Birding without a camera, forever? (2 Viewers)

[rkbirding]

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.

 

[Boogieshrew]

The only camera I take birding is the one on my phone. I use it to snap a few landscapes. I have an adapter to attach it to my scope but I almost never do this. The adapter was a waste of money really.

I go birding to be in nature and to be in the moment. Taking photographs takes me out of the moment.

'Being' in nature is what it's all about for me. It's refreshing, rejuvenating and the ultimate boon to my mental health.

I see the appeal of photography but it's not for me.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

Yes it is so nice to enjoy the view with binocular and scopes only...

 

[Binocollector]

Some of those thoughts were the reason I ditched my efforts at becoming an astrophotographer. Especially the fact that I'd be staring at a computer screen yet again, which I already do for a living and I wanted a hobby that doesn't involve looking at a display or screen all the time. So the astrophotography equipment is gathering dust in the attic.

 

[Andy Adcock]

I recently spent time with someone who didn't have binoculars at all, just a camera and he was very quick with it, didn't miss much at all.

 

[Farnboro John]

The view through a camera is not as good as through bins (and bird-finding is near impossible, the lack of depth of field makes scanning a nightmare). I'd never go birding with a camera and no bins.

However, birding has never been one size fits all. Long ago I developed a superstition that if I took my camera on a twitch I wouldn't see the bird (this was experience-based!) so there was a long period for which I have none of my own pictures of rarities. I got over it and would now leave my scope at home rather than my camera. But lately when I've known the birds might be distant I've carried both. I don't tick and run: I watch birds as well as tick and photograph them. There's no question of treating them just as a species (except maybe on 1 January ).

If you find a camera tempts you away from your own true belief then don't take it. But if, like me, you change your mind on a few occasions or after a gap choose to revert to previous practice, that's all right too. It's your hobby, do whatever seems right to you.

John

 

[Rg548]

I binned my camera a few years back.
Too much effort, and usually ends in some form of dissapointment when viewing the shots.
Also... how often do you actually go back and look at what you've taken.... probably not much is my guess.
I just stroll around with by bins and a quality phone camera.... which I actually enjoy using for photos more.
It's useless as a wildlife camera, but as a general camera i'm always blown away by what a good phone can do with a little knowledge. It's truly satisfying.
I watched a guy in the hide the other day literally firing off 100's of photos on a DSLR Canon.... and did smile to myself at the amount of work he will have when he gets home!!!
But hey, we've all got to have a hobby I guess.
Each to their own.

 

[Mike Crawley]

If I’m birding I carry binoculars and a 'scope.
I often have a small bridge camera with me but don’t take many pictures. I have stopped taking it on the odd occasions I twitch.
Admittedly, it was a boon in Costa Rica and with good, prolonged, views of many spectacular birds I took about 600 pictures in two weeks. That whittled down to about 250 (including scenery shot for the family)

edit - spelling

 

[wllmspd]

Binoculars are a must, fastest way to get onto things. I know one person who only brings binoculars and is very good at finding and confirming species. Personally (coming from an Astro background) I then add a scope, so I can dig deeper and find more and get more intimate views, though the “bigger scope, more magnification” pull is always strong and has to ignored.

One issue is that you need a really big lens to be able too give comparable results to a scope and it needs practice to be able to get good shots. I know one person who has a pretty big lens but complains stuff is “too far away” , where it’s fine in my scope.
It’s always fun to look for the “biggest lens” when out birding, though they’re never that common. Most people either have no optics or just binoculars, not a lot of scopes and probably around the same for big cameras (depends on the site though).

Part of the attraction is working out what’s present, where careful scanning with a scope really helps to find things. I’ve been accused of keen eyes when I’ve picked up things others haven’t. It’s fun to share the scope view with others as well. I seem to be lucky that I don’t get eye strain from prolonged one eye viewing, two eyes is definitely best, but gets hard to carry if you want big magnifications.

Seeing trip reports of Facebook with a stream of publication quality images is attractive and a better record than memories or a few notes in a book. It’s sometimes useful to confirm a species from images, what colour was the bill, feather patterns etc. I did discuss the attraction of cameras on a trip once and one reply was that as you get older your memory gets poorer and so they wanted pictures to help, maybe I have a big camera in my future.

I’m going to try phone scoping a bit more, I’m getting a much better adapter, so we’ll see if that works.
The camera kit to get good shots is so costly and then how would I carry bins, scope and needs refreshing regularly (unlike good optics) AND camera…. I knew someone who used a wheely suitcase for just this problem. Whatever kit you take, there’s always something you felt you should have taken… maybe having less kit can avoid this dilemma?

Peter

 

[corvid-8]

I agree with you whole heartedly. Without a camera you have time to SLOW DOWN and actually see the birds- not see if you can capture their image and fire off machine-gun like upsetting fellow watchers in the process.
You refrain from fishing for compliments on your achievements on social media and gumming up the news within birding groups on line with repeat photos of the same bird by you and others.
The damage done by some so called photographers in trampling down habitat, disturbance of the birds by encroachment, pure number of "white" Cannons ( sp !) aiming at some small creature who has flown thousands of miles in search of survival and saluting it with a volley of "rat-at - tat -tat", which moves it on depriving birders of reverential respective views.
Those who do bird photography and do it good usually have the respect for birds, habitat and birders, they do not need gratification from their peers.
So, if you cannot do fieldcraft you cannot do photos !
you can learn a hell of a lot from WATCHING.

 

[wllmspd]

Was at Rainham once and the nearest hide to the centre had a big row of Canons (artillery sized) along the front, they were bedded down for the day. Sure, there were lots of birds to see, but they missed the other 95% of the site, had the other hides to myself.
I do know a chap who takes amazing shots and wish he’d make a calendar of his best ones as I’d certainly buy one!

Peter

 

[Ignatius]

Photography is a hobby of mine. Watching animals is a favourite pastime. I try to combine both by spending time watching animals as well as devoting some time to watching them through the finder and taking some photos. When I'm hiking I travel light - just a Sony RX100/6, sometimes an IR-converted X100T. The big stuff is for dedicated animal watching AND photographing as it is too heavy to lug around. But I have wished I had it with me on several occasions.
Long story short: I usually have some sort of bino and some sort of camera with me, even if that is just a Curio and a Oly TG6.

 

[philwaring]

I've somewhat fallen into birding after several years of taking wildlife photography as a serious hobby. I wasn't living in the best place in the UK to enjoy local wildlife but I've managed to change that and now have access to an awful lot more nature.

I find that wildlife photography and enjoying nature are quite different activities with some overlap for me. The photography means carrying a decent amount of weight and being more limited in the hours I'm likely to go out along with often staying still for longer in one place where the distance to subject, angle of sun and composition all has potential. It has the potential for me to create something I'm really proud of though but that adds a little more pressure or expectation to the experience.

If I just want to go and enjoy nature then I'm more likely to be trying to learn bird song, getting more exercise and getting a more general sense of enjoyment from the experience where there's really a very relaxing vibe. Photography can be relaxing too, but not as relaxing.

Both of these are very important to me and it entirely depends on my mood, energy and other factors like the opportunities, time of day and weather. The enjoyment from taking a really lovely photo is hard to beat for me and thankfully my camera now gives me an exceptional view (no physical shutter getting in the way) and runs fully silent and that really allows me to enjoy watching the wildlife whilst also doing photography.

I think it's better to leave the camera at home unless you're keen to use it that day.

 

[KaterinBortle9]

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:

 

[Maljunulo]

I am long past the age when I wanted a more complicated life.

One binocular is all I take with me now.

 

[Steve C]

Birding and Bird Photography, it seems to me, are two different things. Do you want to maximize the number of sightings or search for a couple of perfect images? Decide which one you want to participate in before you leave the house to go out. Cameras are certainly useful, but the thought of lugging and trying to use camera equipment along with binoculars both kind of leaves me cold.

 

[Patudo]

Each of us wants different things from our birding. Some of us desire good photos more than others. I can't deny that getting a good photo is very satisfying, and at least for me, preserves the memory of what you saw better than anything else (while even the best memory can grow blurry and fade with time). I myself sometimes carry a modestly sized camera at times and places where I think I can get a decent shot; my brother carries one all the time and has been rewarded for it with many memorable photos. From the point of view of pure birding (finding and identifying birds), although a camera is by no means essential, a "record shot" can often times resolve a difficult ID more easily than even the best field notes (which one should always attempt to take anyway), so can be useful to have, especially in locations where you may not be familiar with the species you'll encounter.

That said, I much prefer just to observe, to focus only on my target, to be free of having to think about how to get the shot. Most of my birding revolves around one or two species. With the familiarity that comes with spending hundreds of hours focused on a single species you need not worry about ID, and with much of the behaviour I wish to observe (hunting etc) taking place at distances that make it impossible to capture with anything other than professional kit, I feel I sacrifice little by not bringing the camera. The only downside is that my best birding memories can only be found in my mental hard drive, available only to myself. But save for the fact that those memories can dim with age, is that a bad thing?

I'll be the first to admit it's often more challenging to capture good images or footage than just to observe: there's an extra layer of difficulty that (as the OP noted) can make it seem too much like work. Some folks love that element of challenge, I don't. I can't deny I'd like to, some day, get behind a real professional setup and attempt to capture some of the behaviour I've seen. But it'll be a totally different experience to just being an observer. More involved. More difficult. Requiring more ability and skill... but less, to paraphrase the title of one of my favourite songs, and of course the name of one of today's Alphas, "PURE".

 

[rkbirding]

These responses have been amazing. I think for now I will continue to do both but focusing more on relaxing and observing, continuing to not have the best cameras/lenses but still aid me in identifying and recalling memories.

At the end of the day it's up to me how complicated I'm making it, with or without a camera. Perhaps I could shoot less photos, worry less when I do shoot them about their quality, shoot more of the same birds I've already seen without feeling "I already have a picture of that bird", etc.

It's possible that I'm actually more frustrated in my mediocre photography skills and/or how much I've left my binoculars at home that has bothered me the most. It's worth playing devil's advocate from both points of view and until I can say without certainty that I don't want the camera, I should probably bring it with me as another option and to have no regrets.

I will revisit this thread if anything changes but at the very least it has reassured me that it's okay to do one or the other or both. As moods, skills, and other circumstances change there's no need to make a permanent single decision.

This life long hobby changes as we change. There have been gaps of years where I didn't even bird at all, so I should probably stop over thinking it and just relax, have fun with it and hopefully learn some new things, which is what I really ever wanted out of it!

 

[Maljunulo]

It all depends on the personality of the birder, and why they are looking at birds in the first place.

I am neither obsessively competitive, nor am I driven to “outscore” others.

No matter how good a photograph is it does not compare with the image of the living bird, as seen in a world-class optic.

I, therefor, prefer to simply admire the bird (or anything else) and the perfection of the image which enables us to see so much more than we ever would see without our binoculars.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

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

Looks good! May I know what scope is that?