Well done.

#2: Why would f/6.3 have been a bit better than f/5.6?
Although I can’t see it on the screen I am using I suspect that a little more depth of field would have helped with sharpness on the head.

See my response to Jackie below.

#3: Why would Daylight WB been better than Shade WB?
It looks sunny to me… 🙂

🙂 Yes. Again, see my detailed response to Jackie below.

#4: Why would an AF point five up from the center AF point been better than the one that was three up from the center?
It would have put the AF point closer to the eye.

Bingo.

artie

#1: Why would I have been better off at ISO 400?
A: You had plenty of light so coming down 400 ISO you would have given a sharper image, less grain. The bird was standing still so you really didn’t need the speed of 1/1000.

You are on the right track but it had nothing to do with the bird “standing out.” I simply had more than enough light and shutter speed to go down one full stop of ISO and enjoy a bit better image quality and a bit less noise.

#2: Why would f/6.3 have been a bit better than f/5.6?
A: Changing to f/6.3 would have made the detail just a little sharper.

Bingo.

#3: Why would Daylight WB been better than Shade WB?
A: Shade wb has a higher Kelvin (abt 7500) so it’s compensating for the cooler light (blue) Where daylight wb is balanced at about 5500K. You were in a daylight.

Yes, shade was too warm; it lead to the CYAN cast in the ocean. Daylight would have been better than AWB because it would yield more consistent color with changing background tonalities…

#4: Why would an AF point five up from the center AF point been better than the one that was three up from the center?
A: Focus at five up would have been closer to the eye, it looks like three up focused on the upper part of the beak.

Yes on the first part however the bird’s eye is razor sharp as presented… But it is always better to get in the habit of doing things just right as opposed to doing them almost right…

Got to love the pro’s! 🙂
Jackie

artie