Value of a Hand Camera 43 
more perfect tools but to all such I retort that they have no idea 
what systematic birdsnesting and climbing in a wild country mean. 
On several occasions I have taken expert photographers with me 
armed with the most expensive and elaborate cameras and in every 
case they have failed to obtain results in any degree commensurate 
with the extra trouble involved, for they could not bring their 
cumbrous outfit to the required spot. I would go further and say 
that in the class of work dealt with in this book, save in the 
case of Bustards, Cranes and marsh-nesting species, over 90 per 
cent. of the pictures I have taken during the last fifteen years 
could never have been obtained at all save by employing the 
very lightest and most portable forms of small hand-cameras. 
When, therefore I read in a professional bird photographer's book 
how after ten years experience he can only recall one instance 
where a hand-camera would have been useful, I merely bow to 
his superior knowledge and pursue my own way unmoved. For 
in very truth in my line of work it is not a question between the 
orthodox camera and a hand-camera, but between hand-camera 
work and no work at all. 
There is of course no finality in the marvellous advances in 
science and every year will see better lenses and more _ perfect 
appliances placed at the use of the field naturalist. But there 
are distinct limits which are not set by the degree of perfection of 
the camera employed but by the knowledge, energy, persistence, 
skill and, above all, the nerve of the individual who employs it. 
Hence, when I am told, as I often am, that no good work can be 
done with a hand-camera—whilst not claiming that my work is 
good—I console myself with the fact that very few of those who 
lecture me could ever have reached the places I have pictured, 
burdened with the more cumbersome gear they recommend. 
Now as to the cameras I employ. For six years I was content 
to use a simple box-camera measuring 44 in. by 5 in. by 6 in. and 
