• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Pine Bunting, Shropshire England ? (1 Viewer)

I take exception to the expression "Blundering About" ! That I do not do and I know most if not all of the regular British Species ! My problem is with some vagrants. I do know that photos can be misleading but there is no substitute for taking a photo then identifying the bird later if you are not sure. Personally I have no idea how people can go birdwatching without a camera, only that way do you have a record of what you have seen !
I have a sense of pre-digital camera birders not liking birders with cameras but I hope that I am wrong. Sorry but your comments really annoyed me !

Well, a notebook is usually sufficient to keep a record of what you have seen. I suspect most birders use a camera for ID to some degree these days. Some will only use it for particularly rare or tricky species (as they'll be confident that they've identified everything else correctly) and those with less experience or confidence will use them more. Nothing wrong with that.

Old Skool Birders certainly don't have a problem with those who use a camera - I think what people take issue with is people using a camera as a binocular substitute, and then asking for an ID. To the old school, that just isn't birding. The real opportunities to learn come from watching and studying birds, how they move, how they sound etc, as well as how they look. This process involves some IDs getting away, but develops a more knowledgeable and better field birder.

All of the genuine experts on this forum learned their craft through a pair of binoculars or a scope, and still use these as their primary birding tools.
 
Wow I'm finding this increasingly bizarre. Of course there is an alternative to taking a picture - put the time in, pure and simple. If you choose to twitch then read up on the bird beforehand.
Spend as much time as you can on a local patch to ensure you're confident with regular species and read a field guide in any spare time.
When you do twitch watch the bird for as long as you can or at least until you are satisfied with your identification. Watching for an hour or two then sodding off uncertain but not bothered because you have a photo - well, that's not twitching or even birding as I did it or would ever want to. I believe some people carry a camera but not a scope these days. There must be some point I'm missing but wtf????
Dave

I too am finding this increasingly bizarre - but for a different reason. As I commented on another thread recently, although I have been birding for about 50 years - from the age of 10 or so - with variable intensity of course, and have hence lived through the pre-digital (and for most the pre-camera) age I do now carry a DSLR camera habitually - and bins - and a scope. I have great eyesight for a ROF, but now find it harder to capture small features convincingly in a small, fast-moving and/or flying bird. It seems my mind's 'shutter-speed' maximum is reducing with age. Also whereas for a lot of my earlier years I just didn't bother with some complex species groups or subspecies (gulls especially) as my allowable birding time was 'domestically-limited'.

Now however I have all the time in the world, and also the necessary financial resources to buy all the necessary cr@p - so a perfect day out in the field for me now also includes trying to get good enough photos to allow me to study some of the more detailed features in the comfort and warmth of my house. If I had just got into birding I have no doubt a camera would be as vital as bins and a scope, and I would carry all three on all but the most casual of outings.

Some do it seems try to substitute personal effort with a few images, but most supplement - me as well - and I think this supplementation is progress not regression.

.... for as long as I am fit enough to carry it all anyway!

Also - even back in the day some of the field notes and sketches I saw would not differentiate a Blackbird from a Common scoter. ;)

Mick
 
I believe some people carry a camera but not a scope these days. There must be some point I'm missing but wtf????
Dave

The weight of a 500mm f4!

Seriously, if you carry a big lens you aren't going to want to carry a scope as well (though for seawatching I grit my teeth and carry both anyway).

But apart from my interest in taking photos of different species of birds I'm still just like any other birder of 35 years experience. I watch them, listen to them, occasionally take notes on behaviour - but I will admit I leave plumage and structure to the camera as a general rule these days. My old notebooks do have incompetent sketches and slightly better descriptions in them.

John
 
Well, enough said on all of this, far too much disagreement. We all bird in our own way and that is good. I shall not bother seeking ID advice on this forum again, pity but I'm obviously not a real birder as far as several people are concerned.
 
Fascinating discussion, I only started birding about 6 years ago and have a view - if I haven't taken a photo of it I haven't seen it. I learned to identify birds by taking photos and going through pages of books to ID the species. Next time I saw the species I knew what it was (mostly !). I'm still not good enough to say "that's a Pine Bunting" in a flock of mixed buntings but I am good enough to say "that bird is different" ! Take a photo, go home, look up the books to try to ID it then if I'm really still not sure ask on Birdforum. That seems to bother some people and I'm not sure why as surely the idea is to pass on knowledge. What I find most annoying is a single word answer like "Chaffinch" with no explanation as to why, that is pretty useless to anyone. Back to my original post, about 2 dozen people all said "that's the Pine Bunting" Some took photos, most left happy, and probably still are happy, that they had seen the bird. I wasn't sure when I got home and asked for help or reassurance. What I do know is that if the bird is a Corn Bunting then it was a bit different from the other Corn Buntings there. Fascinating discussion as I said !

Fair play mate.

The thing about birding is that there is definitely a condescending attitude that prevails in some circles. Not saying it applies to posters on this thread.
 
Now, now Farnborough John - you were old school when I was starting out so your stripes (or camera over scope preference) have been thoroughly earned.
 
How many birders, especially those who travel abroad, can say that they've never used a camera to confirm an ID, I know I have many times and probably always will now.

A
 
Now back to the original plot. Images of the Pine bunting at Venus Pool are now available to all on "Birdguides"

Pepe
 
Last edited:
Personally I have no idea how people can go birdwatching without a camera, only that way do you have a record of what you have seen !
I usually carry a smallish digital camera with me, hence most pictures I take are purely record shots in terms of quality, and that's all they're supposed to be. Ideally, you should get an image and take field notes, that's the best way to be sure of an ID. Sometimes, a bird is too far away, or you can't get a picture for other reasons, so your notes have to be good enough to be sure anyway.


The weight of a 500mm f4!

Seriously, if you carry a big lens you aren't going to want to carry a scope as well (though for seawatching I grit my teeth and carry both anyway).
Well, you could always get a donkey to carry all that extra equipment for you. Or a personal assistant...
 
Well, you could always get a donkey to carry all that extra equipment for you. Or a personal assistant...

He's got a Marion! Not sure she would be too happy lugging that great lens about ...I suspect, and I admit it is pure conjecture, that she might just wrap it around John's neck :)
 
Wow I'm finding this increasingly bizarre. I believe some people carry a camera but not a scope these days. There must be some point I'm missing but wtf????

I'm done for then - at the local level, I almost never carry a scope these days and fairly rarely take a camera anymore. Always do when birding overseas though.
 
Wow I'm finding this increasingly bizarre. Of course there is an alternative to taking a picture - put the time in, pure and simple. If you choose to twitch then read up on the bird beforehand.
Spend as much time as you can on a local patch to ensure you're confident with regular species and read a field guide in any spare time.
When you do twitch watch the bird for as long as you can or at least until you are satisfied with your identification. Watching for an hour or two then sodding off uncertain but not bothered because you have a photo - well, that's not twitching or even birding as I did it or would ever want to. I believe some people carry a camera but not a scope these days. There must be some point I'm missing but wtf????
Dave

Precisely! Us 'old school' birders earned our credibility and reliability as observers by putting the time in; you can't learn behavioural characteristics, 'jizz' etc - all very important clues to a birds identity - from a photograph! Personally, I find the fusillade of camera shutters which accompanies every move of a rarity annoying and, of course the inevitable photographer who needs to get that little bit closer than everyone else, which is why I stick to constant effort 'patch' birding these days.

RB
 
He's got a Marion! Not sure she would be too happy lugging that great lens about ...I suspect, and I admit it is pure conjecture, that she might just wrap it around John's neck :)

Also conjecture and happy to keep it that way, but I suspect her treatment of me would run more to insertion..... :eek!:

John
 
Well, enough said on all of this, far too much disagreement. We all bird in our own way and that is good. I shall not bother seeking ID advice on this forum again, pity but I'm obviously not a real birder as far as several people are concerned.

No don't. One of the big pluses of this hobby is there are no set ways of doing things - lot's of folk list and lots (like me) don't - lots stick to notes and bins and perhaps feel they have little need of the assistance of others, some use cameras and sometimes seek the assurance of the ID forum.

Now't as queer as folk, and in my 50+ years birding that certainly applies to birders!

I'm sure there are at least as many birders that get on my t*ts, as I get on theirs, but as I'm in this for personal education, enjoyment and satisfaction it doesn't really matter. I try to be polite, put the bird/wildlife welfare above mine (or theirs) and help where I can - but honestly Rotherbirder if my shutter sound causes you distress you really have a bigger problem, mate. Something that taking notes is not going to resolve.

Like most things in life a thickish skin is required these days - especially in these somewhat anonymous internet communications.

Mick
 
Well, you could always get a donkey to carry all that extra equipment for you. Or a personal assistant...

I have one, my wife but don't tell her I said that!

I'm a birder, she's a photographer, doesn't carry bins or stress if she misses seeing something plus I get a great catalogue of birds seen on our trips, perfect marriage!!!


A
 
Last edited:
I believe some people carry a camera but not a scope these days. There must be some point I'm missing but wtf????
Dave

Well that describes me, and there are several reasons for it, but most notably that scopes are expensive bits of kit to buy, and particularly as someone who likes to travel light (as often going by public transport or on a bike which for various reasons I don't like the idea of having conspicuous expensive equipment) it's a major investment I currently don't feel comfortable making.

There are certainly times when I'm very grateful for a person there at the same time offering me a look through their scope giving me a better look at some distant bird or other, and it very much is a different experience watching through a scope than through binoculars and camera, but it's certainly not a fundamental necessity to go birding.

Probably 99.9% of birds I encounter can be viewed enough through binoculars or my bridge camera for me to confidently ID in the field, but the obvious flip side of that is that I have records of birds I only got brief views of or for whatever reason I wasn't able to look at properly I have a record of that someone can look at if necessarily that without the camera would have to be "written off".
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top