Birding without a camera, forever? (1 Viewer)

[Hermann]

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

 

[Maljunulo]

Hermann;

It‘s called “progress”. (ever increasing regulation and complexity)

Richard

 

[Scott98]

FWIW I've declined to add photography to my birding and astronomy hobbies, even though it's technology that can help you see and identify more stuff. I prefer the visceral thrill of seeing things in real-time with my own eyes, and I prefer minimalism in my leisure activity. I hate carrying the camera around with me on hikes and bird tours.

The best-case scenario is I'm birding with someone else that has a camera! Then I get the pictures afterwards without carrying anything or charging batteries

 

[SGBirder]

Bird watchers with optics only are a minority in where I live. I'm not into cameras and photography but the the bird photographers I did chat with are certainly passionate with their hobby. If the bird or creature is stationary, I do capture short videos of them and sometimes you get to record interesting behaviors and even bird calls/songs (if the phone manages it). A pair of binoculars is a very useful and handy instrument. When paired with a scope (a 24-48x 60mm for me), the scope becomes my primary instrument and I spend at least 10x more time using it than my binos. No batteries needed for them but it is a chore to lug a scope and a tripod though. I'm kind of tempted to try a monocular and scope combination.

Observe whatever you want, even the night sky, with your trusty monocular, binoculars and scope:

View attachment 1508593

Marina East Drive?

 

[01101001]

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).

I have around -4 dioptres in both my eyes plus some astigmatism. After a recent check at the ophthalmologist's and receiving dilating drops, I've noticed that--with my glasses off--I'm not distracted by detail and can see the world from a new and more satisfying perspective. Everything around me becomes soft and fuzzy, the borders become smooth and rounded, and I focus more on the interplay of light and shadow and how patches of colour complement one another. Very interesting and gratifying.

 

[LucaPCP]

I mostly take binoculars only. When I take a camera, it's purely to facilitate difficult IDs; I take a photo only if I cannot ID the bird (and I have time). The camera typically comes out only once or twice in a long outing.
I go with a camera probably 10% of the time; I tend to take it when I go to places I am less familiar with.

It's exactly as the original poster said. With a camera, you need a good pose to be happy; with binoculars, even a short glimpse half-covered by a branch (or a song!) is good enough for an ID. Much more enjoyable.

 

[MiddleRiver]

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?

I'm with you on this one. For my life list I have to see the bird. Full-stop, period, end-of-discussion.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I'd like to think I'm not a competitive birder but will admit that if I see an unusual bird, I want to be able to prove it. In this age of eBird, 'rare' sightings are often rejected unless there is visual proof or multiple experienced viewers. Of course in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter if a reviewer believes me, but I'll confess to being glad I had photos when I did see something offbeat

 

[opisska]

How many field ID's are missed when the bird pops in to full view while we're attaching tha camera to the tripod?

I think this is the root of the misunderstanding here, because the idea that "bino birders" have about "camera birders" is quite distorted. I have never in my life seen a person attach a camera to the tripod while a bird appeared, it's simply not something that ever happens. Either people are really here for photography and those people have their cameras on their tripods the entire time, are hidden in a tent, hide, or under a masking net and patiently wait for the bird to come into their view, or people are "birders with a camera" and those just point the camera at the bird in the same manner as other would do with binoculars.

I am a "birder with a camera". I do not carry binoculars, because my camera is my telescope. I look at birds through the camera - I have an enlargement lens installed in the viewfinder, so my view is comparable to 8x binos roughly. I see the bird as much as you do, only my "binos" also take pictures and I have an objective record of what I have seen.

I personally find viewing birds - and animals in general - without the ability to objectively record them extremely frustrating. I sometimes take out my spotter scope and that, combined with the human eye, shows more detail on distant bird than any photography I am capable of - and this bothers me to no end, because I always have doubts about what I am really seeing. When I started snorkeling, I had no underwater camera - well at first, there was the wow effect of the underwater life, but very quickly, I grew frustrated that I can't record all the fishes and analyze them later - so I have an underwater camera now and am much happier.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I think this is the root of the misunderstanding here, because the idea that "bino birders" have about "camera birders" is quite distorted. I have never in my life seen a person attach a camera to the tripod while a bird appeared, it's simply not something that ever happens. Either people are really here for photography and those people have their cameras on their tripods the entire time, are hidden in a tent, hide, or under a masking net and patiently wait for the bird to come into their view, or people are "birders with a camera" and those just point the camera at the bird in the same manner as other would do with binoculars.

I am a "birder with a camera". I do not carry binoculars, because my camera is my telescope. I look at birds through the camera - I have an enlargement lens installed in the viewfinder, so my view is comparable to 8x binos roughly. I see the bird as much as you do, only my "binos" also take pictures and I have an objective record of what I have seen.

I personally find viewing birds - and animals in general - without the ability to objectively record them extremely frustrating. I sometimes take out my spotter scope and that, combined with the human eye, shows more detail on distant bird than any photography I am capable of - and this bothers me to no end, because I always have doubts about what I am really seeing. When I started snorkeling, I had no underwater camera - well at first, there was the wow effect of the underwater life, but very quickly, I grew frustrated that I can't record all the fishes and analyze them later - so I have an underwater camera now and am much happier.

Not suprisingly this is how I started down the photo rabbit hole. I got tired of getting back home with several birds I was unsure of. That's not to say I get a photo record of every bird, but it sure helps to have a photo record of at least some of them.
Case in point: This past week we were birding near wetland/shore on the Chesapeake Bay. As I stepped out of a wooded trail, a couple of Terns flew overhead, quickly enough that my first impression was 'red beak' and I assumed Royal Tern as they are expected at that location now. I managed to get a few rushed pics, which upon inspection at home, showed beak and wingtip coloration etc. identifying them as Caspian. I suppose a better birder would have caught the field marks with binos, but I did not.

 

[Maljunulo]

For me it is “Birding without a camera, always.”

 

[Elkhornsun]

There are two types of critter pictures, ID pictures for guide books and Web applications, and environmental pictures that show critter behavior and or them in their habitat. The only time I take an ID photo is when I need to post the image for others to help with identification.

When I take my camera and lens(s) I carry my 10x25 binos that are small enough to fit in a water bottle pocket, or with the weight of only 12 ounces, hanging off my neck.

 

[Oregon John]

I currently have a very portable bridge camera. Sometimes I carry both binoculars and the camera, but for times I'm birding locally and I'm unlikely to see a new, life list bird, I carry just binoculars. I concentrate on observing, especially observing behavior. Other times, in a new environment, with lots of "new" birds, I carry only the camera. I like having a visual record of the first time I see a new species, but I admit maybe that's just a personal quirk. Also, sometimes only looking closely back home at a photo of a new bird allows me to ID the species correctly.

I understand the arguments against cameras and I think they're one reason I've not yet splurged for a high-end $4,000 full-frame/telephoto combo, which seems to me so much impedimenta, big and cumbersome. The small bridge camera, though, I feel doesn't really get in the way.