[Larrymc]

Well I was using my other hand to get a photo of the difficulty seeing the screen, mostly as a rebuttal to the suggestion that the screen is plenty bright and has a good viewing angle and therefore doesn't need to be tilt/articulating.

When I attempted to take a photo of the heron, I used both hands on the camera.

I understand your point about touch to focus and touch to shutter release, but the fact is I couldn't see the screen, let alone see it well enough to compose the photo or know where to touch it.

This example is more of an illustration of the problem - taking more creatively shot photographs from awkward angles isn't an easy feat with the fixed screen.

It would have been nice to have a tilty screen but I went into the purchase decision knowing full well early on (I was a very early adopter) that the Mk III did not have a tlity screen, I have never regretted the purchase decision for a moment. Did you not weigh the fact that there was no tilty screen before you purchased? If you did weigh the fact then why are you continually complaining about this, it seems a waste of good shooting opportunities.

[Pål Jensen]

I grabbed my phone to take a picture of the big problem with the fixed screen.

This is with the screen on full brightness. There's a heron on the point at the top center of the photo. I was trying to get a different perspective.

Think I can properly compose the photo or place/confirm the focus point like this? Not a chance. .

It leaves me speechless that anyone would want to use live view on a subject like this. You have chosen the wrong tool.

[licht96]

I use Live View in the same manner.

For me due to a different kind of problem: I don´t trust the outer AF points and that´s why I´m using Live view, to get rid of "center and recompose".

May be for you it is a wrong tool. Not to everyone.

[Pål Jensen]

I use Live View in the same manner.

For me due to a different kind of problem: I don´t trust the outer AF points and that´s why I´m using Live view, to get rid of "center and recompose".

May be for you it is a wrong tool. Not to everyone.

It certainly is the wrong tool (or something wrong with the tool) when you don't trust the outer AF points.
Anyway, when someone prefer to use the camera awkwardly at an arms length for wildlife subjects, and then go on to buy the camera with the best and most expensive optical viewfinder out there to do the job, then it is certainly a case of not doing ones homework before shopping...

[gatorguy]

It certainly is the wrong tool (or something wrong with the tool) when you don't trust the outer AF points.
Anyway, when someone prefer to use the camera awkwardly at an arms length for wildlife subjects, and then go on to buy the camera with the best and most expensive optical viewfinder out there to do the job, then it is certainly a case of not doing ones homework before shopping...

If it's a regular and common need I would agree with you. Even a K-70 would be more appropriate with it's very adjustable back screen. I also agree that holding the camera away from me to use the screen is not to my liking either, yet I see mirrorless guys do so regularly. I suppose with enough use it would grow on me. But if only needed a time or two a year with the K3III (or maybe not at all as with me so far) then occasional live sounds like a good option. The touch focus works better than I would have expected.

Oh, and I've not noted any significant issues with using the outermost focus points. Probably not as reliable as the more centered ones (I doubt that's unusual across brands) but I leave them active without detriment for the fast-moving subjects I track with mine.

[sebberry]

It leaves me speechless that anyone would want to use live view on a subject like this. You have chosen the wrong tool.

You are welcome to crawl on your belly on a bird poop covered beach to look through the viewfinder

---------- Post added 05-18-22 at 08:09 AM ----------

It would have been nice to have a tilty screen but I went into the purchase decision knowing full well early on (I was a very early adopter) that the Mk III did not have a tlity screen, I have never regretted the purchase decision for a moment. Did you not weigh the fact that there was no tilty screen before you purchased? If you did weigh the fact then why are you continually complaining about this, it seems a waste of good shooting opportunities.

It's a fair point - the camera was an upgrade to my K5 and I had a collection of lenses already. A good camera equipped with the tilty screen would have been equal in price to the K3-3 and require replacing lenses. Honestly it was also a purchase to motivate me to get out more after the last couple of years, so I didn't go into it thinking about the style of photography that would appeal to me until I got into it and started drawing inspiration from others.

---------- Post added 05-18-22 at 08:19 AM ----------

I also agree that holding the camera away from me to use the screen is not to my liking either, yet I see mirrorless guys do so regularly.

What was pictured in my shot above isn't typical, but rather illustrative of the larger problem.

I often find photos taken from unusual/uncommon perspectives to be more captivating as it's a perspective people don't often see in the real world. Most photos we see are taken from the same vantage point we see from all the time. We can all stand around and look down at ducks on the water, but how often do you see them from the perspective of other ducks (from the surface of the water)? How often do you look up at a Heron fishing rather than down at it?

The OVF on the K3-3 is beautiful. But it doesn't give me any additional creative advantage in composition.

[MrB1]

It seems likely that most members of this forum enjoy using the optical viewfinder of our Pentax DSLRs for most of our photography. However, there is also a significant number of us who appreciate the extra photo opportunities that live view provides, and who have also experienced (e.g. using a K-70 or KP) the convenience, comfort and ease of shooting with live view when the screen can be moved to various angles. It also seems likely that this subset of photographers will also understand why Kobie's video, Post #158, is actually serving aa a good demonstration of how much more photographer-friendly the K-3iii would have been as an image capture device in his examples, if it had a movable rear screen.

Philip

[Pål Jensen]

I see no problem shooting wildlife from a low position with a camera without flip screen. Keeping a camera at arms length while squinting at a screen is more awkward than bending low or lie on the ground. All the images below are shot low, or from the ground, with a camera with no screen at all - film.

[Kobie]

I grabbed my phone to take a picture of the big problem with the fixed screen.

This is with the screen on full brightness. There's a heron on the point at the top center of the photo. I was trying to get a different perspective.

Think I can properly compose the photo or place/confirm the focus point like this? Not a chance.

It's a bigger problem when one wants to take photos at anything other than eye level. When you have photos taken from a different perspective than how people usually see the world, it can create very captivating photos. I've seen some beautifully photographed water birds taken from water level. Even just street photography taken from waist level for example has a much more interesting feel to it. You just can't get that sort of photo with the fixed screen.




On a previous day I was able to capture this one, but honestly it's so much more of a pain than it should be as you really can't compose the frame properly or think about the background at all.



Fixed screens are great if you want all of your shots looking down at your subject.

Well, these weren't looking down at the subject and were shot in Live view with just my feet touching the ground.

[jersey]

It seems likely that most members of this forum enjoy using the optical viewfinder of our Pentax DSLRs for most of our photography. However, there is also a significant number of us who appreciate the extra photo opportunities that live view provides, and who have also experienced (e.g. using a K-70 or KP) the convenience, comfort and ease of shooting with live view when the screen can be moved to various angles. It also seems likely that this subset of photographers will also understand why Kobie's video, Post #158, is actually serving aa a good demonstration of how much more photographer-friendly the K-3iii would have been as an image capture device in his examples, if it had a movable rear screen.

Philip

This.

[vector]

Most of the my recent wildlife photos have been taken lying on the ground. Yeah there is mud and poo but from what I have observed (I am new to wildlife photography and still figuring it out myself) it seems that shooting at the same level/height of the subject produces the most pleasing subject isolation. I have shot a few lying on the ground in Live View, and it works but I just can't hold as steady like that. When I first got my K3III I thought the large bright OVF is nice but not that big of improvement. I have to say that recent shots, lying on the ground at the waters edge and being able to make out fine feather detail in the OVF because its so clear and bright I did not even need to wonder if the AF nailed it, I could see it. In those moments I was so glad I chose to give Pentax a shot with K3III instead of looking elsewhere. It is so nice to see live and moving nature in real time and not on an LCD.

[Larrymc]

Most of the my recent wildlife photos have been taken lying on the ground. Yeah there is mud and poo but from what I have observed (I am new to wildlife photography and still figuring it out myself) it seems that shooting at the same level/height of the subject produces the most pleasing subject isolation. I have shot a few lying on the ground in Live View, and it works but I just can't hold as steady like that. When I first got my K3III I thought the large bright OVF is nice but not that big of improvement. I have to say that recent shots, lying on the ground at the waters edge and being able to make out fine feather detail in the OVF because its so clear and bright I did not even need to wonder if the AF nailed it, I could see it. In those moments I was so glad I chose to give Pentax a shot with K3III instead of looking elsewhere. It is so nice to see live and moving nature in real time and not on an LCD.

That is a great capture. Looking at the image in Flickr where you can see the water droplets really makes this an impressive image!!

[vector]

That is a great capture. Looking at the image in Flickr where you can see the water droplets really makes this an impressive image!!

Thanks! It was a lot of fun laying there in camo watching the geese try to decide if they should swim by me or not.

I don't point out the OVF quality to dimish the utility of an articulating screen, I do use it occasionally on my K1. As has been said by others here it seems very clear to me that the point of this camera was action and wildlife through an OVF, and they delivered on the OVF. I also find it interesting that for street they offer the GRIII with... no articulating screen either. At any rate, I am quite impressed with the K3III even though initially I didn't think I would buy one.

[sebberry]

It's a nice capture indeed!

Around here the goslings just walk right up to the birders at the sanctuary, no camo necessary Lots of Sony shooters sitting comfortably using their bendy screen though... the weekly collection of the white lens club doesn't know what they're missing

This is where most of my shots come from so far:
Google Maps

---------- Post added 05-19-22 at 03:27 PM ----------

I'm not sure "Pentax: Our OVF is so good you'll want to lay in goose poop to use it" is a good marketing slogan.

[vector]

Around here the goslings just walk right up to the birders at the sanctuary, no camo necessary Lots of Sony shooters sitting comfortably using their bendy screen though... the weekly collection of the white lens club doesn't know what they're missing

Guess the birds in Alberta are just more wild than the ones in BC, just like the people :P

A few more non-flippy screen shots from this spring, some even lying on the ground close to some poo though I have yet to actually lie down in any.