It came from the fact that your attitude clearly suggests that you think of yourself as a proper birder being better than those who are ''just someone with a camera''.
I just see it as case of being different, different people enjoying birds in a slightly different way. You seem to see it as a case of right and wrong,you seem to think that you are right and people doing things differently are wrong.
What he said.
I seldom carry binoculars any more because it's the photo and the exercise that interests me.
I'm fairly new to this hobby,
I'd conclude that there's no wrong way to be a birder.
That would make you a photographer.
Birding or photography?
That depends on your definition of a birder. Mine is, somebody who has developed identifications skills to some extent. It's safe to say that any birder who starts out with binoculars (whether they change to a camera later is another matter), is going to develop better observation/identification skills than one who starts out with and uses a camera only. How could it be any other way? After all, binoculars are just for observation, cameras are not. But of course not all birders are good photographers
Ok... To show value of both.... If u are in a relatively dead zone or know your birding area pretty good... Binos are fine. But if you travel to hot spots, .... Central America, Ecuador, Indonesia etc.... Without a camera you are simply not going to be able to ID birds due to the variety but also the number of birds close enough in appearance to confuse in establishing positive ID w/o a camera.jimHowever I hate to think of how few species you would be able to see and identify if only carrying a camera, whether SLR, bridge or point-and-shoot.I'm enjoying toting a bridge camera around but leave bins behind?? NO way!!
Russ
A birder is, and this is obvious, anyone who enjoys watching birds. I remember reading years ago that it's a great hobby because no equipment at all is needed to enjoy it.
This certainly satisfies your definition. I did, indeed, start out with binoculars, and you are quite badly mistaken about cameras and observation. A zoom lens mounted on a tripod could arguably be called an improvement in many situations because you can quickly change the width of the field being observed, and there is more stability. In any event, I have vision problems in my right eye and binoculars don't work well for me.
Although I'm not new to birding or photography, I'm quite an amateur at both and hoping to improve my skills.
Certainly don't agree with this; I've birded in 35+ countries on 6 continents and am certain I would have missed any number of birds had I been faffing about with shutter speeds, F-stops, manual/auto focus and a socking great tripod especially in rain-forest. Plus there is no joy in trying to bird with a camera unless you enjoy hours sat behind a computer screen trying to brighten and sharpen a whole bunch of dodgy pictures trying to work out what you may have seen and then posting them on BF for others opinions!! Plainly a bird-photographer will have a very different modus-operandi in these situations. I'm happy to go out into the countryside with a camera and no bins but only when I'm wearing my 'Bird Photographer hat!! I suspect (if you have a good knowledge of bird songs) that you'd have better luck birding with just a notebook and no optics than with a camera.Ok... To show value of both.... If u are in a relatively dead zone or know your birding area pretty good... Binos are fine. But if you travel to hot spots, .... Central America, Ecuador, Indonesia etc.... Without a camera you are simply not going to be able to ID birds due to the variety but also the number of birds close enough in appearance to confuse in establishing positive ID w/o a camera.jim
No, it doesn't.
Perhaps English isn't your native tongue?
A birder is, "...somebody who has developed identifications skills to some extent."
How are you going to parse that? Number of species? Number on life list? Maybe you'll come up with a different definition?
Lighten up a little.
Perhaps English isn't your native tongue?
A birder is, "...somebody who has developed identifications skills to some extent."
How are you going to parse that? Number of species? Number on life list? Maybe you'll come up with a different definition?
Lighten up a little.
Hugh,
You are getting into a no hoper I am afraid here. Shameless "Twite" Feeney is not really a very good birder, but he likes to think he is at least better than some others and is willing to put those others down in the same vein as he has in this thread.
Do not worry about what you do. Just enjoy it. Birds are great, and whether you get your enjoyment out of them through binoculars or off the back of an LCD screen only matters to those arrogant enough to question others standards when they think their standards are high themselves.
As long as you enjoy what you are doing, you are doing it right.
Regards
Owen
Nice one Owen, I owe you one.
No worries shameless. Feel free to accuse me of "stalking" you in your signature like the last guy that stood up to you.
shame there's no cuckoo emoticon. you would think birdforum would have it.
Owen
Hugh,
You are getting into a no hoper I am afraid here. Shameless "Twite" Feeney is not really a very good birder, but he likes to think he is at least better than some others and is willing to put those others down in the same vein as he has in this thread.
Do not worry about what you do. Just enjoy it. Birds are great, and whether you get your enjoyment out of them through binoculars or off the back of an LCD screen only matters to those arrogant enough to question others standards when they think their standards are high themselves.
As long as you enjoy what you are doing, you are doing it right.
Regards
Owen