@David As I said, typically I would have used spot metering to expose for the bird only. However, the bird showed up unexpectedly and didn't have time change metering modes or even adjust exposure.

@GEGJr Yeah that does happen.  I'm lucky in that the UI button design on my R3 lets me change shutter speed/aperture and ISO all the flick of a finger and it's very quick and intuitive.  Can easily change at a heart beat and with my eye up to the viewfinder.  It does make it a bit easier in situations like that, and that's something that a tool should do.  Make your life easier.

@David My A7RM5 and A7RC have a dial that allows me to increase and decrease exposure on the fly butin the case of an unexpected and fast flying bird suddently coming into view, there's no way to change it that fast. However, sometimes if I happen to notice it coming into the frame I can start turning the dial to adjust the end exposure. But the other issue, at least for me, is that if I'm tracking a specific subject I'm only able to adjust the overall exposure. Can't have my cake and eat it, too. Plus, I'm still relatively new to the mirrorless cameras I have now. On my old DSLR (DSLT Sony A99M2 and A77M2) I had over a decade experience so I was much faster making adjustments. But in all honesty I wasn't fastest enough even with those cameras.

@GEGJr Practice makes perfect George.  The R3 is my favourite camera ever.  Lighter than earlier 1 series cameras, a tiny bit smaller and more comfortable in the hand.  VERY good button UI, superb AF performance.  Despite initial reservations, I have fallen in love with the EVF and no longer care for OVFs.  CFExpress cards have opened up much faster shooting speeds and larger buffers, incredibly handy for bursts of action.  It's IQ is also the best of any Canon CMOS camera imho.  When saying IQ, I'm not just talking about megapixels.  I'm more interested in high ISO performance, DR and colour science, of which, it excels in every category.

A good mate has a Sony A73 and it's what I consider to be quite horrible in the hand.

@David No offense but frankly, I don't care much about systems. I happen to use Sony because when I got into 35mm SLR the Minolta HTSi+ felt really good in my hand. I  held the them all (begginer) the brands in my hands. Up to that time I had been using P&S and fixed lens and TLRs. These days almost all digital cameras do all things pretty well. Of course some cameras do somethings a little better but unless you're a beginner and its a first DSLR or Mirrorless about the only thing that separates them is how they feel in hands and the locations of all the dials and buttons. When cameras started using EVFs I didn't really clear for because I was completely used to OVF. When I got the Sony A99 (SLT) and A77 (also SLT) and upgraded to version II on both I was got sold on the EVF because they both had virtually 100% view. I don't even pay much attention to the ISO range because I control the ISO limit and don't typically require to be able to make pictures in near darkness and if I do than I must be prepared to accept what I get. Coming from the film and slide time you couldn't even think about getting a film over 1600 ASA. I believe you can now get 3200.

@GEGJr Sorry, but have to disagree. Camera "feel" is important.  A camera that's too large for small hands?  Gonna be uncomfortable.  A camera with poor button UI?  That's going to instigate a lot of frustration from the user.  Think of it like this:

You own a car, yes?  Most cars do things pretty much the same these days.  What really matters is the road.  A good road?  Great.  A bad road?  Not so much.  Same car.  That analogy applies to cameras.  The camera is a tool, a means to an end.  That end is achieving reliable, high quality images, and make you, the photographer's life as easy as possible.

Being able to see the viewfinder in real time is a game breaker for me.  Overlayed Histogram?  Even better.

High ISO isn't just for near darkness.  If I'm shooting a fast bird, say, a Peregrine Falcon, I'm shooting at LEAST 1/4000.  Even in bright daylight, I need to bump my ISO to get a balanced exposure.  Especially since I like to shoot at f8 (1 stop less than the maximum f5.6 I can achieve with my 500mm prime and 1.4x TC).  I'm quite often shooting at 1/4000, f8, ISO 4000-5000.   Speed is of the essence in this example.  I'm spoiled by the R3 having class leading high ISO performance, only better by the R1.  Sony's A1/A1II come close and are 50mp, which is very nice.  But Sony's high ISO performance in their lower range cameras is far inferior to the A1/A1II.

Back in the day you could get T-MAX up to ISO6400 if my memory serves me.  Grainy as hell though, very horrible IQ.  ISO104000 on my R3 looks better than ISO6400 t-MAX.  No comparison.  Modern NR AI software doesn't do a great job of cleaning up film grain either I might add (and you have to add the scanning process to the equation, taking more time).

@David You said, "Sorry, but have to disagree. Camera “feel” is important" I beg your pardon, but didn't say that? I think I said "when I got into 35mm SLR the Minolta HTSi+ felt really good in my hand."

You said, "High ISO isn't just for near darkness." Did I say it was just for darkness? I don't think I did. But since you are putting words in my mouth, you are correct. Even in broad daylight, to a camera shooting at f/8 at 4000th of a second it might as well be dark. High ISO these days is being to allow high shutter speeds thus balancing the exposure especially, also as you have pointed out, because many lenses are can't capable of extremely low f-stop numbers such as f/2.8 and lower (aka large apertures). So as you have already said, shooting at f/8 at very high shutter speeds requires very large apertures and, or high ISO. Back in the day there was no such thing as ISO 104,000 film.

I think we are saying the same thing just saying it differently.

@David Do you have any videos to suggest? I watched a couple, but didn't find them easy to understand as a beginner. I appreciated Melissa's break down here and was able to utilize the skill a little this time at least. I'm definitely not at a place of being able to guestimate myself. Outside of photographing the moon, this was my first set of passable photos in manual mode for me.

Do you find your images get grainy at a higher ISO? I did one photo of this pileated with a higher ISO and it was super grainy.

@Kiersten Hi Kiersten,

I'll try and explain.  There are 3 settings, that when combined, affect the amount of light that enters the camera.  These are shutter speed (TV mode on some cameras, which stands for Time Value), aperture (AV mode on some cameras, which stands for Aperture Value) and ISO.  ISO is the sensitivity [to light] of film or a digital sensor.

When combined in the correct amounts, they create an image that is correctly exposed.

Each value is changeable in "stops" (some cameras let you change the values in 1/2 or 1/3 stops, which is more precise).  When you change 1 value, then you need to change 1 of the other 2 values to compensate to create balance.  If you value movement, then a higher shutter speed is a requirement.  This in itself, lets less light in.  So, you either have to open up the aperture (to let more light in) or increase the ISO (make the digital sensor more sensitive to light) to get the same balanced amount of light entering the camera.  Same if you value aperture.

Let's do some maths.  Same your camera settings are 1/500; f8 and ISO 800.

You want to shoot a faster shutter speed, say, 1/1000.  To get the same balance, you need to either open up the aperture (wider hole letting more light in) or increase the ISO.  Now, going from 1/500 to 1/1000 is 1 stop by the way.  In this example, you could:

1/1000; f5.6 (opening up the aperture by 1 stop) ISO 800.

or

1/1000, f8 and ISO 1600 (increasing the sensor's sensitivity by 1 stop).

All of these settings let in the same amount of light.  1 focuses (no pun intended) on shutter speed to better freeze movement.  The other adjusts the depth of field (field of sharpness) by adjusting the aperture.  And ISO increases the sensitivity of the sensor to light (in this case with a digital sensor, it amplifies the light signal).  The amplification process causes more digital noise as a result of noisy electronic circuitry.

Generally speaking, it's better to adjust the shutter speed or aperture value rather than ISO.  Higher ISO creates more noise, which hides fine detail.  Yes, Noise Reduction programs are very good today, and can rescue images shot at higher ISOs, but it is typically better to try and adjust shutter/aperture values before touching ISO.  Keep that ISO value as low as possible given the shooting circumstances.

Shutter speeds in steps:

1 second; 1/2 second; 1/4; 1/8; 1/15; 1/30; 1/60; 1/125; 1/250; 1/500; 1/1000; 1/2000; 1/4000; 1/8000 (a typical range - some cameras do have faster shutter speeds, but they are typically the higher ended cameras).  You may want to focus on shutter speed to say, freeze the wing movement of hummingbirds.  At 1/500, their wings will be blurry.  A 1/8000 or 1/16000 (if your camera supports that shutter speed) their wings will be more "frozen" in place, with less blur.

Aperture values in steps:

f1; f1.4; f2; f2.4; f2.8; f4; f5.6; f8; f11; f16; f22; f32

not every lens will go down to f1, or up to f32.  The lens will have its aperture value range printed on the lens, usually on the front of the lens.  Each step means double the amount of light entering the camera than the prior step.  For example, f8 lets in half the light that f5.6 does.  f5.6 lets in twice as much light as f8.

ISO is just the sensitivity of the sensor or film.  How effective it is in responding to photons hitting it.  At the cost of either film grain (film) or electronic noise (digital sensors).

I guess 1 way to think of this is to think of a triangle.  All angles in a triangle must equal 180 degrees.  If each angle is 60 degrees, it's an equilateral triangle.   If you adjust 1 angle, you need to change either of the other 2 (or both) to get them to sum to 180 again.  The same logic applies to shutter speed, aperture value & ISO.  That's why it's been called the "exposure triangle".

It's a semi-difficult concept that takes time to master.  All I can suggest is to think what is important in the shot?  Freezing the action?  Then adjust shutter speed to a higher value.  Adjust aperture and/or ISO to get the balanced exposure.  If depth of field is valued (say, you want the background out of focus and a nice smooth background) then aperture is of importance. Open up the aperture to a larger opening.  Say, from f8 to f5.6.  If you're shooting in a dark location or at dusk/dawn, then ISO, combined with shutter speed and aperture value is probably a good idea.

mix 'n' match!

Duade breaks down the concept of manual mode in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh1MBfSaCUI

I think it's a good video, but it may not work for you.  Everyone understands concepts differently.  I've been using metered manual mode for many years (since 1987).  That's nearly 40 years of experience.  Yes, I found the exposure triangle concept difficult at first, but I went out and practiced a lot and eventually got my head around it.

I really hope this helps.  If you have questions, ask, I'm happy to try and help.

@Kiersten I forgot to mention grain at higher ISO.  Yes, that is normal.  It does vary from camera to camera.  My camera, is well regarded as the king of high ISO (as is the top of the range R1).  Sony's A1/A1II are pretty good, as is Nikon's Z8 and Z9.

A few things - noise is a function of the size of the pixel(s).  Smaller pixels means more noise.  Think of it like this - a small bucket and a larger bucket.  Which holds more water?  The same applies to small vs larger pixels.  The latter hold more light.  More light means less amplification required by the electronics that support the digital sensor.

Smaller digital compact cameras have very small sensors.  This means smaller pixels.  They will never perform as good as a camera with a larger sensor in terms of noise.  Have a look at the camera sensor size comparison chart here:

https://capturetheatlas.com/camera-sensor-size/

imagine each sensor has only 8mp.  The largest sensor size "medium format' has physically larger dimensions.  Pixels will be larger.  This applies down through each sensor size.  Micro 4/3s will always be a lot noisier than say, APS-C or full frame or medium frame.  The sensor size is smaller, so the pixels are smaller.

Now, not all sensors have the same megapixels.  Sony's excellent A1 is full frame (36x24mm sensor size0 but is 45mp.  My R3 is also full frame, but it ONLY has 24mp.  So the pixels are larger, thus letting more light in, and requiring less digital amplification from the sensor's support circuitry.

At lower ISOs, this isn't too much of an issue.  At higher ISOs, it does become an issue, because more amplification of the light signal is required, thus more noise.  My R3 requires less amplification at ISO 12800 than the A1's does (larger pixels, more light!).

Pixel size also impacts on DR (Dynamic Range) - the number of stops between the darkest and brightest points that the sensor can record without turning pure Black or White ("blown out").  Blown out means no information or detail in that pixel.  A smaller sensor design will have a smaller DR (say, 8 or 9 stops between darkest and brightest).  My R3 can go up to 14 stops.  That gives me more exposure latitude leeway so I can preserve detail in the darkest and lightest areas of the image.

Both noise and DR are a function of pixel size and dictated by physics.  We cannot change physics.

As you are using a camera with a smaller sensor size, you will struggle with higher ISOs.  The good news is, there's modern software out there that can help clean up and remove the digital noise.  Software such as DXO Pure RAW, Topaz Denoise AI and Adobe's denoise function in Lightroom are invaluable.  The first 2 aren't free, the last 1 is if you have an Adobe photography subscription and can use Lightroom/Lightroom Classic.

Like with film, sometimes grain/noise is wanted as it adds "character" to the image.  As the artist, that's your decision!

1 final thought - digital sensors require light.  If you starve them by underexposing the image, you will make the digital noise look even worse.  Try and get the exposure balanced and correct when shooting at higher ISOs.  Your imagers will thank you.  Also, darker backgrounds tend to show up noise more than a lighter background.  Try and pick lighter backgrounds behind your bird to limit how much noise is apparent.

Sorry for such long replies.

Cheers,

Dave