Birding without a camera, forever? (1 Viewer)

[KaterinBortle9]

Looks good! May I know what scope is that?

hi horukuru, its a nikon monarch 60 eda.

 

[fazalmajid]

There is some interesting research on how photography changes the experienc:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259207719_Point-and-Shoot_Memories_The_Influence_of_Taking_Photos_on_Memory_for_a_Museum_Tour

 

[Maljunulo]

That’s very interesting, thank you for posting it.

 

[Scozmos]

Just discovered this thread and enjoyed the different thoughts shared. I started walking with a small camera and through that started looking and seeing more which led to seeing and becoming more aware of the birds around me. Attempting to get the shot led on to buying better gear, camera and lenses so, my walks turned into walks with a camera, stopping more than walking
Better equipment allowed me to go for the shot rather than the walk which in turn meant spending more time out and about in nature and loving it, great for the mind and soul.
Since moving back to rural Scotland and joining this forum I started carrying binoculars, now looking for a better pair, I'm very lucky to have a garden full of great birds, some of which I didn't and wouldn't see in my previous location in S Wales.
The locations nearby to me now mean I can enjoy a great, peaceful walk AND stop and go for the shots but, I'm carrying more now
Result? I'm torn between identifying the bird and getting the shot but, loving all of it. My best EVER result being my profile photo, part of a large set where a female Crossbill allowed me within ten feet of her feeding, something I'd have struggled to describe adequately.
Binoculars are definitely better for the spotting, seeing, finding and the camera allows me, as a novice birder, to look at the bird later and hopefully get an ID.

 

[Steve C]

In my opinion, a person is far better off becoming a birder first and a bird photographer second. My Ornithology professor would have wholeheartedly agreed with fazalmajid's linked article, wherein it stated your memory id better than camera's memory. He taught birding, (at least the bird ID portion thereof) on the basis of recognition of field marks. He always told us that we should be able, if not to completely ID a bird within sight of just a few wing beats (even...ahem...without binoculars), we should be able to eliminate 80% or more of what it was not. Those memories would stick and eventually ID would become second nature. At reaching or at least getting closer to that point (if we ever do in fact ever reach the point) time spent admiring the view of the bird will become more important.

Personally I need to admit I am not real quick in setting up equipment, such as camera stuff, and don't particularly relish the idea of lugging it around either. How many field ID's are missed when the bird pops in to full view while we're attaching tha camera to the tripod? Others are different, but I see the combination of the two endeavors to be in the realm of the expert, and combining the two will inhibit the beginner more than it will help. Binoculars, a field guide, and time in the field first, camera equipment second..

 

[Tiraya]

For me the decision to drop binos came down to what I wanted in birding. I enjoy having documentation of what I saw, and it gives me a chance to verify my records in future. It's also better to have a camera when a bird provides very scant views, since a photo is eternal, but a half second bino view is probably not enough to tell what is going on. I also prefer having the images to show my future self, and others, as a record of my adventures, over a text-only list. That's just where I'm at.

Binoculars are a really great tool and their simplicity in use is fantastic. But the benefits of having photo documentation greatly outweigh this for me. As an aside, I find binocular and camera birders have different skillsets and advantages and disadvantages. But I've noticed too how many birders who start with a camera experience less pressure to hone observation skills, and so in my experience, binocular-first birders are often better at dealing with identification and observation in general. So they don't replace each other perfectly.

 

[Maljunulo]

Knowing a bird in the field, and knowing a bird from photographs are two entirely different things.

(I think)

 

[tenex]

There is some interesting research on how photography changes the experience

I disagree that "photographing an object is a more active process than observing it", an opinion that just indicates a low standard of observation, but I recognize the points about division of attention and even not needing to remember. Once at the end of a lovely autumn day hiking at the famous Maroon Bells I discovered that the film hadn't been advancing through my camera (only time in forty years that ever happened) and started recalling each shot I thought I'd taken, not that I hadn't appreciated those scenes at the time, just that a concomitant feeling of the value of remembering them had been lost in counting on photos to serve the purpose. It's a subtle thing, and if one is careful and has enough time both purposes can be served well.

The trouble with birds is too often limited time, so having to choose between direct observation and (possibly, or not) a good photograph. As much as I like photography, for me that's a simple choice.


(P.S. my wife actually has a photo from behind of me thinking I'm taking my first photo of the Bells. Priceless.)

 

[Maljunulo]

………. I discovered that the film hadn't been advancing through my camera (only time in forty years that ever happened)

As a totally off-topic aside, that only happened to me once too, after I shot a whole roll photographing the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace.

I missed the sprockets when I loaded it.

 

[quincy88]

I almost never carry a camera. It's awesome.

 

[A2GG]

A couple years after I started bird watching I bought a fancy point and shoot camera (bridge camera I guess) mostly to help with ID.
It didn't use it for very long. It was a pain to carry it along, to download the photos to the laptop, review the photos, etc.
I decided to keep it simple and that my memories of wildlife seen would be good enough.
I never thought about buying another camera again. Plus I decided I'd rather put my money towards quality binoculars.

The other day I considered downloading the Merlin app to my iPhone to help with song/call ID but I think I'm too lazy to learn it and use it out. It may help me learn bird calls faster - I do need help in this area - but I sort of like keeping it simple or 'pure'. However, it's still possible I may try it someday.

I have my iPhone with me when out and I do record sounds or take photos when I feel the need (infrequent).

I really enjoy using my binoculars and just being outside and seeing whatever wildlife I have the good fortune to see brings me joy.

 

[Maljunulo]

I really enjoy using my binoculars and just being outside and seeing whatever wildlife I have the good fortune to see brings me joy.

That one sentence says it all for me.

 

[01101001]

The lack of a scope saves me from ID'ing all the distant waders and waterfowl, lol. I decided to make a conscious effort to appreciate it, but it's not as bad as it sounds. And cameras are heavy, plus I've never been good at using them properly. I regretted not taking the camera a couple of times, but, then maybe I didn't need it, after all. If I do need to take a photo for identification, I can always phonescope. Some of you mentioned scanning; for now I can't bring myself to that unless I there is movement and a decent chance of me actually seeing the bird.

Not recording eBird checklists unless I see something interesting is another time/stress saver--no counting--not even estimating, which requires less effort--or anxiety about confidently identifying everything along the way (I think it's a fallacy that I need to, by the way, even as far as eBird guidelines go). Regarding eBird, I used to worry about backtracking and properly calculating distance more before I found out about the possibility of measuring segments of the track using sliders: eBird Mobile Tips & Tricks.

Following a suggestion elsewhere in the forum, I've very recently started to keep Merlin running in the background on my phone all the time (the location needs to be turned on), and the results are interesting. At least, I don't have to worry about recording a sound for ID purposes after it was given out, and Merlin draws my attention to the presence of some of the background birds I miss because I'm focused on something else. I have also, on occassion, recorded birds for the sake of it, but it requires some luck with the conditions. The bar for that is much lower than for photography, and getting a good recording can be quite rewarding as well. Technology aside, I find that about half overall (or more) of the birds on my checklists are heard only, so I would be missing out much if I weren't listening.

 

[Maljunulo]

I think it all comes down to how obsessive and driven you are.

Different folks “enjoy” birding differently.

 

[tenex]

I find that about half overall (or more) of the birds on my checklists are heard only

I'm still struggling to get past something here, a feeling that listening is only a clue, if I can't see the bird I still don't know it and it doesn't really count for me, so I wouldn't put it on my own personal list. (I do see how it still matters for public or scientific purposes like eBird, though I wish everyone would add a note "heard only" as only a few seem to.) Any advice?

 

[01101001]

Hardly the paragon of virtue myself--I've made mistakes before--but I only count those that are obvious to me and then also those that are new for me provided that both apps identify them without doubt and don't flag any similar species (as less probable alternatives, for example), and I can convince myself by sound or sonogram that what I heard was that bird indeed. This approach is not perfect, and I've found myself retrospectively striking birds off my list after I'd found out more about potential confusion species. Of course, there are whole classes of birds that I don't tick on call--or song, in rarer cases--because I don't feel I can confidently seperate them, and certain calls of common species that have close analogues are in the no-no territory as well. Even if I'm not sure what made the sound, I can sometimes broadly ascribe to a group of confusion species, so--as you said--I treat it as a clue about what might pop up. So, unless the ID is obvious to me at the time, I add a note with a very short explanation of how I arrived at it for future reference (lifers--both seen and heard--usually have a bit longer notes, anyway). I also think other people make more concerted efforts to spot the songster/caller, while I often can't be bothered if I'm in no doubt, which probably skews the proportion towards heard-only's.

 

[Andy Hall]

I enjoy birding with a combination of bins and a camera. I consider myself a birder who likes to take photos rather than a bird photographer and I'm happy to obtain record shots and see the camera as just another set of optics. I'm very much in the point and shoot camp rather than organising everything around the camera.

 

[01101001]

Hardly the paragon of virtue myself--I've made mistakes before--but I only count those that are obvious to me and then also those that are new for me provided that both apps identify them without doubt and don't flag any similar species (as less probable alternatives, for example), and I can convince myself by sound or sonogram that what I heard was that bird indeed. This approach is not perfect, and I've found myself retrospectively striking birds off my list after I'd found out more about potential confusion species. Of course, there are whole classes of birds that I don't tick on call--or song, in rarer cases--because I don't feel I can confidently seperate them, and certain calls of common species that have close analogues are in the no-no territory as well. Even if I'm not sure what made the sound, I can sometimes broadly ascribe to a group of confusion species, so--as you said--I treat it as a clue about what might pop up. So, unless the ID is obvious to me at the time, I add a note with a very short explanation of how I arrived at it for future reference (lifers--both seen and heard--usually have a bit longer notes, anyway). I also think other people make more concerted efforts to spot the songster/caller, while I often can't be bothered if I'm in no doubt, which probably skews the proportion towards heard-only's.

I forgot to mention that, for both the sounds I think I know and those I don't, I try to practise by naming birds in the field by ear, and, when in doubt, I either run a recording through Merlin/BirdNET or wait to see the bird. If I'm wrong, I try to make a mental note of the confusion species, and how I would describe the qualities of what I'd just heard versus what it was. I'm on a steep learning curve with that and will be for the next few years if not longer.

 

[gweller]

I found that birding with only a camera meant that I was looking only at those birds that I felt were in range of my camera (and within my ability!) to take photos of. This often meant I was missing out watching other birds that were maybe too far away or too difficult to photograph. Of course the ideal situation is to take both camera and bins but lately I've been leaving the camera at home and taking only bins and a smartphone with Merlin on during my birding outings (or while walking the dog).

 

[Farnboro John]

I found that birding with only a camera meant that I was looking only at those birds that I felt were in range of my camera (and within my ability!) to take photos of. This often meant I was missing out watching other birds that were maybe too far away or too difficult to photograph. Of course the ideal situation is to take both camera and bins but lately I've been leaving the camera at home and taking only bins and a smartphone with Merlin on during my birding outings (or while walking the dog).

This is another and interesting issue. Personally I don't just concentrate on birds I can photograph as that's not how I do birding (we're all different) and I'm more likely to miss a photo of something close if I'm interested in identifying something I think is or might be unusual, further away. But I do understand this particular problem.

Almost the opposite manifests in seawatching with observers scanning with a scope and consequently being tempted by stuff further and further out till they are looking at birds either hoping they will come closer or becoming frustrated by stuff they can't identify - and in any case looking at a lot of not very good views of birds even where ID can be discerned.... For seawatching the ideal is to scan with bins and then the scope subsequently yields a reasonably good view of birds that can't be identified through bins (other challenges like transferring from one to the other without losing the quarry exist!)

John