Hermann
Well-known member

Interesting topic.
I'm first and foremost a birder, not a photographer. I didn't take a camera on birding trips for much of my life. Carrying binoculars and a scope+tripod AND a camera was a bit much, especially as I do quite a bit of hiking when I'm birding, and I also felt I'd sort of "lose out" on the observations of the birds I saw. So I was quite happy just to focus on watching the birds, and whenever I found a rarity or semi-rarity on my own, I took full field notes and wrote up a full description at home. That was enough to get the birds accepted by the relevant committee even if no other birders got to see the bird.
However, birding has become much more popular over here, and many birders and newbie birders (and people who think they're birders) started carrying cameras, especially during the pandemic. The result was there were lots of claims of rarities and semi-rarities that could be discounted because the photographs people took proved beyond doubt that they had made a mistake. The end result is that nowadays you have to have either witnesses (which isn't always possible) or, even better, photographs or sound recordings of a bird. So I personally feel almost compelled to carry a camera, not for "proper" bird photography as such, but to be able to prove I saw what I saw. For "record photography". I also almost always carry a scope as well. Of course.
Now, that has advantages and disadvantages. It's easier to sort out misidentifications, and there are now lots of photographs of "interesting" birds such as, for instance, (possible) hybrids and birds in "interesting" plumages. OTOH some observers who don't carry cameras stopped reporting birds they saw without witnesses simply because they feel nobody will believe them. Others started carrying a camera "just in case" but no scopes anymore because the weight does get a bit much. And, let's face it, digiscoping or phonescoping isn't an alternative.
Hermann
I'm first and foremost a birder, not a photographer. I didn't take a camera on birding trips for much of my life. Carrying binoculars and a scope+tripod AND a camera was a bit much, especially as I do quite a bit of hiking when I'm birding, and I also felt I'd sort of "lose out" on the observations of the birds I saw. So I was quite happy just to focus on watching the birds, and whenever I found a rarity or semi-rarity on my own, I took full field notes and wrote up a full description at home. That was enough to get the birds accepted by the relevant committee even if no other birders got to see the bird.
However, birding has become much more popular over here, and many birders and newbie birders (and people who think they're birders) started carrying cameras, especially during the pandemic. The result was there were lots of claims of rarities and semi-rarities that could be discounted because the photographs people took proved beyond doubt that they had made a mistake. The end result is that nowadays you have to have either witnesses (which isn't always possible) or, even better, photographs or sound recordings of a bird. So I personally feel almost compelled to carry a camera, not for "proper" bird photography as such, but to be able to prove I saw what I saw. For "record photography". I also almost always carry a scope as well. Of course.
Now, that has advantages and disadvantages. It's easier to sort out misidentifications, and there are now lots of photographs of "interesting" birds such as, for instance, (possible) hybrids and birds in "interesting" plumages. OTOH some observers who don't carry cameras stopped reporting birds they saw without witnesses simply because they feel nobody will believe them. Others started carrying a camera "just in case" but no scopes anymore because the weight does get a bit much. And, let's face it, digiscoping or phonescoping isn't an alternative.
Hermann