Use Live-View, Not EVF or OVF

[The_Wicker_Man]

and what is comfortable (comfort goes a long way to establishing a steady pose)

personally, i find that holding the camera 'normally' and then switching to portrait - shutter button down, elbows in - distinctly uncomfortable unless i change the grip of my right hand, so that the camera is effectively held by right finger- and thumb-tips

this makes the use of the thumb for moviing the rear wheel, af/mf switch etc etc quite awkward

so, i will continue to hold the camera the 'wrong' way, because that feels - to me -most natural (and also corresponds with the orientation when using vertical grip)

but each to their own
--
i know what i know, which is a fraction of what i don't

 

[Manehead]

I can't help but point out that it doesn't seem to be the best shot for demonstrating the sturdiness of that technique, seeing as the image is suffering from a fair bit of motion blur

(yes I did notice the shutter speed )
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/manehead/

 

[AcquiredTaste]

You are suppose to use Live-View

The new Sony cameras are designed to be used that way

Sony's Live-View simply destroys Canon and Nikon's implementations

Don't know why some old folks still has their brain stuck in the EVF OVF debate

You hold a camera and lens combination that weighs several pounds at arms length to shoot? How could anyone do that comfortably?

 

[chadmarek]

You are suppose to use Live-View

The new Sony cameras are designed to be used that way

Sony's Live-View simply destroys Canon and Nikon's implementations

Don't know why some old folks still has their brain stuck in the EVF OVF debate

Not sure why some newbies are stuck on telling my how I am supposed to use my cameras.

Get some experience. Get held accountable for your results. Then, mayhbe I'll conswider your opinion . Maybe.

 

[tom55604]

...

Therefore I also think to hold the camera in portrait orientation as showed in the Sony manuals with grip upwards is simply wrong. Grip down is not so good for the nose, but it is good for fixing the camera.

When I used manual focus cameras with no grips that's how I had to hold the camera. However, it is very difficult to hold comfortably (wrist bent the wrong way) and usually led to shaky shots. Reviewing photos from back then reveals I very rarely took shots in portrait orientation.

My favorite camera is the Maxxum 7 film camera. The right hand grip fits my hand like a glove. It is almost as though I couldn't shake the camera from my hand. In portrait position (right grip on top) the camera feels like a normal extension of my hand and I hold it very steady pressed against my face. I have spent 4 hours using that camera in portrait position with a 135-400mm lens attached and because of the comfortable grip and supporting the weight of the lens in my left hand, I was comfortable during the entire session and made 2 rolls of sharp shots without any SSS.

When using my older cameras with right hand down, each shot was a struggle to release the shutter smoothly.

But using life view with arms extended is photographical nonsense for me.

No argument from me on that.

tom

 

[dlkeller]

2 days and 24 responses to his post, most strongly criticizing it and OP has no combacks defending his origional statement. Was he serious with his origional post or just a kid trying to stir up responses, especially with his "age" reference?
--
Dave

 

[yakkosmurf]

The point is use the right method for the situation and the shot you want to get. Some people shoot a lot of situations where Live View is better, while I rarely do so. I had a Live View capable Sony camera and rarely used it. I was frustrated by the limitations of the EVF, so I picked up a camera with a better OVF. That was the right choice for me. But, your situation may be different. This is why there are so many different models with different features. Don't try to claim that your way is best for others...it's not.
--
yakkosmurf
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yakkosmurf/
a850, a700, R1
24-70CZ, 16-80CZ, 70-300G, Sig 24 1.8 & 10-20 4.5
F58AM flash

 

[goetz48]

Well, I made this shot very fast, and light was very poor (1/6s, ISO 800), just to show how it works. Ant the thumbrule would require a far shorter minimum exposure time.

Shooting with an additional grip is something different since you are placing your hands in the same way like shooting landscape orientation.

 

[chadmarek]

Well, I made this shot very fast, and light was very poor (1/6s, ISO 800), just to show how it works. Ant the thumbrule would require a far shorter minimum exposure time.

Shooting with an additional grip is something different since you are placing your hands in the same way like shooting landscape orientation.

It would be interesting to see how that same shot would come out using the method the OP has suggested. I am sure it ewould be GREAT since the Sony cameras were apparently designed to be used that way! LOL

Grips for all of my DSLRs. Very simple. Very easy.

chad

 

[goetz48]

I have a problem since my A700 lachs life view. But I could shake some pictures with my A2 or TZ6.

 

[tbcass]

Frankly, this size body is probably wrong for you if you are buying it to shoot a 300mm tele. On the other hand, using it with the 35 1.8 prime is terrific.

You're wrong. I do shoot a 300mm tele with no problem at all. I hold the lens with my left hand the same as when I use this lens on my larger A100. I wouldn't hesitate using any size lens with the A55 because telephotos are not supposed to be supported by the camera but by the lens. Obviously you don't shoot such a lens or you would know that.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 

[riveredger]

Frankly, this size body is probably wrong for you if you are buying it to shoot a 300mm tele. On the other hand, using it with the 35 1.8 prime is terrific.

You're wrong. I do shoot a 300mm tele with no problem at all. I hold the lens with my left hand the same as when I use this lens on my larger A100. I wouldn't hesitate using any size lens with the A55 because telephotos are not supposed to be supported by the camera but by the lens. Obviously you don't shoot such a lens or you would know that.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

You missed the point. I am not saying it is impossible to shoot with a tele on an A33/55. But they really are (obviously) designed to be as compact as possible and thus a small prime makes a lot of sense since it keeps the size small and light. When set up like this, using the screen to frame is a lot of fun and steadying a long tele isn't a concern. When I shot with my Canon and the 55-250 lens,, it felt terrific with the bigger body and grip. I NEVER used the screen and live view on that camera. But these little guys and their articulating screens open up a whole new world of creativity when used within their limitations, of course.

And really, I still wonder where the "at arms length" idea comes from. I don't know anyone who holds a camera like that.

 

[tbcass]

You missed the point. I am not saying it is impossible to shoot with a tele on an A33/55. But they really are (obviously) designed to be as compact as possible and thus a small prime makes a lot of sense since it keeps the size small and light. When set up like this, using the screen to frame is a lot of fun and steadying a long tele isn't a concern. When I shot with my Canon and the 55-250 lens,, it felt terrific with the bigger body and grip. I NEVER used the screen and live view on that camera. But these little guys and their articulating screens open up a whole new world of creativity when used within their limitations, of course.

And really, I still wonder where the "at arms length" idea comes from. I don't know anyone who holds a camera like that.

I understand but The A55 isn't that much smaller than a standard DSLR the way the NEX is for it's smaller size to be much of an advantage. While saying "at arms length" is certainly an exaggeration you can still hold a camera steadier when against your cheek for EVF-OVF viewing than away from your eye for LCD viewing. This should be obvious. Each method has it's advantages. The LCD is great for eyeglass wearers, awkward positions and candid shots while the EVF-OVF is better in bright sun, composition (for me anyway) and holding the camera as steady as possible. For those reasons having both is the way to go.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 

[tom55604]

You missed the point. I am not saying it is impossible to shoot with a tele on an A33/55. But they really are (obviously) designed to be as compact as possible and thus a small prime makes a lot of sense since it keeps the size small and light. When set up like this, using the screen to frame is a lot of fun and steadying a long tele isn't a concern. When I shot with my Canon and the 55-250 lens,, it felt terrific with the bigger body and grip. I NEVER used the screen and live view on that camera. But these little guys and their articulating screens open up a whole new world of creativity when used within their limitations, of course.

And really, I still wonder where the "at arms length" idea comes from. I don't know anyone who holds a camera like that.

I understand but The A55 isn't that much smaller than a standard DSLR the way the NEX is for it's smaller size to be much of an advantage. While saying "at arms length" is certainly an exaggeration you can still hold a camera steadier when against your cheek for EVF-OVF viewing than away from your eye for LCD viewing. This should be obvious. Each method has it's advantages. The LCD is great for eyeglass wearers, awkward positions and candid shots while the EVF-OVF is better in bright sun, composition (for me anyway) and holding the camera as steady as possible. For those reasons having both is the way to go.

Arms Length / eyeglass wearers --- I have a very strong distance Rx and can't see objects clearly at 8-inches from my eyes or greater. I also have old man eyes and with my distance glasses cannot see objects clearly until they are 2 inches beyond my outstretched arm. I've tried bifocals and can't wear them for normal use (I do have a special set for reading).

With my OVF cameras (with and without diopter correction) I easily use my distance glasses - something about the apparent distance the VFs image. To use the rear screen of my DSLRs to chimp I have to remove my glasses and hold the camera close to my face. Something I'm not willing to do when walking around, sine the time I was bumped and had them knocked ot of my hands.

So LV does nothing to improve things regarding my eyeglasses, and I would have to use arms length for composing and viewing, which (having watched others use arms length composing with compact cameras) would be a ridiculous way to use an SLR.

Now in a controlled environment (studio or outside where I was set up alone) on a tripod in the correct light (I can't focus or evaluate a shot with sun glare), I can see some cases where LV would be useful. But since I have other ways of accomplishing that w/o LV but no way of shooting LV for the majority of my shots, LV only cameras (unfortunately like NEX) or those with compromised VF (like Sony's QLV cameras) are not suitable for me.

tom

 

[Einst Stein]

Shooting with arm level finder immediately exposes that your are a beginner (or forever-beginner) shooter. EVF helps to hide that fact.

In many ways, EVF is the compromise of OVF + Live-view. It's like the all-in-one stuffs.

 

[OldClicker]

Obviously the OP is just trolling and full of it, BUT...

• I find it amazing that many, many on this forum cannot figure out any way to shoot with an LCD other than at arms length??? Are you really that unimaginative? How did you ever figure out how to get the viewfinder to your eye the first time?

• 'The viewfinder IS steadier.' That depends on the situation and how you use the camera. The viewfinder sucks when trying to use it resting on an object and those that are used to a viewfinder don’t even consider it.

• 'Panning cannot be done with the LCD.' Ever watch video of a sporting event?

These objections to the LCD are no less absurd than the OPs to the viewfinder.

TF

 

[riveredger]

Shooting with arm level finder immediately exposes that your are a beginner (or forever-beginner) shooter. EVF helps to hide that fact.

lol - who cares about stuff like that. Are you so insecure that you need to be considered "advanced" by someone that sees you taking pictures?

 

[Einst Stein]

Who cares? hmm, good question. What about your client? say, the bride?

 

[chadmarek]

Who cares? hmm, good question. What about your client? say, the bride?

Ha! Typically, people using LV for general shooting situations where traditional bracing and control of a camera will yield better and more consistent results don't have to worry about clients.

That is why I don't typically meet prospective clients in jeans, either.

chad

 

[chadmarek]

• 'Panning cannot be done with the LCD.' Ever watch video of a sporting event?

These objections to the LCD are no less absurd than the OPs to the viewfinder.

I don't think video cameras are showing what happened 1-2 seconds ago in on the LCD. So, it's a matter of implementation.

chad