Ran across a couple of more shots from 2011 that I had never processed. And they provided me with a good reminder. We spend so much time on CIC and elsewhere arguing about the minutia of equipment specs. When that is ultimately such a small part of what it takes to make a photo. These were taken with a D7000. That's been the only DSLR body I've owned that I simply did not like. I was genuinely glad to see that one go. And yet, when I go through my image files, some of the best photos I've ever taken were made with that camera. Because the quality of those images has a lot more to do with content than with megapixels. Granted the pixel count does dictate how big one can print the image with reasonable results, but that's the icing on the cake, so to speak. And as a matter of full disclosure I'm as bad as the next guy about wanting the newest and shiniest camera.
So here are the new found two. We were pretty close to this guy/gal. Not the best shots in the world for content, but I thought worth sharing. Most people do not realize that brown bears eat a lot of grass. As a matter of fact when it comes to sheer bulk, the VAST majority of their diet consists of grass. Brown bear skat(aka dung) is quite recognizable in that the high grass content makes it look just like horse dung. And horses are fairly rare in the same environs of Alaska as the brownies.
1) It had been raining heavily. This guy was both wet and in the process of shedding the long winter coat.
D7000, 200-400mm VR, f/5 @ 400 mm, 1/1600, ISO 1600, full frame
2) This one is cropped from a full body shot. The coat on the hind quarter was pretty shabby.
D7000, 200-400mm VR, f/5.6 @ 200 mm, 1/1600, ISO 1600, cropped from a full body shot
I've posted this image before. But it is to emphasize the point about the equipment. Also shot with the infamous D7000 during the same excursion as those above. This is far and away my most popular bear image as judged by public opinion. I can't even begin to guess why
3) D7000, 200-400mm VR, f/4 @ 340 mm, 1/800, ISO 640