lonestranger

Last call for captions, I'll call a winner later tonight or tomorrow morning.

Mental note, you can get hurt if you tickle someone the wrong way.

So birders are ornithologists in training, not the guys enjoying birds through the lens of a camera. Got it. I guess I am in the minority by agreeing with Kenn Kaufman. According to Kenn Kaufman, “Birding is something that we do for enjoyment; so if you enjoy it, you're a good birder. If you enjoy it a lot, you're a great birder.” I will go on record as saying that I hate terms that divide or separate similarly minded people. The notion that one method of enjoying the birds is superior to another method of enjoying birds is ridiculous to me. Having a pair of binoculars and a field guide does not mean someone enjoys the birds or learns any more than someone who uses a camera and the internet to do their learning and get their enjoyment. I'm sorry folks, I didn't mean to derail the original topic, but I can't help but feel a sense of superiority when the term birder is used to describe others as JUST something less than the birder making the reference. It comes across to me like, if you don't do it my way, you're not doing right and therefore you don't fit into the elitist group we call birders. I don't mean to offend anyone that calls themselves a birder, I know it's a label that many wear proudly. I couldn't care less though if I offend those that pass judgement on OTHERS because of the method of their birding. If a bird photographer calls themself a birder, who has the right to say they're not a birder? A real birder? Now if you'll excuse me, I am going to take my camera and go enjoy the birds for a while. Call it what you like. ?

I am curious, how do you define a birder? Are there minimum requirements, beyond an interest in birds, to qualify as a birder? How do you tell the difference between birders with a camera and the bird photographers, is there a characteristic or something specific that separates the two? I am genuinely curious because it seems like the term birder gets used regularly to separate birders from those people that are considered to be something less than birders. I always thought it was an inclusive term, now I wonder if it's an exclusive term.

Okay, caption this.

When buying third party lenses, I would suggest checking with the manufacturer to make sure it's compatible with your choice of camera. While I am pretty sure the two are compatible, I suggest making sure by checking with the manufacturer.

Welcome to Whatbird, @birdigrl60. I think this will be the most helpful info you'll find here. https://forums.whatbird.com/index.php?/announcement/3-what-to-do-if-you-find-a-baby-or-injured-bird/

I'll just point out that if you're going with the Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm lens, it is made for both Canon and Nikon cameras. I can't comment on Nikon DSLRs from personal experience, but I know enough to safely say that they make some quality cameras too. Just more food for thought.

The 7D is a very capable camera, I used one for about 5 years before upgrading to the 7D Mark ii. I thoroughly enjoyed using the 7D. When paired with a good lens, I think it can help produce some great images. Knowing what I know now, I wish I had kept the 7D. It can have noise issues in low light, but that can be said about many cameras and with today's noise reduction software, well, noise is less of an issue.

I think you may have caught the bird trying to do some sky writing(with poop), similar to this photo. ?

There are a lot of good quality cameras available in the used market. Many people will ignore an older 8MP, 12MP, or even 16MP cameras because the new ones have 20MP or more. What some may not realize is that you only need 8MP to print an 8x10 photo, and you only need a fraction of that to display your photos digitally. If you don't mind using products that were top of their line 5-10 years ago, you can get some great cameras for a fraction of the cost of todays entry level cameras. While there's been many advancements since those cameras were first released, there's no denying that the top of the line cameras took top of the line photos back then, so the same should hold true today.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with that.....https://www.keh.com/shop/cameras/digital-cameras/dslr/canon.html?product_list_order=price_asc

I'd suggest asking yourself what is wrong with your current gear and what advantages/features you are looking for with the new gear. If you have answers, then buying new gear should be a lot easier. Wanting to take better photos is a costly reason to keep upgrading if you don't know why you need that upgrade. I will say that it could end up being quite expensive buying starter gear in the DSLR product line, after just recently upgrading in the P&S product line. P&S $$$ + P&S upgrade $$$ + entry level DSLR $$$ + entry level Lens $$$ + DSLR Upgrade $$$ + Lens Upgrade $$$ = a lot of $$$$$$ If you're looking to buy better photos, skip the costly middle upgrades and go right for QUALITY gear, it'll be much cheaper in the long run. I'm not saying to buy the best there is, just don't waste your photography budget on cheap products that will probably leave you wanting better gear, even if the cheap stuff satisfies the itch of the moment. If you're going to pinch a few pennies, I suggest skimping on the camera and investing more in the lens, not the other way around. A quality lens on a cheap camera will produce better images than a cheap lens on a quality camera. Shop accordingly.

Come on Mom, let me try out for the water polo team, please.

And better still, why hasn't BEEP-BEEP been added to the roadrunner descriptions yet?

I wish he'd move over just a bit more so I didn't have to look into the sun.

I don't understand either @PaulK, and I am not going to try to. ?

Most any photo editing software that has a selection tool with a healing brush can help remove unwanted features with a few clicks, if done right. The high end programs might do a better job at it than others, but there's also free software that can possibly do just as good a job. I believe that Gimp is the most popular of the free photo editing programs and is claimed to rival Photoshop in many aspects. There are many other free programs but I can't remember them all, a Google search for free photo editing software should provide you with plenty of options. Keep in mind that removal of branches crisscrossing a bird isn't an easy fix, especially when the shadows need to be considered in association with the branches that are being removed. Also note that the removal of branches is discouraged by ebird. "When editing, aim to make the bird look as it did in the field; please avoid over-saturation, over-sharpening, or augmentation of the image beyond what you observed. The idea is to create a natural reproduction of how the bird looked in life. Many editing tools found in Photoshop can "enhance" an otherwise backlit or hard-to-see image, but they can also result in very strange-looking birds; please use these tools sparingly. Similarly, avoid cosmetic Photoshopping like the removal of branches or other major changes. These artificially created images are not appropriate for inclusion in a scientific collection."

They all gave me a good chuckle but @The Bird Nuts wins this round and gets to pick the next photo.

For those that don't remember the bird in question, here is a link to the original post.

I think that was at least part of the reasoning behind the original young birders thread from before the big crash. I think it was originally intended to group the youngster into a controlled environment where they were allowed to have fun being youngsters without that fun getting in the way of the normal IDs and birding discussions elsewhere in the forums. It was looked on as the place to let loose and be silly. Obviously a few of us older members still feel the need to let their childish silliness loose now and then, which explains why some of us post in there now and then, unlike @Charlie Spencer who probably just looks in the young birders thread for that Hippity-Hoppity music he referred to. ?

Welcome to Whatbird, @Pama. It's hard to figure out your bird with so little info to go on. If you could include info like, bill colour and/or if the bill was dagger like or blunt cone shaped, leg colour is often helpful along with eye colour too. The more info you can provide, the more accurate the responses will be, a photo would be most helpful. Without more to go on, I'll toss out the suggestion of European Starling simply because my neighbour mentioned one getting down her chimney recently.

Caption this. Let me know if I already posted this here.