|
Yeah we were walking through wetland. There is a guy nearby that logs every bird he sees in the area, every day, on his website. I guess we read Marsh Harrier one day, and it stuck in our heads to the point that we jumped to conclusions. Heard hooves, thought zebras, or whatever the saying is
|
# ? Feb 6, 2021 19:11 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 15:58 |
|
Tears In A Vial posted:We've gone back to the tape and you guys are right. Thanks for the ID! I'll update my list. Oh dear, I was afraid to say anything, but every Harrier I've seen in the US and Britain has had a heavy and distinctive white band on the base of it's tail. Given the extreme dimorphism between the sexes of those birbs it's absolutely the quickest give away for either. E: you should definitely go seek out a harrier if you haven't seen one before, they're like what if a hawk decided it wanted to be an owl.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2021 07:41 |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC43bc8jZ98 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0dzu_6sfSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sB_-cBAUZ8 In flight, a marsh harrier probably reminds me more of a red kite than a buzzard. The real challenge is trying to differentiate Common Buzzard and Rough Legged Buzzard. The latter are a rare winter visitor so for the most part it's not something to worry about; if I've seen one I've been blissfully unaware of it! However living in Kent, Tears In A Vial has more chance than me... https://www.birdguides.com/articles/species-profiles/focus-on-rough-legged-buzzard/
|
# ? Feb 7, 2021 11:27 |
|
Hi birding thread! I knew there would be a bird watching thread if I just looked for it and here it is. There are a bunch of pine siskins, a few Oregon juncos and I heard some black-capped chickadees in my yard this morning.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2021 19:38 |
|
A Northern Mockingbird has turned up in the UK (Devon). Only the third reported sighting. Must be divining all the twitchers mad given current lockdown situation...
|
# ? Feb 7, 2021 21:05 |
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:As far as I know any complete Ebird checklist of at least 15 minutes in length made during the GBBC period will be automatically included in the GBBC dataset. You don't need to do anything special to become included. Thanks for this, glad to be contributing, even in this small way. The weather kept me indoors for most of the weekend. So, besides reports on my yard and feeders, I only made it out once to a local pond, where there is dependably a nice variety of ducks. Each winter, for at least the past three winters, a pair of Northern Pintails has taken up residence in this pond. It's always only one pair, so I assume they are the same pair each year. The male is very handsome and elegant, but quite timid. He always heads back out onto the water when people are about. The female, on the other hand, is more likely to be found at the leading edge of the mallard stampede that descends on any human visitor.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2021 19:01 |
|
My wife has expressed interest in going out birding. We went to see the sandhill cranes at Jasper-Pulaski 2 seasons ago (so pre-covid obviously since it can get pretty crowded there) and had a good time. The only problem is that she has a (fairly mild) case of cerebral palsy. She can walk around just fine and goes running so it's a rather light case. But her coordination is a bit lacking and her movement can be a little jerky some times. She's had a bit of difficulty using the binoculars we have the times we've used them. We went out to see the comet last year as well as the jupiter/saturn conjunction. She had trouble seeing either of those, but I've read that astronomical objects can be more difficult to see, plus our binoculars are ~$50 10x binoculars (the bushnell all-purpose 10x) so maybe that made things worse. How useful would something like a monopod or a tripod be? For looking at things not too far up I figure it could work pretty well, but I don't know how often we'd have to look straight up to see birds. My current plan is to get a pair pentax papilio 6.5x for her. Kind of low powered and moderately inexpensive, but the hope would be that the low power would make her shakiness be less noticeable than a more powerful pair. Plus they're very light, which might help since she's a bit petite. Then I can get a monopod and a quick release mount since it's got a nice mounting point on the bottom of the body. Worst case I can end up using them for their really close focus (half a meter) since I'm interested in looking at plants.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2021 03:18 |
|
Get a lightweight tripod, not a monopod, that way once it's set her coordination doesn't even matter.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2021 03:23 |
|
Those Pentax have a very narrow field of view (the second number in the 6.5x21). Lightweight is good, but it will probably help if the field of view is 35 or 40 (or more) so that even if there痴 some shake the bird will stay in the frame. I don稚 fully know the challenges your wife is facing but I知 wondering if something a little bigger might be easier to use. Are the Canon image stabilization binoculars in your price range at all? Just a thought. A spotting scope would be the most stable but that would more or less preclude looking at moving birds. But maybe a mixed strategy of 7x35s and a scope would be best. E: I almost wonder whether a sturdy walking support/walking stick that she could lean against and then use binoculars normally would be easier than using binoculars on a monopod. I知 pretty sure there is a combo walking stick/monopod that could let you experiment. BetterLekNextTime fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Feb 17, 2021 |
# ? Feb 17, 2021 03:43 |
|
Kenshin posted:Get a lightweight tripod, not a monopod, that way once it's set her coordination doesn't even matter. I don't know anything about pods, so maybe just going all in would be good. It's probably location dependent, we're in the Chicago area so there are several prairie/plains type places around, plus like lake shores and stuff. I could see setting up a tripod at one of those areas working since we could see more without having to go around as much. But in my mind in a forest-y area it might be less useful (but maybe a monopod wouldn't help much there anyway). Like for something like the sandhill cranes a tripod is clearly just better. I don't have much of a sense of how ambulatory we need to be to see birds. BetterLekNextTime posted:Those Pentax have a very narrow field of view (the second number in the 6.5x21). Lightweight is good, but it will probably help if the field of view is 35 or 40 (or more) so that even if theres some shake the bird will stay in the frame. I dont fully know the challenges your wife is facing but Im wondering if something a little bigger might be easier to use. Yeah the small objective lens was a bit of a concern. They claim to have an ok field of view despite that (they say 7.5 degrees, or ~390 ft @ 1000 yards), but it may be that near the edges it doesn't look as nice. Plus it'll be darker than a bigger pair. Haven't looked through them so I couldn't say. Image stabilization ones would be nice but they're a bit more than we're looking to spend at this point. They're definitely an attractive upgrade if we end up enjoying it though. But roughly I was going to get a ~$150 pair for myself, plus something similar for her. Not including a tripod or whatever else I end up getting.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2021 05:04 |
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:field of view (the second number in the 6.5x21). that's the lens diameter, which you can use to compare field of view only for the same magnification.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2021 13:50 |
|
Lawson posted:that's the lens diameter, which you can use to compare field of view only for the same magnification. Very true. When comparing 6.5 vs. 7x it should be a reasonable proxy but the actual field of view metrics are right there. Eeyo-- if there's any chance you could try out some models before you buy, that's always a good idea. That might not be as easy right now but if you have a Wild Birds Unlimited, REI, Cabela's/Bass Pro Shop they should at least have one or two examples of the compact (which the 6.5x21's would be) vs. something a the small end of "standard" binoculars that you could try out in the store or in the parking lot. I haven't looked recently but $150 should be a reasonable amount for very serviceable glass.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2021 18:56 |
|
We recently moved to an area where we can watch birds fish and I want to get a good set of binoculars. Is Celestron a well regarded brand? They appear on some "Best Value" lists and their prices are pretty attractive. Here is a list of three that I'm considering: Is there any Goon Favorite set of glasses? I'd like to use them at the range occasionally too, if that helps/ complicates things. Edit: In case this is useful, here is where they will mostly see use: Professor Shark fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Mar 1, 2021 |
# ? Mar 1, 2021 01:11 |
|
https://www.audubon.org/gear/binocular-guide The Bins section of BirdForum also has a reasonable amount of traffic https://www.birdforum.net/forums/binoculars.112/
|
# ? Mar 1, 2021 01:21 |
|
Celestron is a legitimate brand, and should be as good as anything else at that price point. Years ago my mom had a pair, not sure which model. All brands are going to have different tiers so while Celestron earned it's good rep for astronomical telescopes the economy binoculars are not going to carry all of that technology with them. Professor Shark posted:
Range like golf or gun? it shouldn't really matter I guess, although in both cases you may be looking for tiny things at a long distance so that might actually call for 10x42s or something a little bigger? I don't do either so I don't really know what the exact use case is for those sports. Or do you mean looking at birds while you're at the range? You aren't looking for an actual rangefinder, right? A common recommendation are Nikon Monarchs but those are probably one price point up from what you're looking at. Here are some recs for the entry-level class (under $150). Binoculars for birding are pretty general for most uses, so a typical pair that's not super-compact will be somewhere in the 7x35, 8x35 to 8x50, or 10x35 to 10x50. 8x42 are perfect. Exceptions would be for stuff like butterflies where you need close minimum focus, or for something like long-distance sea watches you might go with something with a lot of magnification.
|
# ? Mar 1, 2021 01:42 |
|
I was reading a great article on Audubon that helped- I知 leaning more towards the Nikon Prostaff 3S 8x42, but will check outbthe Monarchs. I would not be birding at the (gun) range, just looking for tiny holes and swearing a bunch. For the most part they would sit in my living room for eagle spotting uses.
|
# ? Mar 1, 2021 01:52 |
|
I ended up going with the Nikons in 10x42 after reading that for the distances I知 be using them for, the birds would not be moving fast enough to justify the 8x I知 looking forward to them!
|
# ? Mar 1, 2021 22:08 |
|
It's really satisfying going back the the same places and getting to know their wildlife better. You get a feel for what's common a d always there, what depends on the tide/time if day/season, and what's really unusual! I just discovered an incredible small (maybe 20mx40m) bit of mudflats which unlike the one nearest where I'm living had a couple of late Red Knots. I presume either because this one is mostly disconnected from land or because there are fewer people around. There are also loads more Whimbrels and Ruddy Turnstones this year, or maybe I'm just getting better at spotting them.
|
# ? Apr 26, 2021 08:12 |
|
Yes! I found a birding thread. I was going to start one but I suppose this can be a general birding thread for everyone. I am newly a bird enthusiast and I live in Connecticut (a terrific place for it), so I'm glad to join the community here. I have befriended a mourning dove at my apartment complex, it seems - I've seen all the usual birds around my courtyard/at my feeder, including the doves, cardinals, blue jays, sparrows, downy woodpeckers, starlings, robins, tufted titmice (rare but it's happened), house finches, chickadees, juncos, etc. EDIT: There is plenty of camera talk that I missed a couple of pages back, sorry. fawning deference fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Apr 27, 2021 |
# ? Apr 27, 2021 00:26 |
|
fawning deference posted:EDIT: There is plenty of camera talk that I missed a couple of pages back, sorry.
|
# ? Apr 28, 2021 00:08 |
|
For bird photography: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3171184&pagenumber=1&perpage=40 For general outdoor/backyard birding and chatter aside from just this thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3933091&pagenumber=1&perpage=40 For adjacent/general critter IDs and "look what I found" sharing: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3807356&pagenumber=1&perpage=40 Hello and enjoy! my cat is norris fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Apr 28, 2021 |
# ? Apr 28, 2021 03:28 |
|
fawning deference posted:Yes! I found a birding thread. If you have a chance, try to get out into your local woods to look/listen for warblers. The spring warbler push on the east coast is awesome. They can be fast and hard to find in the tree leaves but at least they should be singing their little hearts out right now.
|
# ? Apr 28, 2021 03:43 |
|
My backyard is so loud rn
|
# ? Apr 28, 2021 05:04 |
|
Thanks, guys! It's still overwhelming figuring out a camera situation. I want to take really good pictures, so I know it will be something to save for. I'm glad I have this thread. Is anyone local to Connecticut here? fawning deference fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Apr 28, 2021 |
# ? Apr 28, 2021 13:53 |
|
As a bird and wildlife photographer, it's fun, but I would invest in a nice pair of 8x42 binoculars before I'd invest in a camera for bird photography. Because they're often small and far away and active in low light, it's hard to get decent shots with a point-and-shoot. A decent enough DSLR body can be found for under $300 used, but you're still going to need a big telephoto lens that'll cost at least that much (mine is considered "entry level" and was $900 new). It's not that you can't snap pictures with less, but just that you'll probably be disappointed with the results and having some really sick bins will make your life so much better.
|
# ? Apr 28, 2021 15:09 |
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:As a bird and wildlife photographer, it's fun, but I would invest in a nice pair of 8x42 binoculars before I'd invest in a camera for bird photography. Because they're often small and far away and active in low light, it's hard to get decent shots with a point-and-shoot. A decent enough DSLR body can be found for under $300 used, but you're still going to need a big telephoto lens that'll cost at least that much (mine is considered "entry level" and was $900 new). It's not that you can't snap pictures with less, but just that you'll probably be disappointed with the results and having some really sick bins will make your life so much better. I have a pair of 10x42 waterproof binoculars and they're fun to use already, so I know what you mean, and I appreciate the honesty about the difficulties of getting good bird shots when they're fluttering around in sunlight. The camera will be something I save up for, maybe an end-of-the-year type thing, and in the meantime, I'll just start observing more and getting good with my birding instincts.
|
# ? Apr 28, 2021 15:24 |
|
fawning deference posted:Thanks, guys! Don't get too hung up on gear at the start; developing photography skills and nature field craft will be more important. There's also an old saying: the best camera is the one you have with you (i.e there's no point buying pro-tier camera gear if you leave it at home because it's too heavy or you're disappointed that it doesn't immediately result in photos good enough to win Bird Photographer of the Year). But give us a budget and we can make suggestions. I also recommend tracking down a copy of Rocky Nook's Handbook of Bird Photography. IMO it gives an brilliant insight in to what it takes to achieve world class bird photography. Finally; don't be a bird watcher. Be a wildlife watcher; mammals and insects are just as cool (I live in the mammal poor UK so am always jealous of people who live in countries with a proper mammal pyramid).
|
# ? Apr 28, 2021 17:08 |
|
Great advice all around. Much appreciated. I don't need to take award winning photos, I just want to be able to document what I'm seeing where it doesn't look blurry or grainy (ie not a phone camera from far away). I am more interested in observing and taking the occasional picture, much more for personal use than to show the world my mad skills.
|
# ? Apr 28, 2021 18:41 |
|
I think camera budget will come much later. Just doing a touch and go on what a decent camera will cost me.
|
# ? Apr 28, 2021 18:41 |
|
fawning deference posted:I don't need to take award winning photos, I just want to be able to document what I'm seeing where it doesn't look blurry or grainy (ie not a phone camera from far away). I am more interested in observing and taking the occasional picture, much more for personal use than to show the world my mad skills. Sounds like you aren't buying immediately, but if this is still true when you buy, maybe look at superzoom/bridge cameras rather than a DSLR/Mirrorless body + telephoto lens. Not sure if I've posted this in the thread before but I wrote a little bit about this decision.
|
# ? Apr 28, 2021 19:18 |
|
For a birder who wants respectable 'record shots', I think modern superzoom bridge cameras have a lot to recommend them; much more respectable UI performance and more "zoom" in a lighter package than you'll get with an interchangable lens camera. My go-to recommendation is always to check the camera section of Birdforum.net; it's a good resource for birders-with-cameras rather than bird-photographers. The bridge camera threads have a lot of examples of what they can achieve. https://www.birdforum.net/forums/cameras-and-photography.111/
|
# ? Apr 28, 2021 19:29 |
|
I use a second hand off-brand 170mm-500mm. It cost £400. It's not perfect, but it works well enough for me.
|
# ? Apr 28, 2021 20:48 |
|
I'm not sure how to upload images from my computer on here, but I just saw a bird outside on my ledge eating some seed and I don't know what it is - it basically looks like it could be a type of vireo or warbler. It has a white breast and belly and white around it's beady black eyes, but it is black running from nose through the top of it's head to the neck, and it's feathers are alternating gray and black. It has a pretty long thin beak. It basically looks like a Bell's Vireo except, like I mentioned, it has the jet black stripe on the top of it's head.
|
# ? May 2, 2021 19:01 |
|
fawning deference posted:I'm not sure how to upload images from my computer on here, but I just saw a bird outside on my ledge eating some seed and I don't know what it is - it basically looks like it could be a type of vireo or warbler. It has a white breast and belly and white around it's beady black eyes, but it is black running from nose through the top of it's head to the neck, and it's feathers are alternating gray and black. It has a pretty long thin beak. Maybe white-breasted nuthatch?
|
# ? May 2, 2021 19:25 |
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Maybe white-breasted nuthatch? That's it! Thanks!
|
# ? May 2, 2021 19:31 |
|
can someone tell me what in the gently caress kinda bird decided to make itself at home in my walls and if it's scared and when it plans on leaving and if there's a bunch of eggs under it? https://imgur.com/a/w5HcWHf
|
# ? May 3, 2021 23:39 |
|
sounds like a squirrel
|
# ? May 3, 2021 23:43 |
|
Grump posted:can someone tell me what in the gently caress kinda bird decided to make itself at home in my walls and if it's scared and when it plans on leaving and if there's a bunch of eggs under it? Opossum?
|
# ? May 3, 2021 23:46 |
|
darnit. googled squirrel sounds and i think that might just be what i've got here.
|
# ? May 4, 2021 12:39 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 15:58 |
|
That's how mammals get you! Last week mom and I took a detour because we thought we heard a grebe and instead we found the world's loudest chipmunk.
|
# ? May 4, 2021 12:50 |