Jump to content

D700 Viewfinder


john_wall6

Recommended Posts

<p>My D700 viewfinder seems to crop the image in a frustrating way. I understand its not a 100% viewfinder -- but the viewfinder seems to show me the left side of the image, cropping a strip to the right of the image. </p>

<p>When I make an image, then look at it on the viewscreen on the back of the camera, there is a strip of image down the right side of the image that I didn't see when I was using the viewfinder to compose the image. </p>

<p>So I'm doing a vertical portrait, and I compose with my right hand -- holding the camera -- to the top, and I compose so that there is the right amount of space between the top of the subject's head and the top of the frame, and I make the picture.</p>

<p>When I look at the image I've made, suddenly there is a lot more space between the top of the subject's head and the top of the frame.</p>

<p>This doesn't happen when I compose vertically while turning the camera so my right hand is at the bottom of the camera body. So the viewfinder clearly shows less of the image to the right of the frame than to the left of the frame, where the side of the viewfinder is close to the side of the actual frame. </p>

<p>I come from the old school when it was a test of compositional skill to use the full frame of the image as it came out of the camera, without cropping the image. So I find this feature of my D700 annoying.</p>

<p>Is this a flaw in my camera or a feature of Nikon's design? Can the viewfinder be centered on the image so the same amount of image would be blocked all around the viewfinder? Should I learn to live with it or send it back to Nikon?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John,<br>

I had the same issue with my D700 as I'm a film "emigree" used to WYSIWYG absent a big investment in darkroom equipment. But the digital age has forced me to expand my involvement [work flow?] into the post image-capture arena. I [and suggest you to] now see what's in the viewfinder as meerly the start of the final image. My criteria is to compose, yes, but also to put as much information into the raw image area as I can so that I have the maximum amount to work with when I do my post-processing. I therefore leave extra space around my "core" images.</p>

<p>As you get to "know" your camera better, your capture composition will automaticaly account for the extra space.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Shun did an excellent test with his garage door and mapped out the crop that D700 makes. The story Nikon told was that they used the same sensor as the D3, but since the D700 would have the same sensor vibration cleaning mechanism as the D300, they had to clamp that assembly around the sensor (that wasn't designed for one) and thus would have had to build a considerably larger prism to encompass the whole view. <br>

I found the crop annoying most of the time, as I tend to like to crop in camera, not in post. For those who post-process all their images, it's not an issue. I do not want to have to crop images afterwards, and it was something that pushed me back to the D300. I would love a D3 but can't afford one right now. Maybe in a few years if Nikon does some heavy discounting (like $1999 for a new D3 body) I'll pick one up.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Right. As Dave points out, there is a follow up discussion in photo.net's D700 review: <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D700/review/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D700/review/</a></p>

<p>Whenever a viewfinder is not 100%, another side effect is that it is also not centered. Based on my measurement, the D700's viewfinder actually shows about 89% of area of the frame. Look for the following image in the review follow up discussion.</p>

<P>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/general-comments/attachment/14431818/D700viewfinder2145.jpg">

</CENTER>

</P>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Quite frankly, I don't understand all the excitement about this issue - and I have shot with cameras that had a 100% viewfinder and some that didn't. When shooting slide film - it's a non-issue since the slide frame will cover part of the image anyway and it was advisable to leave space (more for a 100% viewfinder actually). When printing - it's a non-issue because for the majority of print sizes, one has to crop the image significantly anyway. Not to mention that using mats will cover part of the print again. Maybe someone who likes to "crop with the camera" can explain how they get around those issues. The solution to me seems to be a rather simple one - leave some space in the frame and crop later - in most cases you will have to anyway. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There are a number of ways of dealing with mats and print sizes if you want to show the full frame</p>

<p>1. only using print sizes that use your camera's side x side ratio -- for 35 mm format, 4x6, 8x12, 10x15, 12x18, etc.</p>

<p>2. for mats, either put a border around the image and have the mat intrude on the border rather than the print image OR leave a space between the edge of the print and the edge of the mat.</p>

<p>Not being able to foot the bill for a D3 and loving everything else about my D700 I will learn to frame and compose my image to accommodate the odd spacing of the viewfinder.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Right. I also found that the focus point in the view finder and the red focus point of the preview (after shooting) on the rear LCD is slightly "shifted". Red focus point on the LCD was slightly shifted or jumped to left/up . I repeatedly asked Nikon service center to fix it and for the second time they understood the issue and fixed it. While I admit that it must have little effect in the real life, it is sooo comfortable to know that where I intended to focus was in fact where the camera focused. Sorry for being anal. But I am glad I had it fixed before the warranty expires. <br>

I believe this "shift" of the focus point is related to the viewfinder "shift" to the right/low.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Having a <100% finder off-center would drive me <em>insane</em> .</p>

<p>A couple of months ago, after a trip to the shop, my D3 viewfinder went slightly out of adjustment. It was cutting off 20 pixels or so from one edge, and adding 20 or so to the other. It surprised me how much it threw me off, and for a couple of shoots, until I decided to test it, I wondered if my brain was failing. </p>

<p>I've always been an advocate of the principle that what the photographer brings psychologically to the moment of capture far outstrips anything s/he brings to it in the darkroom. The mind is loaded up at the moment of capture in a way it will never be at a later date. But now appreciate all the more how aware the photographer is of the entire frame at that moment, down virtually to the last pixel-fraction. </p>

<p>I believe that for the most part, either I saw the picture when I took it, or it isn't there at all. To think that -- by astronomical odds -- the inspiration could be found just in a proper subset of what I captured seems wishful at best.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dieter, as others have said, it is the off-center viewfinder that puzzles most of us. I can understand if there was an even area beyond the optical viewfinder that doesn't show up, but leaving it off center just seems careless to me. I do hope this is fixed in future cameras. And clearly photographers like Shun can live with it and enjoy the D700. I enjoyed it but when I was shooting architecture it was a real pain. Landscapes were fine though.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dieter, frankly it's puzzling to me why anyone would allow available paper sizes to have any effect on the aspect ratio or cropping of the picture. There's this thing called a paper cutter you know.</p>

<p>The lack of precision and control in various stages of the work tends to have a cumulative effect; small errors can become large errors this way. It applies the same way to film as well as digital, except that with film many of us had to rely on third parties for printing. Now that doesn't apply. No excuses. IMO the inaccurate viewfinder of the D700 is a major pain - I have to review everything I shoot with the LCD when setting up the tripod if the picture of such a type that it is sensitive to minor compositional inaccuracies. Of course, not all work requires precision in framing.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Robert, I do use a Mamiya 7 from time to time. It is less an issue with that camera since I don't have to optimize detail with it (there's enough of it). I will just frame ever so slightly loosely and adjust the framing after scanning with the LS-9000. I use the D700 for close-up photography as it is better balanced at odd angles on tripod than the D3 thanks to the lower profile. In this I would prefer a more accurate viewfinder as adjusting the camera position for macro work is time-consuming without additional complications. Also, in this application I prefer to get as much detail from the camera as I can.</p>

<p>What annoys me to no end is that some framers don't seem to care one bit about the framing of the shot, taking centimeters off the image when matting it. It's not like the composition is random, you know.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...