[Keith Alan]

This was taken on the banks of the Guadalupe River in Kerrville Texas, an hour drive northwest of San Antonio.
The location is behind a nightclub where I have worked at least once a month since March.
Every time we play there I take a few shots of this same goose, but nothing has pleased me until last Saturday evening's attempt.




The whole internet debate over whether better cameras take better pictures--or not is something that's arguable successfully on both sides, yet rational people know that there are too many factors at play to issue blanket statements like that.
But I will say that my old camera never got me a decent goose photo despite 5 months of trying.
A combination of greater available focal length (300mm-e versus 180mm-e), a sensor-shift image stabilization feature, a faster and more accurate autofocus system, and a much faster frame rate helped me immensely.
I was able to quickly bang out a bunch of shots before the goose turned-tail and waddled into the water, and they were all sharp enough to use.
On the other hand, my old camera was dead-silent so I might have had a little more time to shoot without mirror-slap alarming the big bird--but would I have had the patience to stay crouched behind a tree for over a minute just to get another weak bird photo?

The benefits of a DSLR are asserting themselves every time I use it.
But I still haven't gotten anything that would have been impossible using my "obsolete" F717.
And on the infrared side the new one can't even come close.
Going from a slow 1/60 shutter to a glacial 4+ seconds is unacceptable but not surprising.
My IR days are done for the foreseeable future.

[shuttertalk]

Hey Keith - great title. I think with the whole debate - most people aren't using their cameras to their full potential, so upgrading to a better one won't mean better pictures. I think for a proportion of others like yourself who are limited by the functionality of their current system, will see a benefit when they move to better hardware...

[Keith Alan]

...most people aren't using their cameras to their full potential, so upgrading to a better one won't mean better pictures...

My opinion exactly.

MegaPixels and crazy zoom ratios are marketing features that serious photographers look at more carefully than the usual consumer.

[Pavel]

Nice crisp shot, good pose and good composition Keith. Good colours for the bird, although the grass looks to me slightly too blue? Is it possible that the bird is leaning back a bit?

On the issue of camera versus photographer, I agree woith both Julian and you, although I like toys. My hope is that one day I will grow into them...

Pavel

[Keith Alan]

Thanks, Pavel.
Blue grass = setting sun + shadows. Rather than try to fight it with white balance, I kept the look because it was an honest representation of reality.

Leaning back = the ground sloping down into the river.

[blowup]

This a very sharp photo, Keith. If you don't mind, what camera/lens combo was used? Ken Rockwell has argued that the Canon 5D is sharper than the Nikon D3 (or D300), and that this is independent of what lens is used. (See http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/sharpness-1.htm) I know that Ken's writing has been knocked recently on this site, and I'm not posting to defend him, but this has caused me to wonder if there really is a difference in the ability to record details.
Cheers, Gary

[enviroguy]

Hi, Keith! Nice photo of a contented looking bird. How do you meter and expose for these guys? Usually, when I attempt to photograph a white goose or swan, the bird is overexposed, the white feathers seemingly burned out. I would have thought that the opposite would have occured without exposure compensation. The black swan I attempted to photograph last week would not cooperate for me. Regards.....Dennis

[Keith Alan]

I'm using a brand new Sony Alpha300--it's 10.2mp--and I was using the 55-200mm lens from their inexpensive DT series

I didn't use any EV compensation, just normal exposure metering.
The DRO was on.
(Dynamic Range Optimizer--helps keep whites from blowing-out while retaining shadow details--works only on jpg processing in-camera.)

[Pavel]

Gary, I think in part Keith's success comes from careful metering and from low angle of sunlight, that enhances textural effects. With direct lighting or very difuse omnidirectional lighting, I would guess that the photo would look less sharp. Of course with harsh directional lighting there would be deep shadows and very light highlights, and that is not the case here. If you take a lot of B&W photos, you notice these kind of things, because colour does not distract. Pavel

[Keith Alan]

I don't think the sun's angle had an effect on sharpness the way you described, Pavel.
The goose is pointing it's bill almost directly towards the setting sun, so I was working in shadows with diffused and flat light.
When the sun was a little higher and there was a lot of glare on the water and the shadows were deeper there was no way to get a good exposure, so I waited for conditions to improve and for the goose to move and shot this and a few others.

The image stabilization and long zoom helped the most, although I was also braced against a tree while kneeling on the last six inches of solid ground before it drops-off into the river.
The DRO probably helped even-out things a little, too.
Then there's Photoshop...

The Sony does seem to meter really well in every situation I have tried, and both lenses are sharper and give better results than I expected by a good margin.

[matthew]

The benefits of a DSLR are asserting themselves every time I use it.
But I still haven't gotten anything that would have been impossible using my "obsolete" F717.

In a few months I'm going to ask if this is still true.

You've certainly gotten a lot out of your old F717, and it was a constant reminder to me of how limitations can be turned into a strength when it translates into greater proficiency with a single unchanging tool. I've retired three cameras in the time that you've used the 717 - and I started with the F828, nominally the replacement for the F717 - and while I think I've had a much broader technical range, I've never thought that it translated into better photos. I'm very interested in what you get into next, and how you move on from here.