http://www.kirkphoto.com/Right_Angle_Vi ... meras.html

I've been feeling lately that I'm missing crispness on my shots because I've been straining my neck to see in the viewfinder. I was considering this as my next purchase after I finally buy a Mighty Low Boy.

Any advice?

I had one for about 2 days. It hurt my neck more looking down, then looking in the viewfinder but that is just me. I've had neck/back problems since I was 12 due to a car crash.




Cheers,
Chad

A more expensive solution would be getting a camera with "live view". I think the D90 has it.

I never use live view on my 50D. Its not like on P&S cameras. Your shutter has to stay open while in live view. Idk I don't care for it. What does hurting your neck have to do with your shots not crisp? Sounds like there could be a better solution to your problem

I'm guessing you've never had REAL neck/back pain?

It's hard to focus one eye in the viewfinder when your neck pain is so bad, you have to keep your head forward to avoid the pain. As I said for me at least it hurts more to look down, rather to get on my belly and have my eye in the viewfinder. I've put myself in some painful, and strange positions to get a shot.

Brick, try and go to a camera shop, and see if they'll let you try it out, to see how it feels/works for you.


Cheers,
Chad

I will eventually get to a camera shop and try A LOT out. I agree with you Chad. I get in some crazy positions that require a lot of bending. I don't even have neck pain, but after repositioning the animal a few times and whatnot, the strain on my neck is getting tiring, and I start shaking or being unsteady. Of course, this is only one part of my problem. I've been talking about getting a tripod for a year now, and its never made it to the top of my money spending priority list.

My motivation for this is that I like eye level shots with the herps. I like field guide type shots, en situ shots, etc. But, when I've found my millionth garter snake, its time to get creative (while improving the other types of shots).

Bob,

Some tripods will lay down nearly flat, or you can look into the skimmer pod. I have both, and don't take either in the field anymore... I'm generally hand holding, it's just easier. I sling the camera over my shoulder so I can flip. I've had my camera long enough that I set it up for each situation so fast that I don't want to bother with a tripod or groundpod. I also don't worry about mud and things getting on my camera. I do clean it up for weddings though, lol.

I owned a Nikon right angle finder years ago and I never used it. I did not like the way the image was reversed left to right and I just found it awkward to work with. This hoodman finder might be better though. I own there hood loupe and it is really nice, though I must admit I rarely use it either. The basic problem is that the viewfinders on dSLRs suck! They're small, dim, and hard to focus. Even on full frame models (like the Nikon D700) the viewfinders are not as good as they were on really good film cameras. I'd love it if Nikon would bring out dSLR with a really first rate viewfinder! Maybe the D3 series have it. I don't know: I cant even afford to look at those!

Justin, I want a mighty low boy tripod, but I need $200 of expendable cash for it. I am at the point where I understand photography well enough to be frustrated with uncrisp pics half the time (while using my macro). I need to come to terms with the fact that I'm just not steady enough. I've seen so many neat angles and poses of mine go down the tubes this season because the eye wasn't crisp. ...My camera is a disgrace. I have mud in all the crevices of the lens that I need to clean out with like a toothpick or something.

I agree... The viewfinder sucks, especially when laying on the ground with your neck bent at a 90 degree angle to your body. My sister (who does wedding and portrait photography) is wowed by how difficult herp photography can be. I think we take it for granted because its what we do, but even to good photographers, its a whole different ballgame.

That's Canon's fault. On other DSLR brands, the live view works like P&S live view. Canon just created a half-assed live view method.

I have a viewfinder magnifier/right angle viewer for my camera. I don't know where it is because I hate the thing. It might be useful for landscape shots, but it is a pain with animals.

I know canon sucks but at the time it was all i could afford It works when needed i just havent found much need for it thats all.

I don't know about Canon sucking... Look at professional sporting events, the Olympics, or ask National Geographic Photogs what they're using. Go to www.naturescapes.net the amazing pics there are dominated by Canon. That's all I'm saying.

It was a joke dude.

Go on Flickr and look at all the crappy photos taken with Canon gear as well.

Good photographers take good photos. It doesn't matter what the label on the camera says. I know some lousy photographers that would take lousy photos with $10,000 worth of Canon gear and some great photographers who can take professional quality photos with their cell phones.

Canon puts a lot of money into marketing and own the largest piece of the marketshare primarily for that reason. They don't make the "best" gear, no one does.

Not knowing how to use the equipment and being a lousy photographer means nothing. A good photographer can take a better photo with canon gear then he can with a cell phone. Do you read photo equipment reviews? Canon and nikon own the market with good reason. Even ashton cutcher couldn't sell me a Sony.

Is my thread headed for the boardline? Anyhow, I'm saving for a low boy. That's my priority at the moment. Next time I'm at the mall (hopefully never), I'll see if a camera shop will let me try this thing.

So are you saying that if I bought the Ashton Kutcher camera, I'd be punked?

Lol we are still photo related, no need for the boardline. I have never used Sony but when I bought my dslr I was reading reviews for several days and Sony didn't have very good reviews. I know people who shoot Sony say they are pleased with it. But I see the way they look at my canon.

Mike,

I have owned Contax, Yashica, Minolta, Canon, and Sony (D)SLRs over the last 25 years.
I have shot photos in the field in the last few years with several Canon Rebel interations, the Nikon D70s, several Sony DLSRs, and two Pentax DSLRs. I have never shot with the Olympus DSLRs.
I have experience with many brands of DSLRs, etc., and find that my shots aren't better or worse with the different brands. Yes CMOS sensors produce better results than most CCDs (that's why I have a CMOS camera) and cheap lenses produce inferior results to expensive lenses (in ALL brands). But the label on the camera/lens makes no real difference.

If I lost all my camera gear tomorrow and had to replace it all, I would look at Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax and Olympus and compare the sensors, bodies and lenses that I would use. They all make good cameras and lenses. I don't particularly like Canon ergonomics, I like in-camera stabilization, and I like having wireless flash without having to buy a separate controller, but I would still take a long look at the Canon 50D. But there are a half dozen other cameras I would compare it to (Nikon D90, D3000, Sony Alpha 700, 850, etc).

And yes, I read LOTS of photography equipment reviews in magazines and online. I try to read the unbiased ones as much as any of them are unbiased.

If you are going to base your quality assesment on market share, that makes the Ford Focus a superior vehicle to a BMW or Mercedes.

BTW - this argument is pointless. You aren't going to convince me that Canon (or Nikon) makes superior equipment because I have spent many years doing research into it and following changes in the market. I also have some experience actually USING the other brands (and Canon and Nikon). If you want to believe that Canon is superior to the other brands, more power to you and I hope you are happy with your equipment.

Chris

Sorry Brick for going off topic!

Chris makes a very good point. There IS NO BETTER "brand" when it comes to DSLR's. It also depends what you want from the camera/lens combo as your end results. Some cameras will out preform other cameras in IE: Landscapes etc..

I think it's more important to have a camera that fits your hand, and doesn't bother you if you are holding it off and on for hours. I personally like the feel of Nikon bodies vs Canon bodies do, thus the main reason with going with Nikon. I also have quite a few friends that shoot Nikon, so it's nice to burrow, and let them burrow gear when each of us needed to use it. So that is another plus for me.

I used to shoot Canon in the film days (before I took photos of herps in the field), then I switched to a Nikon FA, then in school I shot with Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Pentax bodies, and I still prefured Nikon over all of them, Canon was still at the bottom of the list for me. I did like Sony, and some Pentax, but I believe Nikon has a better wireless lighting setups.

Chris does Sony produce a "Twin light macro flash" type deal as Nikon/Canon does? I've used both and I can tell you the Canon version sucks in comparison to Nikon.

We can argue what brand is better, all day, everyday! It will never end, because there is no better brand. It's about what works for you, not Chris, myself, or anyone else.




Cheers,
Chad

Chad, I was only joking (if you didn't know... hard to convey tone via text ). I appreciate all the comments and discussion.

I'm not sure what would make you choose the Nikon over the Sony wireless flash system. I think they both work about the same out of the box.

Sony repackaged the old Minolta Macro Twin flash which was supposedly a great unit. I haven't ever used it (or the sony one). It is something I think about adding every once in a while, but I haven't pulled the trigger yet. I have two wireless capable flash units and a dual flash bracket I can use if I want that kind of lighting (of course my setup is much heavier).

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/4 ... Flash.html

Chris

I never got into multi flashes in Sony during school, only a single external. So I didn't know they were like Nikons system.

That twin flash looks just like the Canon setup = crappy in comparison to Nikon's wireless R1/R1C1 kit. You can also move the SB-R200's (small macro flashes) to where every you need, rather than them stuck on the top like the Sony/Canon twin flashes.



Cheers,
Chad

You can move the Sony flash heads all around the lens ring (just like the Nikons), you can pivot the flash heads, and they are on extensible stalks.

The only thing I see "superior" about the nikon unit is that it is controlled wirelessly. But that begs a question: What is the range of flash sync speed with the Nikon wireless flashes. With the Sony/Minolta system, I believe wireless flash is limited to a sync of 1/125th? Do you know about the Nikon system?

The flashes can move around anywhere on the ring?

I can use my SB-800, and the SB-R200's, at 1/250th. I can even control each flash individually, at different flash outputs in 1/3 steps.


Cheers,
Chad

Sony is not limited to 1/125 in wireless. I can shoot at 1/1000 if I want with my DSLR-A700. I did a 2 flash wireless set up with twin 36 flashes (Minolta 3600HS and clone Sony HVL-F36AM). Here is the rig with my old A350:



I also picked up an old Minolta 1200AF ring flash with the MFC-1000 macro controler. It has 4 independent tubes that can be switched on or off. Much more compact.



Sony live view is about the best out there (A3xx and A5xx series) with tilt screen, but I still prefer the A700 for most shooting in that it's easier to do my manual adjustments on the fly since I shoot in M mode mostly when in full sun and I rely on my brain for exposure settings.

Metz makes a wireless slave ring flash that works with most major brand DSLR, but it is limited to the 2 flash tubes.

Anyway, I could do just as well shooting with Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, etc... but for me, the Sony works great since it has the in body IS and every lens I own (including macro) is now stabilized.