DSLR with 100% optical viewfinder

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alfred Molon, Jan 14, 2007.

  1. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Alfred Molon, Jan 14, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alfred Molon

    John Bean Guest

    On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:37:08 +0100, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >Is there any DSLR with a 100% optical viewfinder? If not, may I ask why?


    Yes, there are. Many (most?) "pro" SLRs - both film and
    digital - have 100% finders. Others don't, probably as a
    result of cost saving.

    --
    John Bean
     
    John Bean, Jan 14, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alfred Molon

    Matt Ion Guest

    Alfred Molon wrote:
    > Is there any DSLR with a 100% optical viewfinder? If not, may I ask why?


    Just about every DSLR has a 100% optical viewfinder. Unless you don't consider
    a pellicle mirror and pentaprism to be "100% optical"...
     
    Matt Ion, Jan 14, 2007
    #3
  4. Alfred Molon

    Mark² Guest

    Matt Ion wrote:
    > Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> Is there any DSLR with a 100% optical viewfinder? If not, may I ask
    >> why?

    >
    > Just about every DSLR has a 100% optical viewfinder. Unless you
    > don't consider a pellicle mirror and pentaprism to be "100%
    > optical"...


    That's not what he's asking.
    Yes, the light and image is viewed optically, but he's asking whether the
    viewfinder shows exactly 100% of the actually image captured by the sensor.

    Most DSLRs do not have 100% coverage.

    But you probably knew that...
    -Just a misunderstanding... ;)

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Jan 14, 2007
    #4
  5. On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:38:02 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "Mark²"
    <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >Most DSLRs do not have 100% coverage.
    >
    >But you probably knew that...
    >-Just a misunderstanding... ;)


    How many current slrs have a 100% magnification of the VF? Neither Nikon
    does.
    --
    Ed Ruf ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Jan 14, 2007
    #5
  6. On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:48:31 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Ed Ruf (REPLY to
    E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:38:02 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "Mark²"
    ><mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>
    >>Most DSLRs do not have 100% coverage.
    >>
    >>But you probably knew that...
    >>-Just a misunderstanding... ;)

    >
    >How many current slrs have a 100% magnification of the VF? Neither Nikon
    >does.


    Oops, I was thinking about magnification, not frame coverage.

    --
    Ed Ruf ()
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Jan 14, 2007
    #6
  7. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <Hwwqh.88199$>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan
    (lowest even number here)@cox..net> says...

    > That's not what he's asking.
    > Yes, the light and image is viewed optically, but he's asking whether the
    > viewfinder shows exactly 100% of the actually image captured by the sensor.
    >
    > Most DSLRs do not have 100% coverage.


    Yes, that was my question. Is there any reason why an optical viewfinder
    cannot be made to show the exact image captured by the sensor? This
    would be important for accurate framing.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/
     
    Alfred Molon, Jan 14, 2007
    #7
  8. Alfred Molon

    Guest

    Alfred Molon wrote:
    > Is there any DSLR with a 100% optical viewfinder? If not, may I ask why?


    >From a quick check at the DPreview site, I could only find the Canon 1D

    series and Nikon D2 series to have 100% viewfinders

    It's the same reason that film slrs rarely had 100% viewfinders -
    they're expensive. Only the top models had them.

    Mike
     
    , Jan 14, 2007
    #8
  9. Alfred Molon

    John Bean Guest

    On 14 Jan 2007 13:02:29 -0800, ""
    <> wrote:

    >
    >Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> Is there any DSLR with a 100% optical viewfinder? If not, may I ask why?

    >
    >>From a quick check at the DPreview site, I could only find the Canon 1D

    >series and Nikon D2 series to have 100% viewfinders


    And the Olympue E-1.

    >It's the same reason that film slrs rarely had 100% viewfinders -
    >they're expensive. Only the top models had them.


    Exactly.

    --
    John Bean
     
    John Bean, Jan 14, 2007
    #9
  10. In article <> "" <> writes:
    $It's the same reason that film slrs rarely had 100% viewfinders -
    $they're expensive. Only the top models had them.

    And larger and heavier than 90-something% viewfinders.

    Most minilabs don't print 100% of the image so a <100% viewfinder
    probably matches the prints more closely. Some inkjet photo prints
    also don't print 100% of the image if you're doing borderless prints,
    either.
    --
    Stephen M. Dunn <>
    >>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<

    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/
     
    Stephen M. Dunn, Jan 14, 2007
    #10
  11. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Alfred Molon, Jan 14, 2007
    #11
  12. Alfred Molon

    Jim Guest

    On 2007-01-14 14:37:08 -0500, Alfred Molon <> said:

    > Is there any DSLR with a 100% optical viewfinder? If not, may I ask why?


    Most of the high pro ones.. just like the film slr's. Very few had
    100% view finders. Reason $$$$$.


    --
    Jim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo
     
    Jim, Jan 14, 2007
    #12
  13. Alfred Molon

    ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:20:02 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

    >> Most minilabs don't print 100% of the image

    >
    > Why not?


    Some might, but it would require special instructions, technicians
    trained to understand what's being requested, and asymmetrical white
    borders using standard paper sizes unless the prints are trimmed.

    Most people get 4"x6" prints from their local minilabs. This 6:4
    aspect ratio (1.5) does not match the aspect ratio of most camera
    sensors (4:3, or 1.3333) so part of the image will necessarily be
    truncated if standard paper sizes (4x6, 5x7, 8x10) are used. This
    wouldn't be solved in any way, though, by having cameras having
    viewfinders that provide 100% coverage.
     
    ASAAR, Jan 14, 2007
    #13
  14. In article <> Alfred Molon <> writes:
    $In article <>, Stephen M. Dunn says...
    $> Most minilabs don't print 100% of the image
    $
    $Why not?

    One main reason is mechanical alignment. Let's assume that we're
    printing a 3:2 image (such as from most DSLRs, or from 35mm film)
    onto 3:2 paper (e.g. 4x6"). It should fit exactly, right? Right.
    But what if something, anything, isn't perfectly aligned in the
    machine? You get one or two white borders on your print, with a
    little bit of the opposite edge(s) cut off. That's gonna happen far
    more than customers will like if you aim to print exactly 100% of the
    image, so they don't aim to print 100% of the image. They print it
    slightly too large, so that even if there's a bit of an alignment
    problem, you still get your image right to the edges of the paper. (I
    also mentioned that some inkjets don't print 100% of the image in
    borderless mode; this is for the same reason.)

    Another reason, which applies to most film cameras (other than
    pro SLRs with 100% viewfinders), most DSLRs (again, except pro
    ones), and quite possibly some non-SLR digital cameras, is that
    what you see in the viewfinder or on the LCD while framing the shot
    isn't exactly the final framing. Your non-pro SLR viewfinder
    doesn't show you all the way to the edges of the shot. The
    optical viewfinder on a rangefinder or P&S has parallax error.
    And I wouldn't want to bet that the LCD on every digicam model
    on the planet shows 100%, either. So that tree that's not quite
    in the view through the viewfinder/LCD may actually be part of your
    shot, and you probably don't want it in the printed image since "it
    wasn't there in my picture." (Yes, of course, the answer is to
    download the image to your computer and edit it, but most consumers
    don't do this; they take a bunch of pictures and then take the
    memory card directly to the lab, just as they did with film.)
    --
    Stephen M. Dunn <>
    >>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<

    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/
     
    Stephen M. Dunn, Jan 15, 2007
    #14
  15. "ASAAR" <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:20:02 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:
    >
    >>> Most minilabs don't print 100% of the image

    >>
    >> Why not?

    >
    > Some might, but it would require special instructions, technicians
    > trained to understand what's being requested, and asymmetrical white
    > borders using standard paper sizes unless the prints are trimmed.
    >
    > Most people get 4"x6" prints from their local minilabs. This 6:4
    > aspect ratio (1.5) does not match the aspect ratio of most camera
    > sensors (4:3, or 1.3333)


    It matches the aspect ratio of all dSLRs except the Olympus ones...

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jan 15, 2007
    #15
  16. Alfred Molon

    ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:27:44 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

    >> Most people get 4"x6" prints from their local minilabs. This 6:4
    >> aspect ratio (1.5) does not match the aspect ratio of most camera
    >> sensors (4:3, or 1.3333)

    >
    > It matches the aspect ratio of all dSLRs except the Olympus ones...


    Well, yes (sure is a close match for 24mm x 36mm too, isn't it),
    but I didn't realize that DSLR owners patronize local minilabs for
    4x6 snapshots. I thought that they like getting their noses up
    against 8" x 10" and larger prints. :) Still, it would be nice to
    have a list of all DSLRs that have close to 100% coverage, as most
    of the ones I've seen reported recently are 95%. Olympus isn't
    alone, btw. Panasonic's DMC-L1 also has a 4/3 sensor, but unlike
    the somewhat similar Olympus E-330 that only creates images with a
    4:3 aspect ratio, the DMC-L1 also does 3:2 and 16:9, at reduced
    pixel count, 7.4 to 6.5 and 5.5mp, respectively. As with most(?)
    DSLRs, the optical viewfinder is only good for 95% coverage, but it
    has 100% frame coverage using "live view" on its LCD.
     
    ASAAR, Jan 15, 2007
    #16
  17. "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:27:44 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >
    >>> Most people get 4"x6" prints from their local minilabs. This 6:4
    >>> aspect ratio (1.5) does not match the aspect ratio of most camera
    >>> sensors (4:3, or 1.3333)

    >>
    >> It matches the aspect ratio of all dSLRs except the Olympus ones...

    >
    > Well, yes (sure is a close match for 24mm x 36mm too, isn't it),
    > but I didn't realize that DSLR owners patronize local minilabs for
    > 4x6 snapshots.


    Hey: you're the one who brought up 4x6 minilab prints in a dSLR thread. I
    was just pointing out that you were wrong in the context of this thread.

    If you think that bringing up 4x6 minilab prints aren't relevent for a dSLR
    thread, I suggest you flame the bloke who brought it up.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Jan 15, 2007
    #17
  18. Alfred Molon

    ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:23:09 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

    >> Well, yes (sure is a close match for 24mm x 36mm too, isn't it),
    >> but I didn't realize that DSLR owners patronize local minilabs for
    >> 4x6 snapshots.

    >
    > Hey: you're the one who brought up 4x6 minilab prints in a dSLR thread. I
    > was just pointing out that you were wrong in the context of this thread.


    The thread may have started as a DSLR thread, but the message I
    replied to made absolutely no mention of DSLRs. In fact, I didn't
    introduce "minlabs". The were part of the two previous messages. I
    merely added the most common minilab print size in my reply. In its
    entirety, minus sig., etc., the message I replied to contained:

    > In article <>, Stephen M. Dunn says...
    >
    >> Most minilabs don't print 100% of the image

    >
    > Why not?


    And what a minilab gets is an image file, and it doesn't matter
    whether it came from a DSLR, a P&S or if it was converted from a
    hand drawn graphic. The reason they don't print exactly 100% has
    nothing to do with DSLRs, so why do you insist that the explanation
    is "wrong in the context of this thread", other than the obvious
    reason, Mr. Peepers. :)

    Stephen gave an alternative reason, one that despite including the
    word "DSLR" also had nothing to do with DSLRs, but was a practical
    reason. It is to insure that mechanical inaccuracies or worsening
    tolerances don't produce conspicuous misalignments or borders.
    Borderless prints with a very slight overrun/overprint achieves this
    goal. And again, the reason has nothing to do with whether the
    camera used was a DSLR or not. Trying to come up with a reason that
    why minilabs don't print exactly 100% of the image and would be
    caused only by DSLRs would be quite silly, if not difficult.


    > If you think that bringing up 4x6 minilab prints aren't relevent for a
    > dSLR thread, I suggest you flame the bloke who brought it up.


    I don't think that there was anything wrong with bringing up
    minilabs, nor did Stephen or Alfred, and if I did, I'd probably
    ignore the thread's new direction. You're the one that thinks it's
    not relevant, not I. Do your own inflammatory dirty work if you
    think that it's really needed. I trust that you've at participated
    at least occasionally in side-branches that have veered from the
    original topics, eh? Maybe you should offer some suggestions as to
    which divergences into side issues are permissible and which ones
    aren't. And then try to follow your own guidelines, if you can.
     
    ASAAR, Jan 15, 2007
    #18
  19. Alfred Molon

    ray Guest

    On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:02:29 -0800, wrote:

    >
    > Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> Is there any DSLR with a 100% optical viewfinder? If not, may I ask why?

    >
    >>From a quick check at the DPreview site, I could only find the Canon 1D

    > series and Nikon D2 series to have 100% viewfinders
    >
    > It's the same reason that film slrs rarely had 100% viewfinders -
    > they're expensive. Only the top models had them.
    >
    > Mike


    That would seem to be another reason to consider an EVF - the EVF shows
    exactly what the sensor sees.
     
    ray, Jan 15, 2007
    #19
  20. Alfred Molon

    Colin_D Guest

    Alfred Molon wrote:
    > Is there any DSLR with a 100% optical viewfinder? If not, may I ask why?

    There are a few, the Canon 1D series has.

    I understand the reason is to provide a safety margin for the film/
    viewfinder mutual alignment, and to provide a small safety margin for
    the photog. It has nothing to do with printing images; minilabs are
    oriented toward the casual non-technical snappers, whose framing
    capabilities aren't too exact, and a slight crop of the negative can
    improve the appearance. It also helps the operator running a
    manual-gate machine, where visual alignment of each negative is
    necessary. Too tight a fit there would be prone to the negative edge
    showing in the prints.

    This doesn't apply to digital printing, but slight overscanning is used
    to prevent white edges showing on the prints.

    Neither of these factors affect the viewfinder, though.

    But, this thread has the mountain-out-of-a-molehill flavor about it.
    Most slrs, and dslrs, have about a 95% viewfinder coverage, which
    amounts to 97.47% coverage in each direction, horizontal and vertical.
    (sqrt(0.95) = 0.9747). The remaining 2.53% amounts to 0.91mm off 36mm,
    and 0.61mm off 24mm. Not exactly a disaster, I should think.

    Colin D.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
     
    Colin_D, Jan 15, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Len Robbins

    cleaning Canon S20 optical viewfinder

    Len Robbins, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    700
    west2key
    May 21, 2011
  2. Conor
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    687
    Conor
    Dec 2, 2003
  3. ziya

    A70 optical viewfinder is crooked

    ziya, Dec 8, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    385
    anonynmus
    Dec 10, 2003
  4. Petri Latva-Rasku

    Optical and LCD viewfinder in digital SLR's

    Petri Latva-Rasku, Dec 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    4,587
    Tony Spadaro
    Dec 31, 2003
  5. R.
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    327
    Lin Chung
    Mar 31, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page