Viewfinder And Picture Coverage

[sajeev_chacko]

Why is it so that, in certain bodies, only 90, 92 (and so) percent of viewfinder is captured on the film. Even in high bodies like EOS 3 100% is not covered. Why is it so? Is it <b><i>not</i></b> possible to add this feature in all bodies. Or aleast a mark should be added so that one can understand how much of the viewfinder will be captured on the film. What do you think ?

[curt_hagenlocher]

Actually, you have that backwards: it's 90-92% of the film that's

visible in the viewfinder, not vice versa. So you can see that it

isn't possible to add a mark to the viewfinder to show where the

edges of the film are ;). I don't know why the entire frame (or more

of the frame) isn't visible, but I'll bet it has something to do with

cost.

[preston_merchant]

The EOS 3 is 97%, which in the grand scheme of things might as well

be the full frame. The 3% difference would be very hard for you to

see in practice, and you can always crop the picture when you print.

 

<p>

 

Rangefinders (like Leica M) have frame lines, but these have to

change based on the focal length of the lens. The lines for 28 mm

are different than those for a 90 mm. But you are looking through a

separate viewfinder and not through the picture-taking lens, so the

lines are critical. That special viewfinder actually shows you more

than 100%, so you can see where the frame will crop. And since there

is no mirror, you see the image while the shutter is snapping (no

blackout).

 

<p>

 

A 100% viewfinder in an SLR is nice but not terribly critical--since

you can't see past the edges. A 110% viewfinder (with framelines),

for example, would require a huge mirror--which adds to overall size

and weight of the camera, noise from the mirror-slap, etc.

[NK Guy]

>Is it not possible to add this feature in all bodies.

 

<p>

 

Of course Canon could build all their SLRs with 100% viewfinder

coverage. The cameras would be bigger to accommodate the

larger prisms and would cost a lot more. So they don't.

[lee_shively]

One hundred percent viewfinder accuracy is overrated. I used Nikon

F, F2 and F3 cameras for years with 100% viewfinder accuracy. I

often composed so tightly the photos could not be cropped by editors

without killing the composition. Sometimes even the slide mounts cut

off part of the image I had composed. I saw improvement in my photos

using a Nikon FM which was <100%. Now, my EOS bodies are all <100%

and I shoot looser compositions within the framing. My results are

better without 100% viewfinder accuracy.

 

<p>

 

By the way, I never could get the hang of the Leica rangefinder

viewfinder. My photos were always surprises. Not just in viewfinder

accuracy but in perspective. The frame lines cover the approximate

image area of the lens but the finder does not show the perspective

of the lens. It was not a good tool for composition, in my opinion.

[s._fisher]

Notice that in general the more expensive the Canon, the more

coverage you can see. ;)

 

<p>

 

I personally haven't found a real need for 100% coverage since most

pictures are going to be cropped a bit -- especially if you like

8x10s.

[sajeev_chacko]

a good discussion about viewfinder Vs Picture Coverage. well, if the

cost of bodies increases drastically just by incorporating that 3-10%

of viewfinder, then they can atleast give a frame lines in the

viewfinder covering approximate image area. this is usually found in

many compact cameras. this can ofcourse be implemented in any SLR

which does not capture 100% viewfinder.