Personally I prefer photos for identification, like the OP. Even with scope or bins I often have trouble to see the details fast enough with my 55 year old eyes. No doubt an experienced birder can identify most birds easily with binoculars, as he or she knows voice, behaviour, habitat and other stuff that provide additional orientation. I can't do that (yet). Also, for me it is much of the fun of birding that I can walk through my photos in front of the computer and have all the time in the world to ID them and simultaneously study my books to learn more.
Last week I visited the German North Sea coast. In two days I saw 14 new species. In such a situation it is extremely valuable for me to have the Nikon V2 + CX 70-300 for birds in flight. The camera nails almost every bird that flies by. The example below, a spotted redshank, was one of the birds that I had seen before. It can nevertheless be a problem for me to ID a single, fast flying wading bird. Other birds were closer, this one might have been 40 or 50m away.
From my series of 7 photos that showed this bird the first shot is one of those in original size. The others are unedited crops. Another shot (missing here) also shows the dark upper side with the oval white patch characteristic for the species. This series was taken with 5fps. In many situation I prefer 15 fps, sometimes 30fps. Cases where I don't find the details necessary for ID are rare.
The Nikon V2 has 14MP, the Nikon V3 would have 18MP. I guess other factors are just as important as megapixels - a good AF, sharp lens and high fps can all be useful.
Last edited by HermitIbis : Sunday 15th October 2017 at 22:17.