12 replies to this topic

[Triplefeather]

So I have really been confusing myself as to what I should save up for to bird with: a camera, or binoculars? Of course I already have a pair, but I really want something higher quality to take out in the field. I want to keep the price $300 and lower, as I am just a kid after all, with no real job as of yet.

I hear a camera would be best, but it would need to be light, compact, and take decent pictures. You know, a wildlife camera. I have been eyeing the Nikons.

The only real downside to a camera vs saving for binoculars is the price. Obviously a decent camera costs a fair amount more than a moderate binocular. Also though, binoculars are more convenient and compact. I like the feel of binoculars better, but need to know what is the smartest option for my birding.

In the future I will have both a camera and binoculars, but I just want some suggestions and opinions on which and what type I should buy. I don't want to purchase the wrong thing and regret my decision later. Thank you!

-Triple

[creeker]

You can bird without a camera, but without binos not so much. But don't listen to me. My binos are inexpensive Pro Hunters and my camera a small 10x zoom point and shoot.

[JimBob]

Yeah. . . I agree with creeker. Get a good pair of binoculars, then get a camera. I went the other way, and kinda wish I had a nice pair of binocs now. Oh well, I'm enjoying my camera!

If you really wanted a good camera, then I would recommend the Canon sx40. Or go to kiki.com (I think that's what it is) and get a DSLR body, and lens. Platypus gave me some ideas, but I'm having trouble finding that thread.

[Triplefeather]

Good idea. I was thinking it would be better to start with the obvious basic: binoculars, then while I know I can bird no matter what, get a camera.

JimBob, I will look at the cameras you suggested, I like Canon. Thanks!

[Jenny81]

I haven't ever used binoculars, but I will just say that when you have a bird that you have no idea what it is, like my cerulean warbler from last week which was a lifer, a camera is a lifer saver. I have gotten several lifers (including Gray-cheeked Thrush and Bay-breasted warbler) from pictures I had taken, forgotten all about, then later while I was sorting them, identified them as lifers.

[Liam]

I have a pair of binoculars, but I use my camera for birding much more. I have two cameras, a DSLR and a 20x zoom P&S. I use the P&S as my birding optic because it has farther reach than my binoculars and my 300mm lens. The digital zoom can be very useful, even if it does lower image quality. I reiterate what Jenny attested to; I have attained many lifers because of my camera.

However, I'm sure I have also missed some for this same reason. Binoculars are quick, there are no settings you can mess up. You simply put your eyes through the eyepieces and observe the bird. While with a camera you have to zoom to full focal length and snap a shot. With P&S, the system may take a second to ready itself for the next shot, which may lose you some decent ID views (though I heard the most recent P&S have improved in these area greatly).

I wrote a comparison on my blog a few months ago concerning this problem: http://ospr3y.blogsp...-is-better.html

Hope it helps. It leans on the camera side.

[Joejr14]

I haven't ever used binoculars, but I will just say that when you have a bird that you have no idea what it is, like my cerulean warbler from last week which was a lifer, a camera is a lifer saver. I have gotten several lifers (including Gray-cheeked Thrush and Bay-breasted warbler) from pictures I had taken, forgotten all about, then later while I was sorting them, identified them as lifers.

Bingo!

[guy_incognito]

In your situation, I'd say you should get binoculars first.

If you have a DSLR camera with a big lens, it can essentially replace binoculars, but to do so, it would cost around $2000, and put a lot of extra weight and bulk on you. I just don't think a P&S is easy enough to use to quickly spot and view a distant bird. Without binoculars you will probably miss out seeing a lot more birds because you just never saw them.

[Jenny81]

I forgot to mention that if you have a camera then when you see a rare bird you can actually prove that you saw it. The eBirder that reviews reports in my area thanked me for including a picture of the Dickcissel I saw this spring, he said it makes their job so much easier.

My Canon 30D and 75-300mm camera and lens cost me about $450 all together including an 8gb compact flash card. That lens is a tad short, but it lets in a lot of light, making the image sharp and easily cropped without losing too much detail. It is actually not heavy, weighing five pounds at the most.

Also, if you are a beginner birder and you see a really tough to identify bird, (for example, a hard non-breeding plumage warbler) sure you can see it very clearly, you will just remember an unknown bird, and going from memory there is a big possibility of misidentification.

I didn't think I had ever seen a Savannah Sparrow until I found a picture IN MY WHITE-THROATED SPARROW FOLDER. Sigh...

[MarkBird]

My opinion is that you should get a pair of <$100 binoculars first. I don't see what $300 gets you for your first gear. I like my Nikon Travelites for planned birding; there are plenty of other affordable choices too. I also have several $18 Bass Pro binos (and even a free Vivitar supercompact) laying around in the garage, at work, etc. to serve in a pinch.

Assuming the birding bug keeps biting you, then I agree with the others - you'll want to spend good money on a camera with decent zoom.

I am happy with my Travelites, a 20X compact P&S, and 13X-40X spotting scope. If I started fresh, I'd probably replace the P&S and spotting scope with a good DLSR camera & lens.

Liam's blog hits some good points. The toughest birds are the ones that won't sit still, are in thick cover, or are in flight. Unless you're really proficient with a camera, this is where binoculars really shine.

[Aveschapines]

Interesting discussion!

I am definitely in the "get binoculars" group. I'm not much of a photographer, and while I drool over the gorgeous photos people take where you can see the mites on the feathers of the birds, photography isn't really my interest. When I see a bird, I always try to get a good look at it first and get a photo if possible later. I am able to see many more birds than I can photograph (and my birding "rules" don't require a photo for an ID) and I find that a really good look is much better than a mediocre photo for ID. I keep a little notebook with me and write down as detailed a description as I can in the field. This helps a lot with later ID and also reminds me to check for all the key field marks (bill color, leg/foot color, eyerings, primary projection, etc). You might not get all this from a photo, even a good one.

It hasn't happened to me yet, but I don't think I would count as a lifer a bird I didn't see in the field but later found in a photograph. For me the fun and excitement is in seeing the bird. I also don't count birds I see but can't identify - by that I mean if I don't get enough of a look to see FOR MYSELF what it is even if someone else tells me what it was. At the CBC last year, we saw an Emerald Toucanet, and yes, I saw it fly by, but NO WAY I could see what it was. The people with me tried to convince me to count it, but I didn't. (I saw one in Petén in April, so it's a lifer for me now!)

I don't have fancy, expensive binocs and I do OK!!! My first pair were inexpensive 10-50s, and earlier this year I replaced them with some 8-30s 7-35s that I like better. The 10-50s are fine for viewing but they are big and heavy. The new ones are much smaller and lighter. The new ones were less than $100 equivalent. I have definitely birded without a camera at times; I got a small monocular which I carry in my backpack for "emergencies" and have found a lifer or two, and observed many interesting birds, with that. I took a trip to Tikal in April and FORGOT MY CAMERA!!! but still got many lifers and saw a lot of great birds. If I were forced to choose between camera and binocs, it would be a no-brainer - I'd choose the binocs.

Edited to correct my binocular info now that I'm at home and can check!

[flipper]

I'm really amazed at the "binoculars first" responses. I would say camera. Why? Because you can get a high end point and shoot for about the same as what you are expecting to spend on the binoculars. Maybe a little more $. Then you can take your pics and analyze them for details. With the binos, you just have to remember what you saw. But then, you are young and have a great memory:) I really don't think you'll go wrong either way.

[TheBillyPilgrim]

Definitely go with binoculars. I know some other people disagree here, but I personally don't think there's any comparison.

You can get a decent pair of waterproof 8x42s for around 200 bucks. A photograph is no match for observing a bird in the field (seeing its behavior, how its plumage shifts as it moves). I often bird with both, but I would never go with just a camera (and I have a dslr setup that cost a lot more than $300). My reason is that the focus on the camera can never compete with the speed you can focus and track with binoculars, especially on a moving bird. Additionally, a P&S (or any camera for that matter) won't always cooperate in difficult lighting situations and might refuse to resolve an image all together. With my binos, I'm also not worried about breaking them. I can crawl around in the mud with them, go through heavy brush, get splashed by waves or rain, etc. You have to take a lot more precautions carrying a dslr around.