[gatorguy]

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.

Really great shots Vector. You're good.

[vector]

Really great shots Vector. You're good.

Thanks, I feel like I have made a lot of progress this past year, and this is the point of why I posted these. The improvement came by accepting that the gear I have is what is and working on my technique and my willingness to get out there, even being uncomfortable, rather than throwing more money at gear to do it for me. There will always be more and better gear, the best way to actually get better shots is to do the work and build the skills so you can do it no matter what gear you have.

---------- Post added 05-19-22 at 08:01 PM ----------

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.

Now these shots are much more impressive. If you have the skill to produce images like this on film gear you just have real skills and can do it on any camera system.

[sebberry]

At the end of the day, it's the photo that counts. If you want to struggle with compromises and workarounds while the nexy guy doesn't have to for the same photos, that's up to you

[vector]

At the end of the day, it's the photo that counts. If you want to struggle with compromises and workarounds while the nexy guy doesn't have to for the same photos, that's up to you

LOL, this is where we differ. You seem to believe I have compromised and am working too hard because I bought a camera without a flippy screen but don't care because I wouldn't have used it anyway. I happen to believe you have compromised by buying a camera without a flippy screen and now feel hampered and constrained by the lack of one. If had a Canon R5 or Sony A1 or a Pentax K3III flippy edition I would still be lying on the ground to get those shots because lying on the ground is necessary for me to hide and be less threatening to the wild birds, and to be stable with my low angle. I personally don't feel like I have compromised at all, nor do I feel like I am working especially hard by lowering myself to the ground. I am in my early 40s, so it's still easy. I am having fun and getting good pics using the same methods I see pros use who also have flippy screens but don't use them for birds

To all those disappointed by no flippy screen I understand and honestly can say it would have been nice. But I personally wouldn't have used it for my wildlife shots. Probably would have for tripod landscape shots like I do with my K1. I use my K1 for wildlife too and I still lay on the ground and use the OVF and not the flippy screen. To me not choosing the optimal position to shoot is a compromise I am not willing to make.

Anyway, good luck with your wildlife photos. I hope the next Pentax model has a flippy screen, but if not, you shouldn't compromise and just get what you want even if you have to switch brands for it.

[sebberry]

To the so-called purists out there who think anything but an optical viewfinder oriented along the same plane as the lens is wrong - remember all the old film cameras that had a fiewfinder you could look down on?

[Eric Auer]

When all top end APS-C cameras have very similar specs and the lenses are pretty equal having no articulating screen pretty much eliminates the K3 III as a choice for anyone but the brand loyalists.

[RobA_Oz]

To the so-called purists out there who think anything but an optical viewfinder oriented along the same plane as the lens is wrong - remember all the old film cameras that had a fiewfinder you could look down on?

I’ve had three of those: a Miranda, a Praktica FX2 and a Pentax LX. That aspect of their viewfinders really wasn’t all that useful because of the image size, except for the LX’s magnifying viewfinder. It was a different matter for MF bodies like Hasselblads. In any case, some found the left-to-right inversion a little disorienting. A right-angle viewfinder was a preferred accessory, in most cases. I have a later Pentax Refconverter for my K-3iii, and it’s helpful for many situations where a movable rear screen would be missed.

When all top end APS-C cameras have very similar specs and the lenses are pretty equal having no articulating screen pretty much eliminates the K3 III as a choice for anyone but the brand loyalists.

For those who use the rear screen as a right-angle finder (or similar), I imagine the greater prominence and availability of the other brands is a much bigger factor in the choice, just as it is for those who don’t use the rear screen that way.

[Eric Auer]

For those who use the rear screen as a right-angle finder (or similar), I imagine the greater prominence and availability of the other brands is a much bigger factor in the choice, just as it is for those who don’t use the rear screen that way.

Of course Rob, I'm just disappointed is all.

[sebberry]

When all top end APS-C cameras have very similar specs and the lenses are pretty equal having no articulating screen pretty much eliminates the K3 III as a choice for anyone but the brand loyalists.

Pretty much the only reason I stuck with the Pentax K3-3 was because I wasn't about to buy new lenses for another platform at this time, and I just wanted to get out more to photograph things.

And I think this is where Pentax is shooting themselves in the foot a bit - The DFA 150-450 is a really tempting 'save up for it' item, as is the DFA* 85 and potentially, if the rumors are true, a 50-135PLM to replace my dead SDM copy, but how committed am I to expanding the optical capabilities of my kit if the practical, composition related limitations become more frustrating? And once I've saved up and added those to my kit, how much more advancement will we see in the already excellent AF capabilities of mirrorless systems?

I like my K3-3, it's a great camera and a huge step up from my K-5, but I had the K-5 for nearly 10 years. Is the K3-3 going to be the base system I want to keep expanding 5, 10 years from now?

[RobA_Oz]

Of course Rob, I'm just disappointed is all.

Well, to be completely frank, I am a bit, too, but I'm fortunate enough to have a K-1 as well, so I was prepared to compromise to get the improvements over the K-3.

[Lord Lucan]

That aspect [the waist-level] of their viewfinders really wasn’t all that useful because of the image size, except for the LX’s magnifying viewfinder. It was a different matter for MF bodies like Hasselblads. In any case, some found the left-to-right inversion a little disorienting. A right-angle viewfinder was a preferred accessory, in most cases. I have a later Pentax Refconverter for my K-3iii, and it’s helpful for many situations where a movable rear screen would be missed.

I'm not trying to fan the flames of the flip screen debate, but just anecdotally I'm saying that when I worked in central London I would use use my WL finder (the plain hood one) on my LX for candid street photos in my lunch breaks. Composition and focussing did not matter much - I used a 28 or 50mm lens set at the hyperfocal distance, and as long as I could see the subject figure was in the frame (not hard to see even at waist level) I took the shot. Stooping over a magnifier or ref-converter would give the game away - some of those market traders can be touchy.

[RobA_Oz]

I'm not trying to fan the flames of the flip screen debate, but just anecdotally I'm saying that when I worked in central London I would use use my WL finder (the plain hood one) on my LX for candid street photos in my lunch breaks. Composition and focussing did not matter much - I used a 28 or 50mm lens set at the hyperfocal distance, and as long as I could see the subject figure was in the frame (not hard to see even at waist level) I took the shot. Stooping over a magnifier or ref-converter would give the game away - some of those market traders can be touchy.

I’ve never used any of my SLRs like that, but I can see what you’re saying. I’ve long thought a removable prism housing on a DSLR could offer a variety of solutions to particular situations. The LX was (is) a remarkable system camera.

[c.a.m]

I recently attended a local classic-car 'Cruise Night' at a shopping centre parking lot, and brought my K-3 Mark III with a DA 20-40mm Limited lens.

I wanted some of the shots to be at 'low-angle' taken from near the ground. Two methods proved to be feasible and gave me the perspectives I was after.

1. Live View on the fixed monitor screen. Crouch down. Use the neck strap to help stabilize the camera in an extended position at arms' length. Increase the brightness of the monitor screen. Tap the screen to focus, take the shot. A couple of the shots were not precisely level, which were fixed with slight horizon adjustments in post processing.

2. Image Sync. Enable WiFi on the camera; my iPhone links automatically when it's not already connected to a wireless network (i.e., away from my home WiFi signal). Bring up Image Sync on the phone and enable the Shooting mode. Kneel down on the right knee, keep the left thigh level. Place and balance the phone on the left leg to view the image. Adjust the orientation of the camera, focus, and take the shot. The sample image here was taken with Image Sync.

Both methods worked well, including balancing the phone on my thigh temporarily. The parking lot was dry, so kneeling wasn't an issue. Alternatively, I could have placed the phone on the pavement.

Notes:

• All shots were hand-held. In other settings, I think that a tripod would have made the process with Image Sync even simpler.
• The camera and lens combo was relatively lightweight and easy to handle. A heavier lens, e.g., large telephoto or zoom, might be awkward. I would imagine that such a combo with an extended centre of gravity would also be tricky to handle even with a flip-screen in low-angle shots.
• One drawback of Image Sync is that it doesn't allow the live view image to be zoomed, e.g. for accurate focusing. I wasn't using manual focus, so this wasn't a disadvantage in this setting.
• I didn't find it difficult to orient the camera while looking at the iPhone screen 'off axis'.
• I had looked into getting a small hot-shoe phone holder, but I think I'll continue to use Image Sync on the phone as described here. 'High angle' shots probably would require a different approach.

- Craig

Shot taken using Image Sync on my iPhone:

[sebberry]

That's a nice shot, but the technique you describe isn't exactly convenient for doing so repeatedly. It's a bit of a cumbersome workaround, especially when the OVF purists don't think the camera should be used as a phone

[c.a.m]

That's a nice shot,

Thanks!

the technique you describe isn't exactly convenient for doing so repeatedly.

I used Image Sync to take a number of shots over the course of an hour or so. I didn't find the process to be annoying or overly taxing. Granted, a few steps are involved for each shot, and the phone needs to be pulled out of a pocket. I'd agree that the phone and Image Sync are two more things to manage, but I didn't feel encumbered.

I was happy that I was able to get the shots without sprawling on the hard, abrasive asphalt. This was the first time I used Image Sync 'in the field' and am pretty pleased with the proof of concept.

It's a bit of a cumbersome workaround, especially when the OVF purists don't think the camera should be used as a phone

Not sure I understand the last part about the "purists." Certainly, I'd use Image Sync again for low-angle shots.

Image Sync worked better than I had expected, and I didn't experience any glitches whatsoever in the WiFi link, the use of the app, or managing the camera.

- Craig