Is a Bird in the Lens worth 2 in the Bush?

You've planned where you will shoot and you are on your way at dawn when you see birds- really good birds-not "great" birds-not "once in a lifetime" birds. Do you stop and shoot? What if you don't, then get to your destination and nothing is there? Does this scenario make you anxious?

(Mostly though, I just wanted to say a bird in the lens is worth 2 in the bush )

"When there is a fork in the road, take it"

Yogi Berra

I've learned NEVER to pass on a good shot, unless I'll miss a plane or something. I almost always bet on what IS before me, rather than what MIGHT be at another place.

Exceptions might be something like "heading to shoot whooping cranes after a reported sighting, when you find a great group of ? in perffect light, but you already have really good shots of the ? and none of the rare whoopers. "

No way to know which will be better in advance - only in retrospect, then it's too late!!

I guess it depends on how much of a gambler you are!

Sandy

Very good question that makes me think. I would think that I would stop and take the pictures and then move on and hope to get more pictures. I guess it is like having your cake and being able to eat it too.

I try to build enough time in a photo trip to make a fast reconnoiter of the whole area during poor light (e.g., midday), then focus on the most promising areas as the light improves. Also, I've learned to ask myself, "Do you really want more goose photos? Do you really need more less-than-great photos?" If the answer is "no," then move on to find better opportunities. If your trip ends with no new photos, that's a better outcome that loading your hard drive with photos you really don't like very much.
---John

If I already have better birds of a species, I move on.

I rarely set a specific goal in advance for my photography, such as a specific species or action. Instead I just go to a place that has the potential for decent photo opportunities. I take photos of whatever I find if the light is good and the birds are within range.

Of course I chase after reports of real rarities when they are reported but that is a small part of my bird photography.

Some times I do have a specific species in mind but if before I get there I come across another bird, why not stop? I will stop and take photos of birds any time, even birds I have tons of photos of because you never know when they will do something unique and you'll get a once in a lifetime photo. You won't get those unless you are "there".

Shooting birds is like finding a gem; if you locate one you're apt to hang around and search for more in the same area. This takes time so wherever you land that first image is likely where you'll stay for a while. That said, I agree with Mia's outlook on the topic. No matter how many shots we store of the same bird species, who knows when the magic will happen?
I vote for bird in the lens.

Angela, I guess it depends on the trip and where I am and what I'm after. I haven't done much traveling with bird photography as the main focus, but what I have learned is that for me it's much more productive to have 2 or more days in a single location than to go from place to place. I think it takes some time to figure out a location--to find out where the species you're targeting are, where other worthwhile opportunities might present themselves, etc. This allows me to enjoy each morning and take what comes rather than race around on my only morning, searching for that one species and ending up with nothing.

I have gone to a place with specific species in mind, but it's rarely resulted in anything spectacular. I agree with Brian that at least two days is necessary for me to get a place figured out well enough to get anything decent-preferably more. So if I run across a good opportunity, I'm not going to pass it up.