A New Camera?

A couple of months back I decided it was time to retire my elderly bridge camera, and asked birdy Twitter for recommendations. In my budget range the Nikon Coolpix P900 was easily the most popular. And now that I've owned one for a few weeks I can see why.

However, the purpose of this post is not to sell you a Nikon, but to outline my camera-ownership rationale. It won't be of much interest to photographers, but if you think of yourself as a 'birder first, photographer second' kind of person, well, that's me too. Perhaps one or two NQS readers might be in the market for a camera? Or maybe are at the stage prior to that, and wondering if it's worth adding one to their birding kit? So, if the cap fits, please read on...

Back in December 2004 I was birding the Coly Valley with @birdingprof, trying to suss a Dipper stake-out for an upcoming bird race. A large raptor landed in the hedge across the field from us, but it wasn't the expected Buzzard, it was a stonking adult Goshawk! It perched in full view for several minutes, and while binocular views were amazing enough, a scope would have been handy, and a digital camera to use along with the scope, even better. I doubt I'll ever have better views of a Gos, but it's a memory I can never revisit in picture form.

So if you're wondering whether it's worth bothering with a camera at all, there's reason number one in favour:

1. To capture some of those unique, unrepeatable birding moments.

I was a bit slow to learn from the Goshawk incident, and it was another 18 months before I bought a Fuji Finepix F30 to use for digiscoping. What persuaded me was the desire to add photos to my posts on the 'Backwater Birding' thread that had been running on Birdforum since the beginning of 2006. So there's reason number two:

2. To illustrate any digital publishing you might do.

Since then I've never looked back. I added a bridge camera to the armoury in 2010, and on Steve Waite's recommendation it was a Panasonic Lumix Fz38. Both cameras were still in action up until very recently. Between them they have captured images of the first 12 (of 13) Caspian Gulls I've seen on the Axe, and right there you have reasons three and four in favour of owning a camera:

3. To allow you to capture, and analyse at leisure, photos of tricky species.

I have found it brilliant for gaining familiarity with challenging taxa, especially gulls.

4. To confirm the ID of birds you're not able to 100% clinch in the field.

That has happened three or four times with Casp in my case.

And if you are inclined to submit records, there's a fifth reason:

5. To provide photographic evidence of local/national rarities for records committees.

That's a no-brainer really, but as a former records committee member I cannot stress enough how helpful decent photos are to the record assessment process.

And here's a thought. If, like me, you often prefer birding without the encumbrance of a scope, it's inevitable that you will sometimes be caught out by birds which are simply too far away to be successfully identified with bins alone. Step forward, mighty mega-zoom bridge camera! Photograph the object of your frustration and magnify it on the camera's viewing screen. Frequently that will do the trick. So...

6. To facilitate the identification of birds too distant for your optics to resolve.

But maybe you're wondering if toting a camera around with you all the time is going to be a hassle? Well, for starters the P900 weighs very little. I stick it in a bag, sling it across my body and barely notice it. Yet it is really quick to access the camera and fire it up when the need arises...

This is a Crumpler Muffin Top bag. Naff name, brilliant bag. Indestructible. For a bridge camera, can't recommend highly enough.

Of course, there is at least one more reason why a camera is a handy piece of kit:

7. Being able to produce photos (perhaps I should make that 'verifiable photos') of your nice finds will help prevent your reputation being sullied with any taint of...er...dodginess.

So there's my case for owning a camera, or more specifically, a bridge camera. In a future post I'll offer some thoughts on using one. What settings to use, and why, is a perennial head-scratcher for the part-time tog...

PS. I'm sure there are other good reasons for a birder to carry a camera. If you spot something I've failed to mention, please add it in a comment. Ta.

Chiffchaffs

So, yesterday I spent a bit of time chasing Chiffchaffs at Colyton WTW. Uncharacteristically then, quite a few photos and not so many words. I am still reading up on tristis, and at some point in the future I'll post something a little more analytical and in-depth, but for now...


Phylloscopus collybita collybita
First up, a couple of photos of your common-or-garden, everyday Chiffchaff, to pave the way for what follows.

P.c. collybita

P.c. collybita

Bird 1 (P.c. tristis?)
I suspect this is the bird I saw on December 11, but cannot be sure. I only managed a handful of photos of this individual, and none gave me a really good comparison with photos of last week's bird. I am conscious that it looks quite grey in these pics, more so than I thought it did in the field.

One of the first photos I took yesterday, but this bird ended up being the most elusive.

Bird 2 (P.c. tristis?)
This bird kept returning to one particular part of the hedge, and was therefore much easier to photograph (not that you can call anything in perpetual motion 'easy to photograph') and it has a rather different look to Bird 1. But notice how much its colour tone can change. Same bird, same camera, same flat light. I'm pretty sure the factors influencing this phenomenon are more to to with photographic variables than the bird itself, but none of the images have had their colours tweaked in any way.

Again, in the field it looked a warm, buffy, grey-brown in the main. Noticeable absence of yellowy-green fringing to the wing and tail feathers too, unlike Bird 1.

On the LHS it has a little white mark in the alula, which helped me be sure it was the same bird when analysing the photos later on.

And on the RHS a stubby new flight feather (?) growing out from below the greater coverts

Widening the Goalposts

Well, what a fascinating day it's been. Started work quite early to beat the weather, and a bit later in the morning virtually had to drive past Colyton WTW, so...

Just a quick look. Ten minutes. Fifteen, tops. Tsk! How is it possible to reach my age and still think you can kid yourself?! Chiffchaff heaven! After draining a camera battery and inserting a second I realised I probably should get on...

Via the estuary.

There were lots of gulls. By now it was blowing a hooly, and many birds were hunkered down on the islands above Coronation Corner. I went through them carefully, but drew a blank. Heading along the river I realised there was a good spread of birds all along, so drove to the bottom end and U-turned. First stop, opposite the tram sheds, and a gleaming white head shone across the river at me. Through bins I could see it wore a yellow ring on its gangly legs, and punted out a message on the patch WhatsApp group: 'Yellow-ringed prob Casp on estuary by tramsheds'. Why only 'prob' Casp? Well, I didn't need a scope to see it had much more heavily-marked underparts than I would like to see on a pure 1st-winter Caspian Gull. My ideal is white! A bit of flecking on the breast sides and flanks wouldn't concern me, but this bird had a lot more flecking than 'a bit'! I reached for the camera, dug out the scope and sallied forth...

First views were something like this. Even if 'gull' is a dirty word to you, I expect you can see what made me look twice. In my experience (which isn't vast, by the way) that sharply-demarcated white head is THE classic 1st-winter Caspian Gull feature to catch the eye.

I honestly don't think I've ever seen a more striking 1st-winter LWHG (sorry, Large White-Headed Gull - generic term). And just look at those stilts!

Gorgeous!

For me there are two main reasons why this isn't a classic, textbook 1st-winter Caspian Gull...

1. The heavily-marked underparts. That grey on the belly and flanks is almost solid! The undertail area looks fine to me, but almost all the rest...er...no.
2. The strongly-marked inner greater coverts. I have seen chequered markings like that on Casp, but not as extensive. The outer greater coverts look better though, with a plain, dark base and pale tip.

However, having got home and loaded up the photos, I am finding myself a lot more optimistic about this bird. Why? Because everything else about it (that I was able to see) looked absolutely spot on. To me anyway. The structure looks perfect, the bill ditto. To my eye Caspian Gulls have a 'look' - basically a facial expression I guess - and this bird most definitely has it. The tertials and primaries look great. At one point it nearly blew over in a gust of wind, and I could see that it had a crisp, densely black tail band. Again, perfect. I never managed a proper underwing view, or decent open-wing photo. This was the best (the only) shot I got...

Interestingly, although the axillaries look rather strongly-marked, the underwing coverts that are visible look pleasingly pale...

Both the above photos are included just to illustrate the contrast vs typical 1st-winter Herring Gull. Chalk and cheese, aren't they? It's not a huge bird, and certainly not as brutish as some I've seen, so I'm guessing probably a female.

The yellow ring (X78C) indicates that the bird is from a German gull colony. On the ringing project's web page is the following note:

It is not possible to identify the ringed small chicks exactly... In most cases the gulls are Caspian Gulls or Herring Gulls, but note the existence of many hybrids. The participation of some Yellow-legged and Lesser Black-backed Gulls is also possible.

'Participation'. Hah!

So. The parentage of this striking beastie is evidently unknown. I await details of the history attached to this bird's ring, but am told it will probably come back as 'Caspian Gull'.

And then someone got me thinking...

A Twitter correspondant sent me a photo of a near-adult Caspian Gull in all its mature finery and quipped 'This is what it will look like when it gets older!' And a lovely 2nd-winter Casp - yellow X307 from the same colony. The point was clear. It might look a bit mucky right now, but when it grows up it will look exactly like a pukka Caspian Gull. And I believe he is correct. Structurally (and mostly, plumage-wise) I see nothing significantly wrong with it. Let's face it, a colourful family tree is nothing to be ashamed of...

Conclusion? I am going to widen those goalposts like the gull whore I am, and put it down as a Casp. I doubt the Devon Rarities Committee would be impressed though!

Finally. While crouched by my scope and staring intently at my camera screen, waiting patiently for the bird to fly, or open its wings or something, a chap strolled up and introduced himself, whereupon I pointed out the gull. In case he reads this, I would like to apologise to Mark for focusing so rudely on my camera throughout. It was very nice to meet you by the way!

Which reminds me. Crouching! Aaagh!! I am getting too old for prolonged crouching...

More Chiffery

I never write posts like this, but thought it might be of interest this once...

Basically a photo-essay of the Chideock Chiff. At..er...lunchtime I visited and took some photos. I am in the middle of reading up on Sibe Chiff and was interested to see how photos appeared in different lighting. Thankfully I was able to get shots in a few different places, and the light was pretty flat; no sun until I was just about to leave.

I shall mostly let the pictures do the talking.

Same time and place as first 3 shots, but notice how much browner it looks. I think the bird was slightly over-exposed in the first 3, and definitely a bit under-exposed in this one (which I have lightened a touch).

Wish it had a spent a few minutes loafing right here. No chance. One shot, gone.

Not a Bonelli's Warbler. Fact.

Lots of colour variation in those images, depending on the light, angle, exposure, etc. Despite how it appears in some of those photos, in the field it was always warm-looking, and basically a pale buffish brown, with almost-white underparts. Depending on the angle, the obvious yellowish-green fringing on the secondaries, primaries and tail was apparent too, also the pale-based bill.

It responded very briefly to tristis song when first played, with intermittent wing-quivering for a few seconds, but quickly lost interest, and didn't do it again [incidentally, the Colyton WTW bird reacted in exactly the same way]. Unfortunately it never called once.

So, is it actually a Siberian Chiffchaff (Phylloscopus collybita tristis)? Well, as far as I can gather on evidence thus far considered, it's definitely not a 'classic' tristis, which average somewhat darker and browner. But neither is it one of the seemingly rare and [possibly] unassignable 'grey and white' jobs either. In fact it seems to be of a type encountered quite frequently, like the Colyton bird...

The Colyton WTW bird from 11/12/2019

And what exactly is this type? As I say, I am still mid-research, but quite probably it is tristis. But, boy I wish the things would vocalise a bit!

Not a Chiffchaff! But a very welcome distraction. There were in fact 2 Firecrests.

When Ignorance is NOT Bliss

How are your bird ID skills? For example, could you pick out an American Golden Plover in a flock of regular Goldies? Not too tricky perhaps. But could you say why it wasn't a Pacific Golden Plover? Or suppose you had the good fortune to be faced with the Radde's/Dusky conundrum. How would you get on? And which of the multiple Subalpine Warblers are you going to plump for. And so on...

American Golden Plover. But why?

And if things weren't challenging enough, modern taxonomy seems intent on making it harder. Personally I lose interest when confirmation of a bird's identity requires a laboratory. However, when it comes to identification in the field, basically I am up for it. There is just one problem: I am rather lazy. To identity birds you need to learn stuff. Which means effort is required. There is simply no getting around it. Which raises the question: can I be bothered? Can you?

Speaking for myself, the answer is 'sometimes'. For example, several years ago I could be bothered to learn how to identify young Yellow-legged Gulls, and Caspian Gull. I am not an expert, and couldn't give you chapter and verse on many subtle aspects of their ID, but am confident enough to call any that I encounter, knowing I'll probably be correct. However, when it comes to those species listed in the opening paragraph, well, I can do Radde's and Dusky Warbler, and I think I would pick out the AGP okay. But to rule out PGP I would have to check a field guide, and very much ditto for the Subalps!

Hello Mister Casp!    Not usually rocket science, but not a doddle either.

So, why have I made a lot of effort with the gulls, but not necessarily elsewhere? I suppose it boils down to two simple questions:

1. How relevant is this knowledge to my everyday birding?
2. Does not having this knowledge bother me?

Question 1 is a no-brainer, but I would like to talk a little about question 2.

Ignorance is bliss only when you're ignorant of your ignorance! Being faced with a seething mass of mucky gulls every time I visited the Axe Estuary, and realising that a juv YLG or a Casp could be giving me crippling views and I wouldn't know it, was not bliss. So I knuckled down and learned. It wasn't easy, and is still a challenge, but I am very glad I bothered. The knowledge thus gained has led to some highly satisfying birding moments.

And right now there is another ID challenge vexing me greatly because of my ignorance. It's those 'pale and interesting' Chiffs that I have labelled Siberian, pretty much on the say-so of others. No disrespect to those birders who have offered opinions, but in a sphere where there is evidently not a consensus, I ought really to be doing the hard yards and learning the stuff for myself, and then coming to my own identification conclusions based on actual knowledge. And here's why...

        So Gav, what makes you so sure that's a Siberian Chiffchaff?
        Er...well...Derek Expert thinks it is, and he should know, right?

Not good.

        So Gav, definite tristis you reckon?
        Er...yes...I think so...
        What features convinced you?
        Well...the paleness... And the interestingness...

As I say, not good.

So, as of three days ago I have been researching in some depth, and learning stuff. Watch this space. There is more to come...

Like Buses...

Following recent Sibe Chiff success I have been poring over local maps in search of sewage works. My intention, obviously, is to visit any I find, and see if they are as attractive to small insectivorous birdies as the glorious WTW at Colyton. Back in my busy and active days on the Seaton patch I would occasionally visit the sewage works at Branscombe, Kilmington and Whitford, and am well aware of their pulling power. I certainly remember one or two pale and interesting Chiffs at Kilmington but viewing there was difficult, with birds usually quite distant, so nothing ever came of them. Branscombe was pretty good for Firecrests, and I recall it had Yellow-browed Warbler once or twice, though I never managed to see any of the latter myself. Whitford was too small and isolated to get excited about, and I only ever managed a few Chiffs on visits there.

Well, I am struggling to find any sewage works local to me in Bridport. I can think of one that I've cycled past a few times, over near Puncknowle, so shall give it a go at some point. But surely there must be one or two nearer than that? You'd think so, but thus far I've drawn a blank. Until today...

On WhatsApp, a message from @CharmouthBirder popped up. Two Firecrests at Chideock WRC. [At this point I'll just mention in passing that yes, you are dead right, sewage works don't seem to be called sewage works these days. It'll be Wastewater Treatment Works, as in the Colyton plant, or Water Recycling Centre, as we euphemistically have here at Chideock. No-one is fooled. The superb smell gives the game away every time] Along with the message was a little map, at which point I realised I have walked past this very place, probably within 100m, without knowing it was there. I immediately expressed interest, whereupon Richard mentioned that he'd had a brief view of a Chiff that was 'pretty washed out' and that it 'looked interesting'. Which of course it would!

Suddenly I realised that lunchtime was upon me!

Buried in the middle of nowhere is this...

Chideock Water Recycling Centre. Yes, recycling. You know...like cardboard, bottles, tins, etc, but much smellier.

Access around the place is very good, and there are hedges, trees and brambly spots for the birds to feed in, as well as the filter beds themselves. I didn't really make an effort to count anything, but there must have been 15+ Chiffs, at least 2 Treecreepers, 6+ Long-tailed Tits and a handful of Goldcrests. More excitingly, I quite rapidly latched on to a pale Chiffy. It was feeding along a fence line, right across the other side of the works from where I was standing, but by the time I got round there it had vanished. Eventually I spotted it again, feeding on the filter bed gravel. Rather distant, but I snatched a quick and rubbish photo before it disappeared again. I only include the image here because it conveys the impression you get when first clapping eyes on one of these little beauties...

Compare pale job on the left with standard collybita on the right

Finally it appeared once again on the filter bed, and though I couldn't get closer than about 40 or 50m, the bird was visible long enough to get a few record shots. None is worth posting alone, so have this collage instead...

Siberian Chiffchaff, Chideock WRC

To my eye it is pretty much the spitting image of the Colyton WTW bird, and if that one is okay to label 'Siberian' then I'm happy to do likewise here. I shall definitely visit again, and hopefully get some better shots.

I still hadn't stumbled upon either of the Firecrests Richard had seen earlier, and then, just as I was contemplating heading off at about 15:30, one appeared in the trees adjacent to the main entrance gate. Superb! They really are such little jewels.

I guess there is a lesson to be drawn from the last couple of NQS posts. A while back I was banging on about The Road Less Travelled, and I think it's fair to say that most small sewage treatment plants would slot into this category. There must be quite a few tucked away in remote little spots around the country, and at this time of year any one of them might be harbouring Firecrests, a smart little Sibe Chiff, or even Yellow-browed Warbler, Dusky Warbler or...dare I say it?...better. Got to be worth a look...

Pale and Interesting

Life and the weather have joined forces against me. Between them they have reduced my outdoor leisure activity to almost nil just lately. The single ray of sunshine in this desperate gloom is a magical thing called 'lunchtime'. However, despite the immense flexibility of its application, my best lunchtime efforts have yielded nothing. Until today...

It's a long time since I last saw a Siberian Chiffchaff. I honestly don't know when I saw my first, but assume it must have been prior to the Great Phase of the 1990s. I genuinely don't remember. But I can remember my first tristis of modern times. It was late December 2004, and @birdingprof was visiting. I took him to the field next to Colyton Wastewater Treatment Works (like you should when folks visit) and among the myriad Chiffs present we found a pale one. I expect the Prof spotted it first, so I'll give him the credit right there. Anyway, it was a real corker, and satisfied all my tristis needs. It actually called and everything. And stuck around. And was twitched. I wrote a description, sent it in. Sibe Chiff. Accepted. Hero.

At...er...lunchtime today, I found myself adjacent to Colyton WTW once again, just like old times. The reason I was there was so that I could scan the field across the road, because there are Water Pipits living in it right now. Could I find them? No I couldn't. And to be fair it was hardly a thrilling enterprise, so I wasn't as conscientious as I might have been. Alrighty then, a quick look behind the Treatment Works before I go...

Strewth! It was absolutely jumping with Chiffs. At least 30, maybe 40 or more. Definitely worth some time.

Colyton WTW. If you twitched the Devon Eastern Yellow Wagtail, you've been here. Those filter beds are absolutely crawling with little midgy fly-things, and the prevailing SW breezes push them into (and through) the hedge that runs along the NE border. Guess where all the Chiffies usually are...

Initially it was Treecreepers and Goldcrests that entertained me. Point-blank views of both. And then, among the collybita horde...

Ooh! You're rather pale and interesting, arent you?!

I could see straight away that it looked pretty good for tristis, but would it call for me? No it would not. Anyway, I watched it for quite a while as it moved up and down the hedge, and tried valiantly to get some photos. Here are what amount to the most helpful efforts...

Through bins the ear coverts looked convincingly 'milky tea' coloured to me, but that feature doesn't come across brilliantly in the photos. Even so, I cannot really see anything amiss, and am happy to call this a pukka Siberian Chiffchaff (Phylloscopus collybita tristis). However, I am far from an expert on such subtleties, and welcome comments.

Vive le lunchtime!