Feature wanted with DSLR - standard frame shown in viewfinder

<p>With today's super programmable DSLR's I'd like to be able to turn on a 'frame' in my viewfinder that would correspond to the basic 'standard' printed picture sizes: 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, square, custom, etc.</p>

<p>This seems like it would be a super simple thing for Nikon to do. I often see questions on PN asking how to size a pic so it will print on a standard size photo paper.</p>

<p>Just select your preferred output format, a frame would display in the viewfinder, compose to that frame and shoot. When it comes time to edit, you could turn on (if you're using Nikon software) the 'frame', crop, edit, save, and print.</p>

<p>Seems like a simple and useful feature to me. Any comments?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Mark</p>

<p>I agree. Should be in all full frame cameras in my opinion. I believe the 4:5 option is already available in a couple of bodies.</p>

<p>Sure sounds simple - after all they already have the rule of thirds lines that can be turned on and off . The fly in the ointment is that even though you may think you want an 8X10 at the time you take the image when comes time to print the image Aunt Emma might want a 4X6, Grandpa might want a 5X7 and Cousin Fred might want to buy an 11x14. Better to just shoot a little loose on the 4x6 sized sensor you have and set your crop frame in Photoshop or whatever editing program you like to use.</p>

<p>HLA</p>

<p>This would only make sense on bodies with 100% viewfinder coverage (read: expensive) if you planned to completely "fill the frame" for that particular ratio. And as Mr. Potts has noted, the 4:5 masking (8x10) is available on the D3 series bodies I think, and might have also been an option on the D2X??</p>

<p>It is a fairly simple thing for Nikon to do, just as they now have the option to overlay grid lines on the focusing screen, but again it only makes 100% sense to do this for a 100% viewfinder coverage camera. Masking (graying out the unused part of the frame) is a little more involved, but already an option on the pro bodies.</p>

<p>4x6 of course is the native aspect ratio (2:3) for all Nikon DSLRs, so no overlay or grid lines required.</p>

<p>Homer,</p>

<p>I don't mean to come across as arrogant, but I'm making the picture. Aunt Emma, Grandpa, and Cousin Fred can take their own pictures if they're not happy with what I may provide.</p>

<p>That being said, like the rule of thirds lines, this 'frame' would just be a guideline used while composing.</p>

<p>I also have a 6 x 6 film camera. There are some photos that, to me, really come out better printed square.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Mark</p>

<p>Sorry Mark. My comment was a little tongue in cheek based on my experience. It seems like every time I take the time to crop and edit an image for one size my wife decides she would like several other sized prints from it too. I now try to do as much sizing as possible in Lightroom since cropping with it doesn't really loose me anything.</p>

<p>HLA</p>

<p>No disrespect to Michael, but I used a screen scribed with 8x10 lines on Nikon FM2n, 8008, F100, and D100, none of which were 100% viewfinder coverage. I find the way I most like to work is to compose in 3:2 but remain cognizant of what will "hit the walls" if I crop to 8x10.</p>

<p>I even scribed them on a D3 screen, preferring the 8x10 "safe zone" in a 3:2 image to the 8x10 raw file that you get when you use D3 8x10 mode.</p>

<p>Though a little more complicated to implement in the viewfinder itself, it would be absolutely trivial (just a firmware upgrade) to make this an option for the rear LCD in live view or review mode...</p>

<p>This could be a very useful feature. I've noticed a surprising number of people whose first camera of any kind, or perhaps second camera after a simple P&S, is a mid-level or upper level dSLR. They're still learning the basics of composition and framing.</p>

<p>Some still haven't learned the relationships between print sizes and aspect ratios. This year several folks on the beginner forum have wondered why the lab crops their photos when they print to 8x10 from a digital camera with a 3:2 aspect ratio.</p>

<p>The digital camera can be an excellent learning tool, so adding these aids to composition would be a significant benefit to helping users visualize how to make their photos.</p>

<p>I had never thought about this in my film days as I never did my own processing. Since I got my D300 I've printed my favorites on 8 1/2 x 11 paper on a color laserjet I have access to at a client office. Then this summer we got an HP DesignJet 130nr with 24" wide roll paper. What fun!</p>

<p>This client is in the refractory installation industry and has framed prints of blast furnaces hung on the hallway walls. Some have a viewable 38 1/2" x 29 1/2" (40 x 30 under the matt?). Some have a viewable 24 x 24. </p>

<p>Naturally, I would like to print some whoppers on the new printer. So far I've done several almost-macros (70-200 f/2.8 Nikkor) of some flowers located around the building at 24 x 36, but these were printed on the plain old paper used for CAD prints, $44 for 150' roll. They turned out exceedingly well considering.</p>

<p>This is what got me to thinking about guidelines in the viewfinder. Gotta push the limits.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

<p>Aspect ratio of the print is arbitrary; there is no one standard (well, A3, A4, A5, A6 etc. are common outside of the US and all have the same aspect ratio, close to 2:3, but the US doesn't use this standard, instead resorting to different aspect ratios for different paper sizes). I would never let available paper sizes dictate the aspect ratio of the final image. Paper cutters have been invented. What I would like to see is Nikon getting rid of the viewfinder LCD overlay - perhaps the viewfinder image would be a bit clearer that way.</p>

<p>Yes, absolutely! I've been pushing for onboard cupholders too.</p>

<p>I have always wondered why, right from the start of my photographic "birth" back in the sixties, manufacturers of both paper and frames have almost completely disregarded the actual ratio of 35mm negs. The only true print size was 6x4 and mutliples of this. So why did we get 8x6, 5x7 and 10x8 paper and frames. Surely the market was big enough to make the right sizes. Then we would not have to worry about composing to a size or having to ask for camera manufacturers to provide variable frames in camera! Perhaps a more logical request, given todays paper sizes would be for the camera manufacturers to standardise sensors to fit the "A" series of paper sizes?</p>