Comments on: Would you be able to identify this bird from a description?

By: mon@rch

mon@rch — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 03:58:23 +0000

Nice bird . . . ! Would have loved the challenge with it!

By: Gunnar Engblom

Gunnar Engblom — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:06:26 +0000

Sorry folks for not having pitched in with a comment here for some time. I happy that this old blogpost still attracts some readers.

@richcat. You could maybe upload the pic somewhere. Maybe you have a Facebook account, and better still a Flickr account? It is hard from your description. Somewhat easier if you tell us where you saw this bird.

@Craig, @YC, @Andy, @etudiant I think we basically agree that binoculars give a better birding experience. However, we are talking people who are not birders yet. How do we catch their interest best? If they go to the park with their binoculars and see a bird and try to describe it, you will often have a terrible time to try to desipher what they saw. And when you tell them, it sounds like a Robin, they will say. "Oh, no! Not a Robin. I know how that looks like!" After zillions of incidents like this, they will soon get bored. However, with photographs they take something home at the end of the day.
Now to become a good birder, they will have to start using their binoculars - or hire a good guide!!
I think, the digital revolution in photography will see more birdwatchers evolving -and it is a chance to get the young generation into nature studies. The bird clubs would be smart to embrace this.

By: etudiant

etudiant — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:05:30 +0000

You are on to something! The progress in digital cameras in the past few years plus the emergence of all sorts of handy digital bird data storage devices, with images, sound and detailed comment is transforming our hobby. Superzoom cameras really help with picture taking for ID purposes, regardless of their deficiencies vis a vis professional photographs. That opens the door to a new approach to birding, as you suggest. The price may be that the new model birder sees mostly the images, rather than as previously living birds through binoculars in vivid detail. Maybe that will appeal to a new set of observers, as well as expand the options for everyone else.

By: Andy Johnson

Andy Johnson — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:49:23 +0000

Binoculars first! I agree with your point that a camera can gain someone's interest, but I'm not convinced it's that much of a different interest spark than good optics. When you're looking through the electronic viewfinders on those cheap superzooms, you are not really seeing a bird. You're already seeing a picture, and one at a terrible resolution (not that the camera takes bad pictures, but the viewfinder does not well represent that image). So, what I'm saying is, showing random passerbys a cool bird through a bright scope, or handing over your binoculars gets a lot of oohs and ahhs as well. And you simply cannot learn how to identify birds in the field without binoculars, and I say this not as some old-school geezer, but a 17 year old birder and photographer. You may (very gradually) learn field marks of birds whose photos you have captured, or maybe some of the ubiquitous species in your area, but you can't make true observations through the viewfinder of a camera...especially an EVF on point and shoots. Identifying and understanding birds is about WAY more than the field marks, and you need to observe clearly through optics get an accurate grasp on movements and how posture determines shape and structure, etc. HOWEVER, I agree that cameras and their photographs are very important tools for sharing, sparking interest, and documentation. Granted, I have seen myself begin to more closely study the birds I had previously overlooked when the opportunity came to get great photos of them. So I think you're certainly making an interesting point. I still maintain though that optics are necessary for learning. My 89 cents, Andy

By: YC

YC — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:30:08 +0000

I love this piece. Hardcore twitchers in my part of the world are sticking to their bins. They refuse to embrace technology and take a camera into the field. The absence of an image ensures their sightings of rarities cannot be disputed, especially when the Records Committees are not as transparent as it is supposed to be.

By: richcat

richcat — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:13:57 +0000

Need help identifying a bird. This bird or rather these birds (about 20 of them high in a tree) were approx 8-10 inches, dark brown wings, chest and underparts were black with a bluish hue and had white streaks/spots, black head, long bill which curved downward, tail was short and blunt semi V'ed. Loud squawking voice. I have a picture of some of them in flight, but it really isn't that good, however I could submit it if need be. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Cathy

By: Craig Nash

Craig Nash — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:39:30 +0000

Interesting question. I think Binoculars first and then Camera. When you think of it the digital age is only a fairly recent phenomenon; so what did we do before. However last year I travelled to Namibia and as a fairly keen Birder as well as Photographer I took alot of photographs of birds which I spent my evenings trying to identify and if I didnt have the camera I would have not been able to identify as many as I did.

However for a beginner I think I would choose binoculars over the camera as it forces them into looking more carefully at the bird rather than pointing the camera and thinking yes I have seen that now.

My tuppence worth!

By: mon@rch

mon@rch — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:21:44 +0000

Nice bird . . . ! Would have loved the challenge with it!

By: Gunnar Engblom

Gunnar Engblom — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 08:29:27 +0000

Hi Drew
Well that is another issue. I did not say they were to become good birders (more work for the bird guides in the future, right...hehehe!).
Joke apart, if we are looking for the a strategy to get more people interest in birding I think giving these fantastically inexpensive gadgets a chance and priority we could increase membership in many birding clubs around. It becomes less geeky with a camera - to start with - and it brings the newbie over many beginners hurdles. When I first started birding I felt pretty useless when on my own. Without, the excursion leaders on the birdwalks, I would have been completely loss. I had the possibility to do a lot of excursions in a relatively short time and thus I learnt quickly, but if that is not the case to keep up the interest between the times you can be guided a camera is far superior to the binoculars. And it aids in the first learning process. This process will reach a second level once the incipient birder also starts birding with bins - I am not arguing against that....My point is that with cameras to start with, we can become more birders.
If I have struck some kind of truth here.....(this is still pretty much a hunch to me)....then the whole recruitment strategy of birdclubs should be changed...??
I am a bit shocked myself at my conclusions....and I may be wrong....but I see too many convincing cases ... to lead me think that the last 3 years we have gotten more new bird photographers than birdwatchers in the classical sense - and if so.... time to use that as a strategy to become more birders.

By: David Cooper

David Cooper — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 07:22:52 +0000

Binoculars may be wonderful for birdwatching. However capturing that bird in the moment is just beyond description for me. Just looking through a glass and seeing it for yourself is, well, not statisfying for me. The other thing is that you can tell anyone that you saw a bird..... BUT if you capture that moment on film or digital imaging you can show them EXACTLY what you saw. For me I love to share with others what I have seen so they can experience it for themselves.

David Cooper