Thank you.Look for Hemaris and depends where you took the photo you may have an easy ID...
Looks like H. thysbe for me too... On other hand I have not much info about the rest of Hemaris in N. America (3 more I think?).Thank you.
Hemaris thysbe (I think).A few better(?) images from the same set:
View attachment 204607 View attachment 204608 View attachment 204605
I've been one of the bigger 'honks' on this website for Canon's M bodies...and have, for a decade or so now, given serious thought to the subject of acquiring images with the aid of a viewfinder vs using an LCD screen. For all I know this has been discussed in detail already here...
I can distinctly recall an 'early' epiphany (for me) about a decade ago when I learned that 'taking pictures' at a rock concert, seated/standing two rows from the stage (widely varying lighting conditions)...was facilitated quite nicely without the aid of a viewfinder (using the tiny-and-stealthy Canon S95)...adjusting exposure compensation on-the-fly...constantly...for the better part of an hour (hundreds of images)...with constant monitoring of the rear-screen LCD. Viewing the LCD allowed examination of the entire image and stage...and the lighting conditions for much of the stage. It is almost as if half-an-arms-length distance between my eyes and the screen I was examining enabled me to be more aware of what was happening on-stage, including lighting changes. For printed images up to 8x10...it really worked...and I've never forgotten that.
But the images presented here (5DMkIII + 100-400II) were acquired using the optical viewfinder...and if I had been using my M6MkII instead of the full-frame 5D, I would have attached the electronic viewfinder--telephoto lens usage at the long end, at least in my hands, REQUIRES a viewfinder.
In this case, all I wanted to see was the 'target'...probably obvious to many reading this but not so much to me.