bird photographers have to be on top of in order to really optimize their shots while still preserving all that beautiful feather detail. I hope this article gave you some useful tips for optimizing shutter speed in your own bird photography!
I just don’t think these are good pictures of birds. The kingfisher in particular is washed out, overexposed, lacking detail, and doing nothing interesting.
All the other authors’ pictures on Photography Life are clear and vibrant, so it’s not a problem with my phone or computer
Maybe “maximizing” light is the wrong strategy..
> doing nothing interesting.
For me, a bird sitting doing “nothing” is already something interesting. I really have no interest in presenting birds in typically “entertaining” ways, so that other people will be amused or have some chance to connect with birds doing grandiose or fun things all the itme. I present birds the way I find them interesting, and a lot of time they are just perched because one of my favourite ways to see birds is “just” perched.
For me, it is a joy to watch birds sitting on branches. That’s what I like to photograph. I also don’t really like overrepresenting “interesting” behaviour of birds because I feel it plays into the idea of birds-as-entertainment. Yes, it’s attention-grabbing and yes, overwhelming birds “doing interesting thing” will be especially liked by the majority, but no, I really have no special preference for such things, and what the majority likes is not a factor in my photography.
That being said, you do have a point about the exposure. I do like the look but it might be worth considering dialing back a little, especially in the reds. The feather detail seems okay to me, although I don’t tend to sharpen too much.
The cool thing about photography is that every photographer has a different style and a different way to express how they perceive a subject/scene. Maybe Jason’s style is not your cup of tea. But, your personal taste doesn’t determine the quality of something.
Commenting that “these are [not] good pictures of birds”, is not constructive feedback, and it only makes you come across as a rude person. I also see lots of feather detail in Jason’s Kingfisher photo (so either you’re being picky, or I have supervision). I’m not even sure what’s your intention behind criticizing the bird for “doing nothing interesting”. Kingfishers are…fishers! They sit in a branch and wait for fish. That’s what they do. And Jason’s photo captures it very well.
As Jason pointed out in his answer, nature shouldn’t be mere entertainment. Birds are not there to shake their tails like pets and please us humans. Actually, thanks to us, most animals are just trying to make it through the day without getting into the list of endangered species. The minimum we can do is appreciate and respect this tiny fellow sitting on his branch, trying to live his life, and get some food.
After all, isn’t the whole point of nature photography to appreciate nature in all its forms?
Hey ! Thank you for the article. I am a huge fan of the aperture + auto Iso mode. It allows me to almost only do us on the bird, framing and focus. It is (almost) impossible to take a blown out picture in case of a bird goeing from shadows to bright Light which is quite common. The very philosophy of that shooting mode is what you describe : shoot with a safe speed that can be changed sometimes but speed can be higher if there is enough light. This does’nt apply for the abstract/artistic slow speed shots where you’re looking for a certain amount of blur and so it requires a precise speed.
For shots with safe speed, the only thing lacking in aperture + auto Iso is Quick access to minimum shutter speed. My nikon d500 only allows changing it in the menus and it would way more useful on the rear dial. Instead there is minimum Iso control on the rear dial which is pretty useless IMHO : why would one want a higher Iso on purpose ?
Manual + auto Iso requires me to think too much about the speed and the risk is having a blown out picture if i set a speed that is too slow for current light conditions.
Another option would be Manual + auto Iso but with exposure priority > speed priority : speed changes if correct exposure can’t be maintained.
When I had the 400mm F2.8, when using the Widest Apertures I very rarely captured Images of Birds or Mammals Wide Open, the chances of achieving the desired range of overall focus on the Subject was not always felt the subject had been captured to the best effect.
The In Focus Zones were very impressive, the OOF Zones in the image were on too many occasions from my assessment appearing too forward in the image.
F4 to F8 were much more acceptable depending on the size of the Subject.
Today using the owned Telephoto Z Lenses, the widest is F4.5 and F6.3, and with the Zoom, I usually have F5.6 as the base value.
I have been caught out a few times with Light and am becoming disciplined on the Z Body to got to the EV Control when ISO Values are creeping towards the unwanted values.
I would like to hear any PL Visitors thoughts on using the EV Control as a substitute for overriding the ISO, as this is something I was also quick to carry out when using DSLR Bodies as as well.
Thanks❤ for sharing real life experience. As the exposure is a critical component, which metering method should you prefer while shooting birds and the number of focus points for in-flight birds. I have often noted the focus becomes unsharp while there’s a background clutter.
Thank you Jason.. I am a news photographer for a newspaper but now and again with an environmental story need to focus on a bird. This will be no speciality of mine. Can you please make a recommendation exvept autofocus that I can get good bird pics for our newspapers without being to perturbed with detail as I am always on a deadline.
Very practical tips for birds photography. Thank you
Thank you, Khan. I very much appreciate the encouragement.
I tend to agree with Jason on most of this. The telephoto zoom lenses (financially) available to many of us amateur/hobbyist photographers are pretty slow, so sharpness often comes down to shutter speed. Maybe my (79 yr old) hands are not as steady as they used to be, so I need a little help when shooting hand-held. I also find that almost all the bird photography I do requires significant cropping in post, if only because I don’t like the 6×9 format ratio (or whatever it’s called.) Also, most birds are pretty small subjects, so cropping is pretty necessary, which makes the higher ISO more of a problem because the “noise” becomes more pronounced when cropped. I see very little difference in sharpness or depth of field when stopping down the slow telephoto lenses I have (Nikon F200-500/5.6 and Tamron Z150-500/5-6.7).
One thing I often do is set the camera maximum ISO to something reasonable like 3200 or 6400. If there is not enough light for these settings, so be it…
Of course, I use other settings when conditions (and time) allow, and being an amateur/hobbyist, I’m still learning… 😉
I would not set the ISO manually UNLESS of course light conditions aren’t changing too much and you have some difficult exposure conditions — of course, which can happen from time to time, in which case full manual is sometimes useful :)
No, I meant still on auto, but limit the maximum ISO to a “reasonable” level, which can be done in the “shooting” menu under “ISO sensitivity settings.”
Jason, you’ve lost me. While I totally agree that high shutter speeds are important in bird photography, I can’t understand the other half of that. If you want sharp detail on your birds, then why soft focus them with a wide open aperture? The high shutter speeds can’t make up for the loss of sharpness that happen when using the widest aperture. Narrower apertures give better sharpness. I think there is a way to have a bit of both. That is to go up to f/4 or 5.6, which are still pretty open, and still have fast shutter speeds. As you well know (but for people who may not) you can crank up your ISO just a little and get higher shutter speeds that way, without seriously affecting the brightness of your photo. In fact, I think youg get better control of your brightness that way. I’ve shot birds at f/8 with shutter speeds in the 200-300 range, and gotten plenty of fine detail and sharpness, and even some nice bokeh. I realize that it is a question of taste. Your birds tend to have a softer, ethereal look to them, for which your technique is perfect. I guess I think that a bit more definition is preferable.
Thanks for the comment, Elaine!
Well, I’m afraid I don’t follow your argument. Most long lenses are sharpest (or closest to their sharpest) wide open. That is definitely true of my Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. Although Spencer tested it in the lab (and so did lenstip) which proves that, it is clear that it is maximally sharp wide open.
And there’s no way there’s not enough sharpess at f/5.6. At 100% crop, pretty most of my bird shots have an enormous amount of feather detail, sometimes even showing the small feathers around the eye. In short, at least for the 500PF, and most of the other Nikon primes, you are already getting insane sharpness wide open. And often that’s true for many zooms too: look at PL’s test of the 180-600. At 500mm, it is already sharpest wide open in the center, and at 600mm the difference between f/6.3 and f/8 is only 10%.
Of course, there may be some difference in the overall look as I don’t tend to sharpen excessively, especially not compared to some of the latest sharpening algorithms (the custom algorithms of DxO/Topaz produce a very sharp “look”), but I guarantee you that it’s only down to postprocessing thing (and some compression on PL as well) rather than the choice of aperture. So yeah, I’m a huge fan of shooting wide open, assuming the lens is sharp enough wide open, which most birding lenses absolutely are.
Jason, I think we were a bit at cross purposes here. I didn’t at all realize that your widest open aperture was 5.6. If you noticed, I even said that I thought 5.6 was a fine aperture. I guess I was thinking that you meant some of the really low apertures, like 1.4 or 2.8. I have a 500 zoom, but don’t use it as it is too heavy for me. I use my 28-300 zoom and its widest aperture is 3.5., though I do tend to go narrower when shooting birds. Anyway, mea culpa. Peace!
It is rare for the popular “birding lenses” to have wide-open apertures of f/1.4 or f/2. Even f/2.8 is restricted to the 400/2.8 or 300/2.8-type lenses (though the latter is arguably already a little short for that application unless you have a reliable way to get quite close). There are always exceptions, but I guess that this is what Jason was basing is remarks off.
Oh, well yes I do wish I had an f/1.4 birding lens. That would be nice indeed :)
600mm f1.4….it would also likely need a truck to transport it, and a crane to hold it steady !
I guess Elaine was talking about depth of field and not having even the whole bird in focus due to long lens and wide aperture. At minimum focus distance with 400 f/2.8 we’re talking 1-2cm.
But I assume it’s given that the distance to the bird warrants that the whole bird will be in focus while having short enough shutter speed to avoid motion blur.
From memory, I think I recall you being a fan of the F-mount 28-300. I’ve never used it, but I sold an 80-400 because I thought it fell short of the sharpness of a 300f/4D + 1.4TC, both used wide open on on aps-c cameras. Perhaps this is two photographers being used to the qualities/limits of their lenses. I’ve since gone Jason’s way with a D500 and 500 PF. I don’t think it’s ever been off f5.6 (nor my 300 off f4). Mind you, in the U.K. bright light isn’t that common …
Hi Robert, My f mount 28-300 is not the sharpest lens in the stable. But it has a sweet spot around f/8 that is as sharp as any other lens. I don’t know what it is about that lens, but I love it. I have a dozen other very good lenses, and yet I never use them. But I also don’t think that sharpness is the be-all and end-all of a lens. I think we overrate sharpness here at PL. The 28-300’s 1.2 foot minimum focus distance is one of its most valuable features. Because of that I can do macro work that looks better than my macro lens can produce. I love its range, being able to go from 28mm to 300mm without changing lenses. I think that its ability to be such a good all around lens is the thing that makes me love it so much. I wish that Nikon would redo this f mount lens with updated technology such as making it a PF lens to reduce the weight and make it sharper. That is my dream.