I read it and the title is more provocative than the actual article. The
actual article is interesting and useful for guides because it confirms
that there is a greater need to cater to photographers. The question in
the title doesn't have anything to do with the content of the article.
But to add my own perspective for what it's worth, I carry a camera on
all of my birding trips. I often even omit binoculars, because the
viewfinder with a long lens is already pretty good and I have pretty
acute eyesight. (However I do use binoculars for shorebirds, waterbirds,
and places with huge distances.)
I think I would become pretty frustrated birding without a camera for
those species that are hard to identify without the leisure of looking
at several high-resolution photographs at home. It also gives me the
ability to identify birds that appear for a few seconds and then go away
forever. It's excellent for trips to new places with exotic birds that
you'll only ever seen once or twice.
I also put every bird we find into a PDF document (using LaTeX) so that
my wife and I can go through all the birds we've ever seen,
presentation-style.
Jason
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
|
