Why aren't viewfinder 100%

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by x@x.com, Oct 12, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Thanks for everybody who has answered my other threads, I've learned a lot.
    Here is another question: Why is it that on most dSLR the viewfinder
    does not show 100% of the actual shot ?
     
    , Oct 12, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Hebee Jeebes Guest

    Because they like to play with the minds of newbie's. "I could have sworn I
    had his ears in the picture. Honest!"

    R


    <> wrote in message news:bXkXg.129376$R63.54512@pd7urf1no...
    > Thanks for everybody who has answered my other threads, I've learned a
    > lot.
    > Here is another question: Why is it that on most dSLR the viewfinder
    > does not show 100% of the actual shot ?
    >
    >
     
    Hebee Jeebes, Oct 12, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. frederick Guest

    Hebee Jeebes wrote:
    > Because they like to play with the minds of newbie's. "I could have sworn I
    > had his ears in the picture. Honest!"
    >
    > R
    >

    There is an assumption that pros will get the ears in (even though they
    make the same mistakes) so pro cameras typically do have 100%
    viewfinders rather than 95%.
     
    frederick, Oct 12, 2006
    #3
  4. cjcampbell Guest

    wrote:
    > Thanks for everybody who has answered my other threads, I've learned a lot.
    > Here is another question: Why is it that on most dSLR the viewfinder
    > does not show 100% of the actual shot ?


    Space, weight, desired degree of magnification in the viewfinder. The
    assumption is that you are going to crop a little off the shot anyway.
    Most photo prints do not match the aspect ratio of the picture. So if
    you are going to print, say, 4x6 you are going to lose the edges.
     
    cjcampbell, Oct 12, 2006
    #4
  5. <> wrote in message news:bXkXg.129376$R63.54512@pd7urf1no...
    > Thanks for everybody who has answered my other threads, I've learned a
    > lot.
    > Here is another question: Why is it that on most dSLR the viewfinder
    > does not show 100% of the actual shot ?
    >


    Cost. It takes time, and therefore money, to get a 100% view aligned
    accurately with the sensor - film or digital. In addition the prism has to
    be larger, and heavier etc. And, for many years there's been the argument
    that slide frames are slightly smaller than the nominal full frame of
    36x24mm.
    Since the recent demise of film, I've been able to afford the purchase of
    two Nikon F3s which I believe have 100% finders - and offer a relatively low
    cost way to decide whether 100% is that important in your type of
    photography.
    --
    M Stewart
    Milton Keynes, UK



    --
     
    Malcolm Stewart, Oct 12, 2006
    #5
  6. Stu Guest

    I know. I have to agree.

    It is crazy that they aren't 100% IMO. Especially on something like a 5D.


    <> wrote in message news:bXkXg.129376$R63.54512@pd7urf1no...
    > Thanks for everybody who has answered my other threads, I've learned a
    > lot.
    > Here is another question: Why is it that on most dSLR the viewfinder
    > does not show 100% of the actual shot ?
    >
    >
     
    Stu, Oct 12, 2006
    #6
  7. <> wrote in message news:bXkXg.129376$R63.54512@pd7urf1no...
    > Thanks for everybody who has answered my other threads, I've learned a
    > lot.
    > Here is another question: Why is it that on most dSLR the viewfinder
    > does not show 100% of the actual shot ?


    Manufacturing costs. The big issue is alignment ... to show 100%, the
    alignment has to be close to dead on.
     
    Charles Schuler, Oct 12, 2006
    #7
  8. Mark² Guest

    Stu wrote:
    > I know. I have to agree.
    >
    > It is crazy that they aren't 100% IMO. Especially on something like
    > a 5D.


    That is definitely an annoyance...not just on the 5D, but on any body that
    isn't truly 100%--which is nearly all DSLRs. An example recently was a
    shot I took where I carefully made sure that a concrete curb was out of the
    lower portion of the frame...only to discover that the edge protruded into
    the actual image--even though it wasn't visible in the viewfinder. I frame
    very carefully when I shoot certain subjects and don't like finding surprise
    opbjects at the edges of the frame. This meant cropping, which to me is a
    waste of resolution. Yes, I should have caught it on the LCD, but I'm not a
    chimper and tend to only glance at an occasional histogram.


    >
    >
    > <> wrote in message news:bXkXg.129376$R63.54512@pd7urf1no...
    >> Thanks for everybody who has answered my other threads, I've learned
    >> a lot.
    >> Here is another question: Why is it that on most dSLR the viewfinder
    >> does not show 100% of the actual shot ?


    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Oct 13, 2006
    #8
  9. Guest

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    > opbjects at the edges of the frame. This meant cropping, which to me is a
    > waste of resolution. Yes, I should have caught it on the LCD, but I'm not a
    > chimper and tend to only glance at an occasional histogram.


    Yep... from the postings here, sounds like it's a left over from film days,
    and I agree with your comment on lost of resolution.
     
    , Oct 15, 2006
    #9
    1. Advertisements

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. Hodge
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    666
    Hodge
    Nov 4, 2003
  2. -! fredg
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    5,265
    Garryk
    Dec 9, 2009
  3. peter
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    905
    Roger Halstead
    Jun 1, 2004
  4. -! fredg
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    4,894
    Brian C. Allen
    Sep 17, 2003
  5. JMI
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    668
  6. jim evans

    Why Aren't Shake Warnings Based on Camera Movement?

    jim evans, Nov 13, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    944
    Bill Funk
    Nov 15, 2006
  7. E. Scrooge
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    1,090
  8. Trent Thorax

    Why aren't digital cameras film-quality yet?

    Trent Thorax, Apr 16, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    977
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    Apr 20, 2008
Loading...