Here are a few Canon EOS R10 specifications [CR3]

Again though, that's only one way to brace a camera. You need to be more open to new/different methods
You're being dogmatic whilst pretending to be openminded. People aren't just disagreeing because they're stubborn or blinkered, but because in some situations, one way is categorically ergonomically better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
Tell me a better or even just as good way for shooting rapid birds or dragonflies in flight as I am always open to new and different methods.
With the shutter speeds generally used for flying birds and insects, do you find stability a challenge? Certainly camera shake is mitigated by the fast shutter.

You're being dogmatic whilst pretending to be openminded. People aren't just disagreeing because they're stubborn or blinkered, but because in some situations, one way is categorically ergonomically better.
If the camera has a viewfinder and an eyecup, holding it to your brow ridge is natural and adds stability. I’ve seen plenty of people shooting with the eyecup pressed to their brow ridge and their elbows out like they’re flapping them in a chicken dance. I’d suggest that a viewfinderless body (none of which are heavy) held properly with elbows tucked is more stable than an eyecup with elbows flapping.

If you want maximum stability, get that camera away from your eye and set it on a block of concrete. Everything else is a compromise.

That’s ok, because maximum stability isn’t needed. All that’s needed is sufficient stability to get the shot. There are dogmatic statements being made here that without a viewfinder, it’s impossible to achieve sufficient stability.

Obviously technique matters, but so does individual strength relative to the mass being supported. I can stably handhold a 1-series body with a 600/4. There are people who can’t stably handhold a Rebel/xxxD with an EF-S 55-250mm, even with proper technique. I have no problem holding an M6 and EF-M lens with sufficient stability to frame and take a shake-free shot.

I’m sure there are people who cannot, but that doesn’t mean the lack of a viewfinder is categorically bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Tell me a better or even just as good way for shooting rapid birds or dragonflies in flight as I am always open to new and different methods.
It's been discussed throughout the comments here, go back and read them. Several people have explained how easy it is with a small and light camera, in addition to those of us who use our cameras for other things like video.
You're being dogmatic whilst pretending to be openminded. People aren't just disagreeing because they're stubborn or blinkered, but because in some situations, one way is categorically ergonomically better.
It's not categorically better though, it's just the way they're used to. When I use my 90D for photography I don't even touch the viewfinder, let alone put enough pressure on it to brace the camera. I imagine for some people that is necessary, but it's not universal. Perhaps with heavier camera gear it might help, but we're not discussing heavy camera gear here, we're discussing EF-M and whether a viewfinder has any inherent benefit over other options. As has been shown by the many posters not set in their ways, there is no inherent benefit, just tradition and training.
Also, being dogmatic would be to insist all cameras must have an EVF. I'm not saying all cameras should not have one, I'm saying there absolutely is a place for a compact camera without one. An M6ii would not be made better by adding an EVF, it would be made bigger, which is against the design criteria of that device.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
It's been discussed throughout the comments here, go back and read them. Several people have explained how easy it is with a small and light camera, in addition to those of us who use our cameras for other things like video.
No it jolly well hasn't. The reason why you haven't answered my simple question is because you can't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
With the shutter speeds generally used for flying birds and insects, do you find stability a challenge? Certainly camera shake is mitigated by the fast shutter.


If the camera has a viewfinder and an eyecup, holding it to your brow ridge is natural and adds stability. I’ve seen plenty of people shooting with the eyecup pressed to their brow ridge and their elbows out like they’re flapping them in a chicken dance. I’d suggest that a viewfinderless body (none of which are heavy) held properly with elbows tucked is more stable than an eyecup with elbows flapping.

If you want maximum stability, get that camera away from your eye and set it on a block of concrete. Everything else is a compromise.

That’s ok, because maximum stability isn’t needed. All that’s needed is sufficient stability to get the shot. There are dogmatic statements being made here that without a viewfinder, it’s impossible to achieve sufficient stability.

Obviously technique matters, but so does individual strength relative to the mass being supported. I can stably handhold a 1-series body with a 600/4. There are people who can’t stably handhold a Rebel/xxxD with an EF-S 55-250mm, even with proper technique. I have no problem holding an M6 and EF-M lens with sufficient stability to frame and take a shake-free shot.

I’m sure there are people who cannot, but that doesn’t mean the lack of a viewfinder is categorically bad.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what was being said; I hand held the 500 f/4, usually with an extender mounted, for almost a decade, but I was not shooting at arm's length using the rear screen, but with the viewfinder pressed against my face. Was the person I replied to not claiming viewfinder shooting was no different to LCD, even at 600mm? That it's just what we've been taught, and we need to broaden our horizons? Because without a tripod, the latter seems far less ergonomic. If I've got the wrong end of the stick, I apologise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
With the shutter speeds generally used for flying birds and insects, do you find stability a challenge? Certainly camera shake is mitigated by the fast shutter.
It's nothing to do with shake for BIF or DIF, it's moving camera and telephoto lens with your face as one unit when you are trying to catch a bird and moving as fast as possible in often an erratic manner to keep it in frame. I shoot at a speed of 1/3200s in any case for BIF. How do you hold your R3 with the 600/4 for BIF?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
There's no inherent benefit to a viewfinder, it's just there because that's how many people learned to take pictures. The stability of holding it close can still be achieved with a screen
It's been discussed throughout the comments here, go back and read them. Several people have explained how easy it is with a small and light camera, in addition to those of us who use our cameras for other things like video.

It's not categorically better though, it's just the way they're used to. When I use my 90D for photography I don't even touch the viewfinder, let alone put enough pressure on it to brace the camera. I imagine for some people that is necessary, but it's not universal. Perhaps with heavier camera gear it might help, but we're not discussing heavy camera gear here, we're discussing EF-M and whether a viewfinder has any inherent benefit over other options. As has been shown by the many posters not set in their ways, there is no inherent benefit, just tradition and training.
Also, being dogmatic would be to insist all cameras must have an EVF. I'm not saying all cameras should not have one, I'm saying there absolutely is a place for a compact camera without one. An M6ii would not be made better by adding an EVF, it would be made bigger, which is against the design criteria of that device.
Maybe I've conflated your replies with other people's; or read more into them than I ought. Sorry if so. But your quote at the top here seems an overreach. I'm saying (and I think Alan is too) that there are setups where viewfinder shooting is objectively more stable. I certainly don't dispute that for some other situations a viewfinder is superfluous or even a detriment. There's certainly room in the lineup for a camera without one; but I stand by my assertion that for eg handheld supertele use the rear screen is objectively less stable. It is not merely "what we've been taught" (especially as nobody taught me how to use my gear, I learnt as I went along). Each approach has its drawbacks, naturally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Maybe I've conflated your replies with other people's; or read more into them than I ought. Sorry if so. But your quote at the top here seems an overreach. I'm saying (and I think Alan is too) that there are setups where viewfinder shooting is objectively more stable. I certainly don't dispute that for some other situations a viewfinder is superfluous or even a detriment. There's certainly room in the lineup for a camera without one; but I stand by my assertion that for eg handheld supertele use the rear screen is objectively less stable. It is not merely "what we've been taught" (especially as nobody taught me how to use my gear, I learnt as I went along). Each approach has its drawbacks, naturally.
Subjectively more stable to people who have been trained to work in that way. Objectively, there are a great many people who can work in other ways to achieve the same results. Random Orbits even confirmed that after implying people taking pics at arms length were doing it wrong the pictures were fine.
For large supertele use yes, maybe you will do better with a viewfinder, but then I'd still assert there's nothing inherently better about stabilising that way when compared to just holding the camera close. It's all just practice at whatever method suits your camera use, your preferences, and your abilities.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what was being said; I hand held the 500 f/4, usually with an extender mounted, for almost a decade, but I was not shooting at arm's length using the rear screen, but with the viewfinder pressed against my face. Was the person I replied to not claiming viewfinder shooting was no different to LCD, even at 600mm? That it's just what we've been taught, and we need to broaden our horizons? Because without a tripod, the latter seems far less ergonomic. If I've got the wrong end of the stick, I apologise.
I believe the context of the discussion was EF-M bodies and lenses. Perhaps I missed a claim than using a 600mm lens was no different with or without a VF, but I’m certainly not suggesting that.

My point is that it’s quite possible to hold an M body with an EF-M lens mounted sufficiently steady, i.e., with a rig that small/light, a viewfinder pressed to the eye is not needed for stability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
It's nothing to do with shake for BIF or DIF, it's moving camera and telephoto lens with your face as one unit when you are trying to catch a bird and moving as fast as possible in often an erratic manner to keep it in frame. I shoot at a speed of 1/3200s in any case for BIF. How do you hold your R3 with the 600/4 for BIF?
With the VF up to my eye, of course. But I don't have any issues tracking birds and other fast-moving subjects with my M6 and EF-M 55-200mm, and keeping them in the frame. Granted, that frame is larger at 320mm FFeq framing than at 600mm (or more commonly, 840mm).

Either way, my elbows are tucked in against my body, and I'm holding the camera fairly close to my face and moving my head, body, arms and camera as a unit to track a subject. The only difference is that the M6 is ~20cm from my face while the R3 is right against my eye.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,355
22,534
With the VF up to my eye, of course. But I don't have any issues tracking birds and other fast-moving subjects with my M6 and EF-M 55-200mm, and keeping them in the frame. Granted, that frame is larger at 320mm FFeq framing than at 600mm (or more commonly, 840mm).

Either way, my elbows are tucked in against my body, and I'm holding the camera fairly close to my face and moving my head, body, arms and camera as a unit to track a subject. The only difference is that the M6 is ~20cm from my face while the R3 is right against my eye.
The difference is when you have it 20cm from your eye you have, as you say, to move your body as you track sideways but there is much less body movement required, if any at all, when you are looking through the evf and have basically only to twist your neck and swivel your wrists. And, a 55-200mm is hardly a supertelephoto, which is why you have your 600mm and now your 100-500mm. I agree for many purposes you don't need an evf, which I stated clearly, but for some purposes they are far superior. And, I don't think you disagree with that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0
For large supertele use yes, maybe you will do better with a viewfinder, but then I'd still assert there's nothing inherently better about stabilising that way when compared to just holding the camera close. It's all just practice at whatever method suits your camera use, your preferences, and your abilities.
So I did understand you. And I repeat: you are dressing up dogma as openmindedness (or to put it another way, you've overreached with what was originally a fine point - but that viewfinders aren't necessary in some situations does not mean they are not superior in others). You can walk on your hands, doesn't mean it's not objectively less ergonomic than using your feet
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
For large supertele use yes, maybe you will do better with a viewfinder, but then I'd still assert there's nothing inherently better about stabilising that way when compared to just holding the camera close. It's all just practice at whatever method suits your camera use, your preferences, and your abilities.
Well, there's the claim. I certainly disagree. I've tried using the rear LCD of my R3 when handholding the 600/4, and it's definitely not as stable as when the eyecup is against my brow ridge. On a tripod/gimbal, the rear LCD is fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
So I did understand you. And I repeat: you are dressing up dogma as openmindedness (or to put it another way, you've overreached with what was originally a fine point - but that viewfinders aren't necessary in some situations does not mean they are not superior in others). You can walk on your hands, doesn't mean it's not objectively less ergonomic than using your feet
No, I'm saying you can wear trainers to walk up a mountain while you're insisting that mountain walking requires leather walking boots because that's what people wear when climbing mountains. People can do what works for them, and smart people try different approaches and pick the one that works best for them. For you that might be a viewfinder.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Well, there's the claim. I certainly disagree. I've tried using the rear LCD of my R3 when handholding the 600/4, and it's definitely not as stable as when the eyecup is against my brow ridge. On a tripod/gimbal, the rear LCD is fine.
Not as stable for you. I wasn't saying it didn't work for you I was saying other people are happy working in other ways. It's entirely possible that with practice you'd learn another technique, but if you don't want to that's OK too, just buy cameras with built in viewfinders and you're all set. I'm happy with my technique and prefer a camera without, and that's OK too whether you agree or not.
 
  • Haha
  • Angry
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
Not as stable for you. I wasn't saying it didn't work for you I was saying other people are happy working in other ways. It's entirely possible that with practice you'd learn another technique, but if you don't want to that's OK too, just buy cameras with built in viewfinders and you're all set. I'm happy with my technique and prefer a camera without, and that's OK too whether you agree or not.
Your assertion regarding using a viewfinder eyecup that there is, "...nothing inherently better about stabilising that way when compared to just holding the camera close," is patently false – three points of contact are more stable than two points of contact. That's just physics. At issue is whether the additional stabilization is needed. I suggest that for a light rig it is not, whereas for a heavy rig (the 1D X + 600/4L IS II combo that I used for years weighs 5.5. kg / 12 lbs) it offers substantial benefit.

Do you routinely use the rear LCD while handholding a camera with a supertele lens like a 600/4 mounted? Or are you making an assertion based on theory with no actual experience?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jan 27, 2020
826
1,796
Your assertion regarding using a viewfinder eyecup that there is, "...there's nothing inherently better about stabilising that way when compared to just holding the camera close," is patently false – three points of contact are more stable than two points of contact. That's just physics. At issue is whether the additional stabilization is needed. I suggest that for a light rig it is not, whereas for a heavy rig (the 1D X + 600/4L IS II combo that I used for years weighs 5.5. kg / 12 lbs) it offers substantial benefit.

Do you routinely use the rear LCD while handholding a camera with a supertele lens like a 600/4 mounted? Or are you making an assertion based on theory with no actual experience?
Sorry that I'm going to repeat your first sentence...and add bold...

Your assertion regarding using a viewfinder eyecup that there is, "...there's nothing inherently better about stabilising that way when compared to just holding the camera close," is patently false – three points of contact are more stable than two points of contact. That's just physics.

Of course, facts and physics mean nothing to some people so they will continue to annoy us all with their unstoppable need to be right and show others just how right they are.

Please continue this absolutely useless and totally unnecessary debate.
 
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0