Birding without a camera, forever? (1 Viewer)

[Chotacabras]

If you want a camera for record shots, it's quite possible - albeit geeky - to carry binoculars round neck, scope and tripod in carrier on back, and small camera (eg P950) in bag on belt.

But I also agree with you: often, just binoculars is plenty. Or no binoculars, just eyes and ears.

 

[MiguelATF]

I keep having this desire to ditch my camera at home, and only bring binoculars. There seems to be a constant pull and trend toward photographing birds but I can't help but shake these feelings. Has anyone else had this "purist" mindset that is more romantic of how birding started out? Some recurring thoughts:
- Simplicity: Binoculars are ALL you'd need to carry. Leave the camera at home. No need to share. Be IN the moment
- ULTIMATELY life is too short to spend countless hours on photography, camera maintenance, photo editing, photo sharing, etc. My life is busy enough as it is!
- I STILL get to add the birds to my life list just the same, my own rules and letting go of if I'm 100% sure or relying on others to confirm it for me, which is again more work and less birding
- You get to use BOTH eyes while viewing the bird and in 3D
- Bird-watchers look AT birds; birders look FOR them. I can still look for them but might as well look at them more too.
- Cameras are WORK. They require constant PRACTICE. This effort goes against the idea of being ONE with nature.
- I should come back from birding being REFRESHED not more burnt out. I should want to do my ACTUAL JOB without having gone so far into
the technical weeds of photography that it's hard to juggle both
- What keeps it interesting is LEARNING about birds, you can still share facts about birds, which is what people are mostly interested in
- You can't use bins and a camera at the same time, so why would you want to set the bins down?
- With binocular viewing, you experience the FULL thing, including the sounds it's making not framing a shot!
- Binoculars alone is still just as much a "hunt" if you want it to be
- I'll still always have an iPhone camera on me, to document the trip in general, just not the birds.
- Even the best photographers MISS many many shots. They could have just enjoyed the birds with bins instead!
- I'm not a professional, no one is paying me for my shots. I could focus on low quality / superzoom/point and shoot shots but why not just HQ binoculars/Field guide?
- I don't like the way I view birds through photos. I treat them as if one SPECIES is all each individual bird is. When in reality birds
of the same species are like humans, they have different personalities, behavior, etc, which is often missed if we're photographing
- Without a camera, i'm free to go out in the low light dusk and dawn or bright noon and not worry it's "not good lighting for photos"
- With binoculars if there's no birds currently around I can still enjoy the view of whatever else (flowers, animals, mountains, etc)
- Birds rarely sit still but with binoculars you can follow their movement and actually view them much better
So what if you don't get the shot? It will be rare that you'll see a rare bird and you can still SAY you did, who cares about proof?
- You're still just as much a birder, if not more so. Photos feel more from the ego "wanting to prove what you saw or how good your photo is"
- You can focus on RELAXING in nature rather than hurrying around trying to get closer, get the shot, lugging bulky equipment, etc
- You don't have to WORRY about not seeing new birds, getting a good shot, camera settings,
- You don't have to worry about how you're going to find the time to sort through, edit and share all your photos
- You save money not needing a Adobe Lightroom subscription, new camera gear, etc
- You can still share what birds you saw, by sending online existing photos to give people an idea if they're interested
- You don't have to worry about someone possibly wanting to mug you for your expensive camera gear
- Imagine feeling bad because "not many people on instagram LIKED my AMAZING photo!" How could they, there's too much content!

Note: I'm certainly not knocking anyone for taking photos. I've done it since I got into this hobby 17 years ago but it feels more like a chore than a passion ATM. My ONLY concern is will I regret it later if I didn't get the photos. I've thought of "digiscoping" or "super zoom lenses" but that still just ends up back into photography mindset.

The goal of this post is just to see if anyone else feels the same way, not to drum up arguments about how my points aren't necessarily true. I'm very aware that there's a way to still look at cameras and photos as a bonus, not a subtraction. Thanks.

I realize this is an older post, but reading and re-reading it, I only had one thought. (Confession: I'm more of a photographer than a birder/bird-watcher, but after getting a comfortable harness to carry my binoculars with no hands, I'm more 50-50.) I can really relate to your emphasis on SIMPLICITY. The best things should be simple, whether raising binoculars to scan, or simply looking, or pressing the shutter button. If a camera devolves into feeling like it's WORK, that's a good argument to leave it at home. My only thought though, is - some cameras seem to require a lot more work than others - and some can actually be relatively simple. Carrying around a hefty DSLR or mirrorless camera body with one or several even more hefty lenses, and then trying to remember correct focusing modes and minimum shutter speeds and ISO's and a million other things can drive a person batty. But there are one or two truly fine cameras which also can be operated in quite simple ways - and which can take generally neat and satisfying (and occasionally great) photos, if that's your thing. One of the best is Sony's 'bridge camera' - the RX10 mark IV (the mark III is just as good) - an all-in-one camera with one lens that zooms from wide angle to a truly impressive telephoto. Having one of those simplifies a photographer's life: just 1 camera, 1 lens, that's all. You can even set it on P (Program - for 'automatic' shooting) and it pretty much does everything for you. It's a chunky beast but much less chunky than a DSLR with an enormous lens - and it's a smart enough photographic tool to even know how to take good pictures without the photographer having to obsess over all the little details that often drive a person mad. Another good candidate which doesn't quite have the image quality but is incredibly easy to use is Panasonic's slightly more compact all-in-one bridge camera, the FZ300. Or for more quality, its bigger brother, the FZ1000. The one thing they all have in common is - they can take truly fine pictures - of many things, but including distant birds - and they can do it with a minimum of needing to think about it too much.

Short version of the above: there are a handful of all-in-one fine cameras which produce great images and are on the truly simple side to use. So... it can be done. Of course, any of these easier-to-use more 'simple' to operate cameras can also be used in more complicated ways which can create or produce all kinds of interesting photographs and images - but they also can be used in simple ways, too.

 

[chill6x6]

A Sony RX-10 III is exactly what I have. It's probably taken more pictures of binoculars than birds, LOL! I do use it for the occasional "rare bird" or when I see a particularly nice potential picture. Green herons, snowy egrets, and pileated woodpeckers will sometimes be still long enough in good light for me to get a good picture!

The RX-10 HAS been a great camera with no issues and it hasn't been particularly taken care of. I'd buy another although I'm always tempted by a Nikon Coolpix p950/p1000.

 

[MiguelATF]

A Sony RX-10 III is exactly what I have. It's probably taken more pictures of binoculars than birds, LOL! I do use it for the occasional "rare bird" or when I see a particularly nice potential picture. Green herons, snowy egrets, and pileated woodpeckers will sometimes be still long enough in good light for me to get a good picture!

The RX-10 HAS been a great camera with no issues and it hasn't been particularly taken care of. I'd buy another although I'm always tempted by a Nikon Coolpix p950/p1000.

I have to agree with you, both the RX10.iii (and its big brother, the RX10.IV) are truly fine cameras - and are also useful birding photography tools. They also have the advantage of having a relatively large (1") sensor which guarantees much better image quality than either the Nikon Coolpix P950 (with a much smaller 1 2/3" sensor). The strength of the P950 is its gargantuan superzoom which has a greater telephoto reach than that of the RX10's - but the Sony's truly superior image quality makes it a better camera. Also, and this may seem like a minor point, but the Sony camera has PDAF or phase-detect focusing, which is much much more rapid and responsive than the CDAF (or contrast detect focusing) of both the P950 and the other Panasonic cameras I mentioned. The Nikon is also significantly heavier than your RX10, if that's a factor (and on long hikes, one tends to be glad of lighter weight gear after awhile).

In practical terms, that probably means that your RX10.iii will be able to focus much more quickly on herons, egrets, woodpeckers, and just about anything else - than the Nikon will. I would hang onto it, if you're happy with it in other respects. It's truly a fine camera.

 

[chill6x6]

I have to agree with you, both the RX10.iii (and its big brother, the RX10.IV) are truly fine cameras - and are also useful birding photography tools. They also have the advantage of having a relatively large (1") sensor which guarantees much better image quality than either the Nikon Coolpix P950 (with a much smaller 1 2/3" sensor). The strength of the P950 is its gargantuan superzoom which has a greater telephoto reach than that of the RX10's - but the Sony's truly superior image quality makes it a better camera. Also, and this may seem like a minor point, but the Sony camera has PDAF or phase-detect focusing, which is much much more rapid and responsive than the CDAF (or contrast detect focusing) of both the P950 and the other Panasonic cameras I mentioned. The Nikon is also significantly heavier than your RX10, if that's a factor (and on long hikes, one tends to be glad of lighter weight gear after awhile).

In practical terms, that probably means that your RX10.iii will be able to focus much more quickly on herons, egrets, woodpeckers, and just about anything else - than the Nikon will. I would hang onto it, if you're happy with it in other respects. It's truly a fine camera.

I appreciate the encouraging words concerning the RX-10. Don't worry I researched and researched before I bought. The 1 inch sensor was the main selling point for me. I'm going to stick with it for a while!

 

[MiddleRiver]

I'm currently lugging around an aps-C Sony with a 100-400GM lens. The RX-10 is very tempting but I worry I'll lose IQ. Ultimately I'd like to be able to compare images side-by-side...

 

[opisska]

I dunno, I find using my camera in manual mode simpler than fighting with the "intelligence" of any automatic mode. The cameras are notoriously bad in understanding that I want the tiny bird to be well exposed, not the sky and also not the bushes, but the bird. They also fail to understand that I am shooting from hand over large distance and the subject moves quickly, so they put needlessly long times.

And there is no need to remember any complicated settings. I walk around, all days, with Canon 250D + 400/5.6L. My default settings are "1/800 f/8 ISO 400". When it's too bright, time gets shorter and ISO to 200. When it's too dark, I go to f/5.6 and then ISO goes up as needed, until the image is too grainy and I put on the external flash and start watching mammals instead. All of these settings are accessible on the same dial, only holding this or that button, and visible in the optical viewfinder. My "image processing" is cropping in Picasa and brightening if needed. Going through a day's worth of images to select and crop all reasonable birds usually takes me maybe half an hour. Simplicity. I know that there are cameras and lenses that make better photos, but I don't care - this setup is lightweight, reasonably cheap to replace parts when I finally abuse them to death and I do everything by muscle memory.

 

[Pzler]

I agree 100% I have a camera on my phone with an adapter for my scope. I only use this if I have issues with identifying a bird. Photography equipment would be a wate of money for me. It is so much better to be in the moment when birding. The only photos I take and sometimes want to look at after taking them are of my kids, never of birds.

 

[MiguelATF]

I'm currently lugging around an aps-C Sony with a 100-400GM lens. The RX-10 is very tempting but I worry I'll lose IQ. Ultimately I'd like to be able to compare images side-by-side...

The truth is, you would almost assuredly lose some quality, since the RX10's 1" sensor is significantly smaller than that of your APS-C Sony. On the plus side, the RX10.M4 (or .M3) is significantly both smaller and lighter than a 100-400mm lens. The other plus is that the RX10's zoom lens, developed in association with Zeiss, is truly one of THE best lenses ever designed and manufactured for any superzoom/bridge camera, which probably means the RX10 has noticeably better IQ than just about any other camera with a 1" sensor.

Moral of the story: perfection doesn't really exist... so we each have to pick the compromise which suits us, best. In my own case, I loved using both the RX10 M3 & M4, but wanted slightly better quality without extra weight or size - so my current birding camera of choice is a smallish Olympus (the E-M5.iii) + an excellent lightweight Olympus tele-zoom (v.II of the Zuiko 75-300mm). But, honestly, to get the most out of it requires more user input than the RX10 ever did, but that's a compromise I'm happy with.

 

[chill6x6]

So I'm in Destin, FL and got an eBird notification of a rare bird in the next county. It just happened to be one I hadn't seen, a vermillion flycatcher. So I grabbed up the RX10 III and headed in its direction. Pretty decent pic for a seven year old bridge camera...

 

[Peregrine Took]

I keep having this desire to ditch my camera at home, and only bring binoculars. There seems to be a constant pull and trend toward photographing birds but I can't help but shake these feelings. Has anyone else had this "purist" mindset that is more romantic of how birding started out?

I never use a camera or camera-phone for birding and never intend to.

No need to share. Be IN the moment

Couldn't agree more.

And (beyond the realms of this forum) that also goes for the kind of selfies that say: "I'm here and you're not". Society has become far too narcissistic... self-importance has replaced humility. I blame Zuckerberg.

Deep breath.... thanks for helping me get that off my chest.

.

 

[wdc]

I use the Nikon coolpix950. I had a smaller one... the Nikon 650, but it went kaput after a few years, so decided to accept this larger optical 'beast'. Its all good. I use a Canon for non-birding in nature, but for birding, the 950 covers my needs. I bird with binoculars and a camera... sometimes a scope is added. I'll swap out 10X bins for 8X if I'm carrying a scope.
Everyone will adapt to their wants and needs over time. No right answers.
When I'm not carrying a scope the 950 can sometimes help me ID birds I could not have otherwise figured out with 10x bins, but that's just me. The view through the bins is preferred.

-Bill

 

[etudiant]

I use the Nikon coolpix950. I had a smaller one... the Nikon 650, but it went kaput after a few years, so decided to accept this larger optical 'beast'. Its all good. I use a Canon for non-birding in nature, but for birding, the 950 covers my needs. I bird with binoculars and a camera... sometimes a scope is added. I'll swap out 10X bins for 8X if I'm carrying a scope.
Everyone will adapt to their wants and needs over time. No right answers.
When I'm not carrying a scope the 950 can sometimes help me ID birds I could not have otherwise figured out with 10x bins, but that's just me. The view through the bins is preferred.

-Bill

You may be previewing the future.
A big image stabilized zoom camera can increasingly replace the scope/tripod for most birders. Easier to deploy, simpler to use and lighter.
I really don't understand why the camera industry has not been more aggressive pursuing this niche.

 

[Peregrine Took]

You may be previewing the future.
A big image stabilized zoom camera can increasingly replace the scope/tripod for most birders. Easier to deploy, simpler to use and lighter.
I really don't understand why the camera industry has not been more aggressive pursuing this niche.

I doubt it. The image quality of a scope and the human eye far exceeds that of any digital device - and this is especially so when it comes the 'bridge' cameras being discussed, with their relatively tiny sensors. Superzoom lenses are highly compromised assemblies of glass - they have to be, otherwise a bridge camera would cost ten times as much. And even the best 'live-view' is digital, so your view is compromised from the start... mine is a Fuji mirrorless that has fantastic live view, but it's not like looking through a scope or binoculars.

For professional photographic quality, a Canon 800mm lens magnifies 25x on an APSC camera, costs nearly £20k and weighs 3kg, then add the cost and weight of a camera body and you're lugging 4kg around with you - twice the weight of the best scopes.

This is a niche that can only be filled with either small sensors and superzoom lenses, but at the expense of quality. Or by professional gear that is both unaffordable for the average amateur birder and is unfeasibly cumbersome to carry around.

Just my opinion of course, but I was a professional photographer for a while, so that's where I'm coming from.
.

 

[chill6x6]

You know, I'm not one to worry about what someone THINKS about what I carry when birding. Vast majority of times it's just a binocular, maybe two. Sometimes a binocular and scope. Sometimes a binocular and camera. Sometimes a binocular, camera, AND scope but this is WAY less often.

 

[etudiant]

I doubt it. The image quality of a scope and the human eye far exceeds that of any digital device - and this is especially so when it comes the 'bridge' cameras being discussed, with their relatively tiny sensors. Superzoom lenses are highly compromised assemblies of glass - they have to be, otherwise a bridge camera would cost ten times as much. And even the best 'live-view' is digital, so your view is compromised from the start... mine is a Fuji mirrorless that has fantastic live view, but it's not like looking through a scope or binoculars.

For professional photographic quality, a Canon 800mm lens magnifies 25x on an APSC camera, costs nearly £20k and weighs 3kg, then add the cost and weight of a camera body and you're lugging 4kg around with you - twice the weight of the best scopes.

This is a niche that can only be filled with either small sensors and superzoom lenses, but at the expense of quality. Or by professional gear that is both unaffordable for the average amateur birder and is unfeasibly cumbersome to carry around.

Just my opinion of course, but I was a professional photographer for a while, so that's where I'm coming from.
.

Entirely correct, currently a superzoom will not provide near the quality image a good scope can provide.
However, the image provided is amply good enough for ID purposes, which imho is the primary reason people carry scopes. Moreover, camera sensors and image processing are still improving rapidly, dramatically so compared to the advancement in optics. So I think the performance gap will narrow as well.

 

[Pzler]

While I am not into photography myself I do have to admit that the many photos of birds available have helped me in learning to see the difference between some difficult species. So I am glad there are those who do enjoy it.

 

[01101001]

Just how much you can achieve by phonescoping:

Sulawesi Pitta

Another target species for my recent trip to Sulawesi. One of the many within the Red-bellied Pitta complex. Unfortunately during this trip, my camera malfunction and so most of the photos and video are taken with phonescoping setup.

www.birdforum.net