View Finder vs. Image Field-Of-View!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Doug Mitton, Dec 13, 2004.

  1. Doug Mitton

    Doug Mitton Guest

    There have been a few interesting discussions lately and I'm curious
    to see if this topic has any insights. Also, I'm not sure I'm using
    the correct terminology and I hope this is not one of those
    start-a-war topics but I'm posting anyway! :)

    I don't remember this being an issue when I used a film SLR many moons
    ago BUT it seems to have a noticable impact on my digital images. I'm
    talking about the discrepancy between the viewfinder framed image and
    the captured image field-of-view ... on my Digital Rebel I notice I
    have more picture in the captured image than I do in the view finder.
    I tried an experiment today using a ruler and 3 different lenses and
    the measurements indicate a +5% to +8% larger captured image.

    I've seen several discussions concerning digital darkroom processing
    but I have also seen arguments for captured scenes that require no
    processing. In this case if I take the time to setup a scene and
    capture it, the added "field of view" distracts from what I'm trying
    to accomplish (I think anyway).

    So, any comments, pointers, opinions or insights?!?!

    PS. I'm now getting into the habit of framing my pictures even closer
    than I normally would BUT is this "problem" common to all dSLRs and to
    a greater or lesser degree?
    --
    ------------------------------------------------
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/dmitton
    SPAM Reduction: Remove "x." from my domain.
    ------------------------------------------------
    Doug Mitton, Dec 13, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Doug Mitton

    jfitz Guest

    This is typical of consumer level digital and 35mm film SLRs. Canon list
    the Digital Rebel as having approximately 95% coverage. You will usually
    find 100% coverage only in the very top of the line cameras. I never
    considered this a very big deal. Keep in mind that you are going to crop
    the image anyway if you print standard print sizes.
    jfitz, Dec 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. > I don't remember this being an issue when I used a film SLR many moons
    > ago BUT it seems to have a noticable impact on my digital images. I'm
    > talking about the discrepancy between the viewfinder framed image and
    > the captured image field-of-view ...


    It probably was a big Nikon then. Very few cameras of any type show
    100% of the image (for some odd reason). It is something reviewers make
    sure to heap high praises on when they actually do.
    Apparently it is technically difficult to achieve, for only the most
    expensive cameras do.

    --
    - Eolake
    --

    http://MacCreator.com
    Eolake Stobblehouse, Dec 14, 2004
    #3
  4. Doug Mitton wrote:
    > There have been a few interesting discussions lately and I'm curious
    > to see if this topic has any insights. Also, I'm not sure I'm using
    > the correct terminology and I hope this is not one of those
    > start-a-war topics but I'm posting anyway! :)
    >
    > I don't remember this being an issue when I used a film SLR many moons
    > ago BUT it seems to have a noticable impact on my digital images. I'm
    > talking about the discrepancy between the viewfinder framed image and
    > the captured image field-of-view ... on my Digital Rebel I notice I
    > have more picture in the captured image than I do in the view finder.
    > I tried an experiment today using a ruler and 3 different lenses and
    > the measurements indicate a +5% to +8% larger captured image.
    >
    > I've seen several discussions concerning digital darkroom processing
    > but I have also seen arguments for captured scenes that require no
    > processing. In this case if I take the time to setup a scene and
    > capture it, the added "field of view" distracts from what I'm trying
    > to accomplish (I think anyway).
    >
    > So, any comments, pointers, opinions or insights?!?!
    >
    > PS. I'm now getting into the habit of framing my pictures even closer
    > than I normally would BUT is this "problem" common to all dSLRs and to
    > a greater or lesser degree?


    There is a two part reason for this. One is it allows for some error in
    camera assembly. The real reason in my mind is more direct. People get
    real upset when they think they saw something in the viewfinder when the
    pressed the shutter, only to find that it is not on the print or slide they
    get back. Most pints and slides will crop part of the image. Same issue
    with digital. On top line professional equipment they don't have that
    problem with true professionals and the any issues with alignment can be
    taken care of in the more expensive cameras.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
    Joseph Meehan, Dec 14, 2004
    #4
  5. "jfitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > This is typical of consumer level digital and 35mm film SLRs. Canon list
    > the Digital Rebel as having approximately 95% coverage. You will usually
    > find 100% coverage only in the very top of the line cameras. I never
    > considered this a very big deal. Keep in mind that you are going to crop
    > the image anyway if you print standard print sizes.


    In fact 100% coverage (as on the Nikon F3 film camera) tends to annoy people
    who take color slides -- part of the picture is covered by the slide mount!
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 14, 2004
    #5
  6. Doug Mitton

    Robertwgross Guest

    Professional camera bodies typically have a 100% match between the viewfinder
    view and the image captured. Non-professional models, such as a Digital Rebel,
    generally show about 5% more in the captured image than what you saw in the
    viewfinder.

    ---Bob Gross---
    Robertwgross, Dec 14, 2004
    #6
  7. Doug Mitton

    Matt Ion Guest

    Doug Mitton wrote:

    > I don't remember this being an issue when I used a film SLR many moons
    > ago BUT it seems to have a noticable impact on my digital images. I'm
    > talking about the discrepancy between the viewfinder framed image and
    > the captured image field-of-view ... on my Digital Rebel I notice I
    > have more picture in the captured image than I do in the view finder.
    > I tried an experiment today using a ruler and 3 different lenses and
    > the measurements indicate a +5% to +8% larger captured image.


    I don't see that this is a particular problem... it would be if it
    captured LESS area than the viewfinder showed. I'd suspect that a
    little extra is intentially capture to compensate for any other
    anomalies (cheap lens misalignment, maybe?) that might otherwise result
    in you not catching something that you thought you did.

    Come to think of it, I do recall thinking more than once that my old
    RebelG 35mm showed a little more on the film frame than I actually saw
    through the viewfinder, but like I say, I expect this is a design factor.
    Matt Ion, Dec 14, 2004
    #7
    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. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    444
  2. zxcvar

    Electronic view finder in Kodak Dx 6490

    zxcvar, Jun 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    357
  3. Howard

    DX6490 question-thumbwheel left side of view finder

    Howard, Jul 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    346
    Ron Hunter
    Jul 15, 2004
  4. Musty

    20D view-finder magnification?

    Musty, Dec 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    594
    Brian C. Baird
    Dec 7, 2004
  5. Guest

    View finder or Image display

    Guest, Oct 4, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    418
    David Ruether
    Oct 4, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page