|
Very helpful.always just a step away from our viewing windows. A must for bird lovers. An excellent resource for identifying birds that are not so common to your location.
White NG has a list on both the front and back covers, it is neither complete, nor does it make it easier to find the bird. So, it's a quick find if you have some idea as to what the common name of the bird is. While the Sibley illustrations are smaller, they seem to be more detailed. It's a failure in organization.Sibley is by no means perfect. which often is just counting these beautiful creatures instead of enjoying their beauty and the fact that they can fly (without concern for leg room).If you just like field guides, get this book.
Every photo is "National Geographic" quality, but the books are by Doubleday. He's got the female wood duck as brown. Sibley even has the red orbital for the adult ring-bill gull in mating season which is neither mentioned nor shown in NG. For example, I just took a marvelous picture of a greater scaup (a duck). Why is that important.
If you're really trying top identify birds, get Sibley. Perfect would be photographs instead of sketches.or would it. But the photos are great. NG's front cover is by bird families, and for those of you unfamiliar with field guides, invariably ducks and geese will be first meaning that the families are not in alphabetical order, and for the totally uninitiated such as I, you'd scratch your head wondering why Tyrant Flycatchers would follow Gulls.The back cover is a quick find index which is in alphabetical order. But then, wait till you get to sparrows, warblers, buntings, and others that all look alike to me, and after taking pictures for 50 years, I've got a fairly critical eye, though not much education.
And under what color would you put a wood duck or a pheasant. Probably not because of the variations in lighting and plumage during the year. Do not get "Birds of California Field Guide" by Stan Tekiela. It's a little too large to be schlepping along with a camera or binoculars, though leave it to true birders who seem to be willing to pack 35 pounds of gear for their hobby. I still place NG's book in 4th place, but I'm moving up the rating because of the quality and size (not quantity) of illustrations.
But, NG is decent enough for finding the bird you're trying to identify, though a little more difficult even with the thumbtabs. But a bird in the bush could be any one of these, and a bird in the hand isn't going to wait for you to look it up in your field guide. But the male as green when it has five primary colors. The illustrations are excellent; there just aren't enough of them in one place. I guess the ideal field guide would be 2,500 pages and weigh 15 pounds, but then it wouldn't be ideal, would it.(There are photographs on my nature photography web site, with all my books, and the help of three experts in Ontario and Arizona and the local Audubon Society are still just guesses). The following is a list of what I don't care for about the National Geographic (Fifth Edition). Three weeks after the following review: Nothing is perfect and, when it comes to field guides of anything (butterflies, bugs, wildflowers), what one really wants is ALL the information and ALL the photographs showing ALL the phases.
Both books give changes in plumage, and the differences between male and female, yet I found Sibley to have better and more juvenile pictures which, living in a hotbed of migration routes, I could really use. National Geographic's index includes family names in Latin along with common names. If I had to carry one with me, say on vacation, it would be Sibley's. However, it is completely incomplete, and Greater or Scaup are not listed. Long after I'm gone, I envision some sort of encyclopedia of birds on Kindle, but until then I think that one has to use what can be had with its imperfections.
Yes, I could use a little post-it, but that's not the point. The first one I bought (brand new) was Golden Books North American Birds published in 1964, long before I could get a shot (photo) or one sitting still, let alone flying.Now, I have 11 books on birds, one part of a nature series from 1966 which is MY standard for bird photography. There's a reason for this preface: any review I write would be a comparative review, and the National Geographic "Field Guide to Birds of North America" would come in fourth out of the 11 I have, with "The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America" coming in first overall, a book I will now rate at 4.5 stars.Neither book includes photographs, and it may seem surprising to the reader of this review that I still rate Sibley as #1 since I am primarily a photographer rather than an "identifier" (well, until after I have a shot of a bird that is not within my experience). Oddly, while the one thing that I normally would like about NG is that there are thumbtabs that Sibley doesn't have, but there is no thumbtabs that would be the most useful, i.e., for the Index.#4. He's got great photographs, and he tried the impossible - organizing by color, but he failed. Remember, this is larger in size than most field guides.I don't carry a field guide with me when I'm "shooting." I capture birds, dragonflies, butterflies, and whatnot as I find them, and then try and find out what they are when I get home, using these guides. An Anna's Humming Bird with the sun on it's back is going to be primarily green.
The maps for migration, winter, summer, and year-round are on the very first page of Sibley, and on page 18 of NG. Well, the reviewers warned me about the size of NG's 5th edition. Fair enough. Males and females, sun and shadow, water reflections, and the direction of the sun and time of day can alter the color of a bird's plumage. It is also placed about 10 pages in from the end of the book. However, while I will never be considered a "birder," I have gotten into the habit of collecting field guides. National Geographic, rightly or wrongly, puts the outlines of the flying sketches on two to four pages after the main descriptions, while Sibley has the flight pictures along with the bird in different seasons.
Not so. I think my disappointment may well come from the fact that National Geographic is known for its photography, but the guide is illustrated, and with fewer views than I would have liked.***As I've said before, I dislike writing book reviews whether it's a novel (which I then really have to read) or a field guide to birds, insects, spiders, or other critters. Because when I got a closeup of a ring-bill last week and had never seen the red around the eye, I thought I had found something unusual, like a gull who'd had too much to drink at New Year's.#5. #3. Whatever I say would be the opposite for Sibley except as noted.#1. It will leave a calling card however, but there are no field guides to bird calling cards as far as I know.#2.
Perhaps it is just a personal preference, but I like the other two better. However, when I need more detail on birds when I do not have a specialized reference, I use the National Geographic's Complete Birds of North America. The 5th edition National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North America is the third general field guide I turn to for help with identification. When I really need detailed info, I use a guide specifically written about warblers, hawks, sparrows, etc. Although much too large and heavy to be used as a field guide, this desk reference gets five stars from me.Marshall Faintich, author of "A Photographic Guide to the Birds of Wintergreen" My first go-to field guide is Sibley's (Eastern North America) and my second choice is Smithsonian's. I find the drawings in the National Geographic field guide somewhat harder to use for distinguishing minor differences between similar species.
PS. Nor am I surprised that this guide is brought to us by National Geographic, the same people who gave us THE PILTDOWN BIRD.HA HA HA. Provided the birds you are trying to identify are ugly, that is.
Judging by this book, the answer is yes. If you see a good-looking bird in USA, it's probably a European vagrant. Are all North American birds ugly.
Please call 911 and ask for Lars Jonsson.I'm sure this field guide serves its purpose eminently. Did Audubon shoot every good-looking birdie in Amerika. They look like tinseltown cartoon characters.
Huey, Dewey and Louie looked better.
I strongly recommend this guide. I have not used this book that much to be honest because i do not visit North America that often but on my few visits this book was awesome in the field. The illustrations are well done and the inofrmation is spot on.
|
