Still need binoculars if have camera ? (1 Viewer)

[Thegeezer9999]

Hi

I have seen some people locally in my park who seem to be professional birdwatchers, and noticed they seem to have both binoculars and camera ? I am on verge of buying a camera which will have zoom, so I am just wondering if I will still need my bins, and if so what would I still need them for (10 x 42) ? My apologies if this seems a silly question, I am very new to all this.

Thank you to all who respond.

 

[Farnboro John]

Your binoculars will have greater depth of field and a wider field of view than your camera. Bins also have no start-up time and don't drop to standby during use, don't require batteries and don't "hunt" when low light, contrast or just the wrong settings prevent them focusing.

Binoculars are for birding. Cameras are just for taking pictures.

John

 

[MiddleRiver]

Yes

 

[Stonefaction]

I carry both but unless it is a bird flying away from me I will always grab the binoculars first to try to get an ID. Get the best binoculars you can afford too. as you'll save money in the long run by doing so.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Even at best with a good camera (and that means BIG $$$), the image in a viewfinder is small, grainy, and dark - at least in comparison with even mediocre binos. You might be able to just use a camera if doing casual birding. But if you are seeking small flitty birds in canopy, undergrowth, quickly flying overhead, etc., a camera will never replace binos. There are times when I don't want to pull out scope and a bird is too distant for positive ID at 8x, that I'll use camera with image magnified to get a closer look. But for the other 98% of my birding, using just a camera would be awful.
I suspect those that I see with only a camera, don't really care about complete 'surveys', and just want great pics of the birds they can see in viewfinder. So I guess the real question is 'what do you hope to achieve' with whatever kit you invest in?

 

[Thegeezer9999]

This is really good feedback, and for the more experienced it makes total sense to use bins as the identifiers, camera to take the picture. My worry is that even though my bins are half decent (10 x 42), it is my bird knowledge which is lacking. So I guess I was thinking to use the picture to enable me to identify the bird whereas what I should be doing is some kind of studies of both the sounds and sights to acquire that knowledge, and gain a level of confidence that the identification is accurate ?
How do you deal with it if you spot a bird in the bins which you cannot identify (and which Merlin is no help since it is too far away and not cooperating on the singing front !) ?
Thanks again for the advice !

 

[Montereyman]

I use $1000 Swarvo 10x25 Pocket Mountain binoculars that weigh only 12 ounces and I hang them off my neck while using my camera. The camera is to capture images of birds and this often helps with bird identification by myself or by others. I have other "better" binoculars and a 65mm scope but for glassing and photography the Swarvo 10x25 are good enough.

I also often make use of the Merlin bird app on my iphone to identify various species of birds. Often small songbirds are out of sight and hidden in bushes and their call it the only way to identify them.

 

[Farnboro John]

When a bird is too far to identify with bins your feet come into their own.

However, when you begin birding a lot of birds get away. This is normal. The more birding you do the fewer birds will be unidentifiable.

Don't rely on Merlin. Use your ears and authoritatively confirmed recordings for you to compare, giving you an actual learning experience.

John

 

[Patudo]

As noted in post #2 above, cameras are (much) better for taking photos whereas binoculars are (far) better for observing behaviour. You will in most cases see better through binoculars (higher magnification, brighter, allow you to use both eyes) than through the viewfinder of a camera - the better view you get can sometimes enable you to spot a field mark or other distinctive feature that you might (very easily) miss while trying to get a photo. But it'll only be in your mental hard drive - you won't be able to share it on Facebook etc.

A camera will sometimes help you clinch a difficult or unusual bird, and if you get an identifiable photo will serve as confirmation to anyone you want to prove it to. But before getting into the difficult and unusual birds, you really need to know what the more common birds are.

My personal recommendation would be to use binoculars first, get real familiar with the common species (which the better view that binoculars give you will allow you to), learn their calls etc (I am still pretty hopeless at this). Then if you want to get into bird photography, the knowledge of birds you've gotten will give you a solid background of knowledge as you learn the operating range of your camera, get familiar with bringing it up and getting the shot, using it in various environments etc.

 

[seawatcher]

Use both binoculars as well as a camera. It is much more enjoyable. And you don't need a super-expensive top-of-the-range camera either. Put as much money as you can afford into getting a lens you are happy with, then next priority is the camera body, and so a pair of binocs. You can find a bird quickly with binocs and then decide if you should get close for a photo or not. Binocs can help to plan any approach. I am always sceptic towards people with a camera only as they don't see enough. Only last week I twice had people with cameras and long lenses at my local patch that disturbed birds I was studying by getting too close. If they had used binocs they might have seen what I was looking at. On both occasions the photgraphers said something along the lines of "Oh!? Sorry... didn't see those birds you were watching, I only have a camera with me". Doh!

 

[Something Fishy]

I was there for years. I had a 600mm lens, why in the world do I need binoculars? And then I went birding with both one day and I couldn't believe what a dufous I've been all those years.

Simply can't compare.

 

[Noctua_Grace]

Even at best with a good camera (and that means BIG $$$), the image in a viewfinder is small, grainy, and dark - at least in comparison with even mediocre binos. You might be able to just use a camera if doing casual birding. But if you are seeking small flitty birds in canopy, undergrowth, quickly flying overhead, etc., a camera will never replace binos. There are times when I don't want to pull out scope and a bird is too distant for positive ID at 8x, that I'll use camera with image magnified to get a closer look. But for the other 98% of my birding, using just a camera would be awful.
I suspect those that I see with only a camera, don't really care about complete 'surveys', and just want great pics of the birds they can see in viewfinder. So I guess the real question is 'what do you hope to achieve' with whatever kit you invest in?

I still find it tricky to use binoculars for spotting small, flitty birds in the canopy. Right now, I mostly use my eyes to roughly spot them first, then switch to the bins—but once the birds start moving, I usually lose track of them! I’d appreciate any tips!

 

[MiddleRiver]

I still find it tricky to use binoculars for spotting small, flitty birds in the canopy. Right now, I mostly use my eyes to roughly spot them first, then switch to the bins—but once the birds start moving, I usually lose track of them! I’d appreciate any tips!

I agree and perhaps should have been more accurate in my post. Most birders I know, look for birds (often for movement) with naked eyes. It's also true the 'pointing' bins is not always easy. I've learned over the years to not just think of the bird, but as when directing someone else to a bird, to think of the surroundings - landmarks, foliage, etc. - as well. I've also noticed that some bins seem to 'point' better than others (ergos such that they naturally point to where I intended), but I can't really explain it in metrics.

Occasionally - e.g. surveying a distant tree line for hidden birds - I'll use bins just scanning the distant view. That's one instance where I have found that wider FOV helps.

I'll also say - at risk of stating the obvious - that tho not a super-birder, I have gotten better with time. Like many physical activities, I think the more you do it the better you get. Muscle memory and stuff like just learning bird behavior all contribute to more 'success' birding?

 

[Noctua_Grace]

I agree and perhaps should have been more accurate in my post. Most birders I know, look for birds (often for movement) with naked eyes. It's also true the 'pointing' bins is not always easy. I've learned over the years to not just think of the bird, but as when directing someone else to a bird, to think of the surroundings - landmarks, foliage, etc. - as well. I've also noticed that some bins seem to 'point' better than others (ergos such that they naturally point to where I intended), but I can't really explain it in metrics.

Occasionally - e.g. surveying a distant tree line for hidden birds - I'll use bins just scanning the distant view. That's one instance where I have found that wider FOV helps.

I'll also say - at risk of stating the obvious - that tho not a super-birder, I have gotten better with time. Like many physical activities, I think the more you do it the better you get. Muscle memory and stuff like just learning bird behavior all contribute to more 'success' birding?

Hey there! Thanks so much for sharing those tips—I totally agree that birding is all about practice and adapting to the environment.

Also, I realize I might not have been super clear in my earlier post—I actually do agree that binoculars are way better than cameras for observing birds (no argument there!). It’s just that, as a newbie, I’m still fumbling around trying to figure out the whole “point-and-find” thing. So, I was really just fishing for some pro tips—definitely didn’t mean to come off as challenging your point. If it sounded that way, my bad!

Birding in my neck of the woods (subtropical region), the trees are towering, the leaves are ridiculously dense, and trying to spot a bird at the top of a tree with 8x binoculars feels like searching for a needle in a haystack. Sometimes I’ll catch a glimpse of a bird with my naked eyes, but by the time I lift my binoculars, it’s like, “Wait, where’d it go?!‘’ Maybe that’s why I’m so eager for tips and practice when it comes to spotting. It’s a jungle out there—literally!

 

[MiddleRiver]

Hey there! Thanks so much for sharing those tips—I totally agree that birding is all about practice and adapting to the environment.

Also, I realize I might not have been super clear in my earlier post—I actually do agree that binoculars are way better than cameras for observing birds (no argument there!). It’s just that, as a newbie, I’m still fumbling around trying to figure out the whole “point-and-find” thing. So, I was really just fishing for some pro tips—definitely didn’t mean to come off as challenging your point. If it sounded that way, my bad!

Birding in my neck of the woods (subtropical region), the trees are towering, the leaves are ridiculously dense, and trying to spot a bird at the top of a tree with 8x binoculars feels like searching for a needle in a haystack. Sometimes I’ll catch a glimpse of a bird with my naked eyes, but by the time I lift my binoculars, it’s like, “Wait, where’d it go?!‘’ Maybe that’s why I’m so eager for tips and practice when it comes to spotting. It’s a jungle out there—literally!

I didn't read anything negative into your post

Your last paragraph is all too familiar. Honestly, I doubt there's much advice that would help. I think it's the nature of birding. Good bins help, and practice makes it a little easier, but finding even larger birds can sometimes be a real challenge in foliage.

 

[Patudo]

Birds in high trees are challenging to say the least, and I think in those types of environments you have to accept that they will, quite frequently and quite simply, vanish. If it gets too frustrating, go to easier habitats (which can be highly rewarding anyway). That's part of the reason I much prefer birding in more open landscapes where you can follow the birds more easily!

Bringing binoculars to your eyes without losing the bird is a skill that definitely improves with practice. I don't have trouble with it now, but did when I started, and still see it when accompanying less experienced birders (like my mother). Urban birding, where the birds are generally not too difficult to spot and aren't normally rarities (so you won't be too bothered if you lose them), gives you lots of opportunities to get good at this.

 

[Noctua_Grace]

Birds in high trees are challenging to say the least, and I think in those types of environments you have to accept that they will, quite frequently and quite simply, vanish. If it gets too frustrating, go to easier habitats (which can be highly rewarding anyway). That's part of the reason I much prefer birding in more open landscapes where you can follow the birds more easily!

Bringing binoculars to your eyes without losing the bird is a skill that definitely improves with practice. I don't have trouble with it now, but did when I started, and still see it when accompanying less experienced birders (like my mother). Urban birding, where the birds are generally not too difficult to spot and aren't normally rarities (so you won't be too bothered if you lose them), gives you lots of opportunities to get good at this.

Spotting woodland birds really is a challenge! I remember once when an expert birder I was with pointed out some bats under a palm tree, I spent ten minutes scanning with my binoculars and couldn’t spot them (they didn’t even move!). Sometimes, I’ll go birdwatching in wetlands or coastal areas, and it is definitely easier to find birds there. The downside of open landscapes, though, is that the birds are usually much further away. With my 8x32 binoculars, I can barely make out the shapes of birds on the water, but I can’t get a good look at the details like their feathers.

 

[Slc88c]

Both are important and have their own specifications.

 

[Soof90]

Hi

I have seen some people locally in my park who seem to be professional birdwatchers, and noticed they seem to have both binoculars and camera ? I am on verge of buying a camera which will have zoom, so I am just wondering if I will still need my bins, and if so what would I still need them for (10 x 42) ? My apologies if this seems a silly question, I am very new to all this.

Thank you to all who respond.

I'm glad you asked this, because I've been wondering this myself

 

[Thegeezer9999]

I still find it tricky to use binoculars for spotting small, flitty birds in the canopy. Right now, I mostly use my eyes to roughly spot them first, then switch to the bins—but once the birds start moving, I usually lose track of them! I’d appreciate any tips!

It is definitely hit and miss, but I find if the bird has moved, the chances of you seeing it again with your bins is far less than if you revert to using your eyes again. If you have good eyes and hearing, definitely use them as number one tool. I sometimes use imaginary shapes or objects to look for the bird I have seen in the trees. Works for me, but may not work for everyone.