[Matri-Juve]

Some people enjoy just a Binocular and perhaps a ID guide when out, they love watching different birds with the binocular and that's it.
Taking notes and ticking off the species on their life list is extremely enjoyable for them.

Other people go out for the sole purpose of capturing rare birds or any type with their camera and sharing the images for others to see.

You might enjoy using both, but if you had to only take one piece of equipment which would it be? A camera or the old trusty binocular?

[dave123]

tricky, but i think it would be camera.
then i could spend year looking at the photos

[Adam W]

If forced it would have to be the bins but I'd hate to have to chose only one.

[Silverstar24]

I'm terrible at identifying birds on the go. So what I do is use binoculars to spot the bird then take a photo and ID the bird later at home...in peace, comfort and warmth! So I'd personally say I would find a camera more useful.

Also, I find reports of 'MEGA' birds hard to believe unless a photo is provided, just to make sure the report is genuine and/or the bird has not been incorrectly identified.

[ChuckM]

Oh my ... have I been down this road.

Several years ago I thought I needed the best binoculars I could afford. My Swarovski's served me very well with many breath taking sights. I got tired of telling my friends , "You should have seen what I saw today ..." I realized then I needed to be able to take with me those amazing things I saw. Well, a decent camera and lens is very expensive too. So ... I was put in the position to choose.

I sold those binoculars, and several other toys I really liked, to afford the camera and lenses I have today. That was the best choice I could have made. Even though I didn't anticipate the learning curve, and money pit, I have a growing good selection of photos, of all kinds, that I can enjoy, and share, anytime.

The best part is I just got a nice set of Vortex Viper HD so now I have both!

[Twite]

You only have to look at the photos of common birds that are submitted for identification here on BF, to see that there is no hope of some people ever becoming birders. These are the same people day in day out, they don't see the bird 'til they get home, too busy checking camera settings and thinking BF will sort this one out. Before digital cameras new birders had to really look at birds, this is how they learned to identify them, it was like an apprenticeship. The more you looked the more you learned. Bins and notebook first, then a camera when you've learned something. Otherwise you're just someone with a camera.

[knotsbirder]

Originally Posted by Twite

You only have to look at the photos of common birds that are submitted for identification here on BF, to see that there is no hope of some people ever becoming birders. These are the same people day in day out, they don't see the bird 'til they get home, too busy checking camera settings and thinking BF will sort this one out. Before digital cameras new birders had to really look at birds, this is how they learned to identify them, it was like an apprenticeship. The more you looked the more you learned. Bins and notebook first, then a camera when you've learned something. Otherwise you're just someone with a camera.

What he said...

Sam

[Sancho]

I don't think I'd like to combine photography with birding, not only because I don't have the time for the two hobbies, but also, the only time I ever tried to take a real photo of a bird (a brambling in my garden), I realised afterwards that I spent the time in frustration waiting for the "right" shot, and didn't spend any time looking in enjoyment at the bird at all. I don't own a "proper" camera, but occasionally for giggles try to phonescope, with hilarious results (and consequently spend even more time deleting photos of nothing at all from my phone). Mind you, I do enjoy looking at other people's photos of birds, and the concept of the "record shot" of Megas on websites is useful when I go shamelessly twitching - at least these photos give me a better idea of what I'm looking for, especially if it's a rarity in non-breeding plumage. So in summary, I don't use a camera, but I'm glad others do.

[Jos Stratford]

Originally Posted by Twite

You only have to look at the photos of common birds that are submitted for identification here on BF, to see that there is no hope of some people ever becoming birders. These are the same people day in day out, they don't see the bird 'til they get home, too busy checking camera settings and thinking BF will sort this one out. Before digital cameras new birders had to really look at birds, this is how they learned to identify them, it was like an apprenticeship. The more you looked the more you learned. Bins and notebook first, then a camera when you've learned something. Otherwise you're just someone with a camera.

Arrogance.

There is no definiton of what is needed to be a 'birder'. If they enjoy going out and watching birds, so be it, why denigrade them as having no hope, just being 'someone with a camera', same people, etc.

There is no required route necessary to enjoy the hobby, if photographing gives you the kicks, go out and do it first. If you prefer observing, get the binoculars first.

And before digital cameras, there were still plenty of birders who were quite happy to criticise 'lesser' birders as lacking somewhat in the necessary skills, not doing their 'apprenticeship', etc, etc.

[Adam W]

Totally agree with Jos, why look down on people just because they do things differently?

I'm sure there's people who wouldnt want to be classed as a 'proper birder' (you need only look at this forum at times to see why) and would rather be just someone with a camera,does that somehow make them a lesser person than a 'proper birder'?

[Twite]

Originally Posted by Jos Stratford

Arrogance.

It doesn't mean it's not true though. The question was 'bins or camera'. I pointed out the reason why bins were my choice, and gave the reasons for this.

Arrogance or snobbery, call it what you will, goes on in every pursuit. Learn to live with it, no big deal.

[Twite]

Originally Posted by Adam W

does that somehow make them a lesser person than a 'proper birder'?

No it doesn't, and I didn't say that. Wonder where that came from?

[Adam W]

Originally Posted by Twite

No it doesn't, and I didn't say that. Wonder where that came from?

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.

[Twite]

Originally Posted by Adam W

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.

I wouldn't argue with that. So it's birders and people who like birds. I like people who like birds...mostly.

[chris butterworth]

Straight forward answer ( for a change ) BINS. I've got a camera, and I have been known to take photos of birds but I'm a birdwatcher / birder first and foremost ( I'll probably never be a photographer ).

Chris

[Euan Buchan]

That's a hard one but a birder can never be without his trusty binoculars.

[arjacee]

Camera........usually leave my bins in the car. If Im feeling fit Ill try to take everything but it all gets a bit heavy what with the camera, camera bag, books and monopod for hitting superior birder types!!!! Only kidding! Anyway Camera!

[Andy Hall]

If I had to chose it would be bins although I sometimes go ages round my patch before I need to lift them. In the age of digital photography though, cameras are fun - though not indispensable. Having said that, the one day I don't take it, I'm bound to see something amazing! Always keep a spare set of batteries! :)

[Matri-Juve]

In my opinion watching birds with binoculars feels like live footage and you don't get the same feeling when capturing images.

If I wanted to see images/videos of the specific bird I will search on the internet and enjoy it that way.

So I would choose bins every time. I love the simplicity and ease of use with binoculars and there is less maintenance/less to go wrong when you really need them.

Chris

[Tarsiger]

We all have different needs and I assume many people with an interest in smaller wildlife may choose a hand-lens over both bins or camera!! The make-up of the greater birding public has changed radically over the decades but its probably fair to say that anyone who thinks of themselves as a birder/twitcher would choose bins whilst anyone with a, lets say, less-critical approach (and maybe labelled as bird-watchers, bird-spotters or less-charitably 'dudes') may indeed go for the camera for the benefit of perceived ease of identification at home with an ID book, PC or access to BF members.Each to their own. However 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

[csanchez7]

I see binoculars as the main tool birders use to enjoy their hobby. A birder without binoculars is like an amateur astronomer without a telescope. How can you see the feather details of a bird without them? How about behavior?

There is a term for those who prefer to go outside with a camera and rarely use binoculars -- they are called bird photographers, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

To be really good at both at the same time is exceptional.

Carlos

[Keebs]

Camera every time for me, in fact my binoculars are used for watching the back garden 99.99% of the time.

A bit of fieldcraft, patience and stealth gets me easily as close as a pair of binoculars and feels more exciting. I've been sneaking up on fish for years so it just seems natural to me to watch birds the same way.

If the "proper birders" I saw today over a local site are typical (striding and marching purposefully around the site in bright coloured jumpers bellowing "Have you seen the **** ***** yet" at each other like it was the only bird in the world) then I pray to god I always stay just "someone with a camera"

Just my rookie opinion though, what do I know

[darth bangkok]

Originally Posted by Jos Stratford

Arrogance.

There is no definiton of what is needed to be a 'birder'. If they enjoy going out and watching birds, so be it, why denigrade them as having no hope, just being 'someone with a camera', same people, etc.

There is no required route necessary to enjoy the hobby, if photographing gives you the kicks, go out and do it first. If you prefer observing, get the binoculars first.

And before digital cameras, there werre still plenty of birders who were quite happy to criticise 'lesser' birders as lacking somewhat in the necessary skills, not doing their 'apprenticeship', etc, etc.

What he said...

[birding maniac]

I'm firmly in the Bino camp. It's more birders/photography. Watch the moment or work to get the shot to keep forever?
Birders tend to watch birds and photograph second. Although it is 'labelling' categories and trying to put people into groups but...
I see it that both groups watch birds. Photographers take cameras to picture it, birders take bins to watch. A lot of people do both, including me (with my little point and click digital) but I would always take bins. They are a tool for watching the birds. A camera is a tool to photograph them.

[birding maniac]

I'm not saying you can't be a birder without binoculars, but they are a tool used for birders, who are aiming to watch. Cameras are for photographers. Many people are both