Jump to content
Whatbird Community

crazed4birds

Members
  • Posts

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by crazed4birds

  1. 8 hours ago, Administrator said:

    This is very useful feedback. I am curious when you were getting started 3 years ago, did you look at David Sibley's matrix/table approach to arranging content, as opposed to Nat Geo's more vertical stack of a composite drawings of 2 to 6 species? Seems they both have pros and cons. If you were advising someone starting in birding today, would you suggest they start with one of these guides, or would you tell them to skip it, and just get a few apps?  

    I understand all your reasons for not being interested in these mini-guides and they are all valid. One of your objections is the fact the pages are so small that it would take many more of them to cover the same information in the exciting popular book-based guides. I completely agree. But wonder if there were enough pages to equal the existing printed guides would you be more curious about these mini-books? Or if the content was unique would you look closer? I understand that unless someone discovers an incredibly ingenious new way to deliver printed materials--I'm looking at your promised for years flexible LCDs--I doubt printed books will come close to equaling the data density of the smartphone.

    I'm glad the field guide apps running on smartphones and tablets, coupled with the mobile internet, but bummed that they have relegated the poor the printed book to second place status. I estimate market size of field guide apps are probably close to or exceed that of the popular printed field guide books.  With the way paper is dwindling resource, while with apps we are simply manipulating and switching electrons, I do wonder if the app market will eventually make the printed guide a very difficult economic venture?

    I personally don't feel as if the whole app market has taken over birding. My go to when I need to review empid/gull/other tricky ids would be a printed out guide. NatGeo was the first field guide I owned, and I picked up quite a bit from how they formatted that, and I would most certainly recommend people get a printed field guide when they start birding. I think part of the problem with me not being all that interested in the product would be because I have numerous field guides from all over as is, I am accustomed to using them, and they are all greatly detailed and allow for interspecies comparison. 

    • Like 3
  2. Alright here's my take, as a teen birder:

    I honestly just don't see the value here. I have never heard of "minibooks" before this, and I will likely never buy one. I see no problem with just getting a paper/hardcover and plopping down somewhere to read for a few hours. I don't need to feel like I'm swiping through an Instagram feed to read.

    I rarely take a field guide into the birding with me as is, and really haven't since I started birding. I never used one of those "pocket-sized field guides" just because they did not have the detail that I could get within a Sibley or NatGeo. I'm just trying to imagine something with even smaller font/images. When I started birding in mid-2015, my NatGeo proved to be a very useful guide, as I could see similar species and compare the two on one page. It seems to me that in a "minibook" that this would not be possible, just due to the tiny page size. With the smaller page size too, I think that many of the illustrations would lose much detail, with many of the key identifying features being harder to see/not visible at all. 

    I honestly don't see the problem with a phone either. Granted, they do have battery life (which I just pack a good portable charger for), but the cellular issue can be fixed fairly easily by downloading packs and whatnot for offline usage. The advantage about the field guides on a phone too (I only have Merlin), is that they offer birds in multiple natural positions, as well as a variety of sounds. 

    To me, there really would be no need for a minibook field guide. I'd much rather save my money for something I'd actually use.

    PS: The demo image technically violates forum rules, the words second from top left and somewhere in the middle on the bottom page seem to be a bit expletive. 

    • Like 6
  3. 4 hours ago, Robert Elwyn said:

    Thanks LS appreciate your welcome to the site. From your your suggestion that this might be a young western species, I found images of  Rufous Hummingbird that looks quite like the one I photographed although it also seems to sometimes have a variety of quite striking markings. This image is from'

     https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=Rufous+Hummingbird&fr=tightropetb&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.audubon.org%2Fcdn%2Ffarfuture%2FxNlPfoZ1ezgxEnBdFAU9G1Ekz21hbDP9YAPFrOoJOGQ%2Fmtime%3A1422550478%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FRufous_Hummingbird_n10-4-042_l_1.jpg#id=128&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbirdscalgary.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F10%2Frufous-hummingbird.jpg&action=clickrufous-hummingbird.jpg 

    Unfortunately immature/female Rufous and Allen's Hummingbirds can only be confidently told by a slight difference in the tail feathers. Nonetheless, seeing either species out that far east is super cool.

×
×
  • Create New...