OK, everyone is doing their own poll and it's so much fun (sarcasm) I thought I'd join in and get my little pet project out there.
Very few people mention 100% VFs as something they want so I'd like to understand why. To me, it's one of the most important aspects of a camera (in my work anyway) but apparently more people are interested in things like weather sealing so when they run to their car at the first sign of drizzle they can tell their friends "my camera has weather sealing and I are a pro".
So, if you really think 100% VFs are not important, or not as important as something else, please say why. At least consider though that it's the thing you look through EVERY time you take a shot (unless you're using LV), so consider what it might or might not do for you if you could see that uncle Bob is making an obscene gesture just outside the frame...
BTW, if you think I have too much time on my hands I'm just procrastinating (to put it mildly). I'm supposed to be doing taxes, but I think I'd enjoy pulling my fingernails out with pliers more, so I'm here with you...
OK, More info - Took some time out to enter expenses for taxes, argue with one of my credit card companies about fraud charges I reported and trying to find out when my replacement cards would be back and now I'm wasting time on FM again. All is right with the world..
This thread also has to do with the rumor mill about the 5d replacement. Everyone is excited about some mythological/hypothetical updates, but not one mention of what to me is one of the most important items, the VF. Nikon got this right and provides a 100% VF on a $1700 camera (D300). Canon will cheap out again if my prediction, but perhaps that's because people don't think it's important...
Edited by jamesf99 on Mar 14, 2008 at 01:57 PM GMT
NOTE: Sorry if people are confused but this says "your next camera".
I have several pro level cameras with a 100% VF, but cameras these days are ephemeral beasts and most of us will be buying another (many) in the next year or so, hence the question on your "next" camera.
If physical VF frame size is a constraint, I would take magnigication over coverage any day. (who still frames with VF anyway, VF is for focusing aid, whether AF or MF , know your focal lengths! hence magnification will help you achieve more accurate focus)
Leon Noel wrote:
If physical VF frame size is a constraint, I would take magnigication over coverage any day. (who still frames with VF anyway, VF is for focusing aid, whether AF or MF , know your focal lengths! hence magnification will help you achieve more accurate focus)
Who? Us poor old unskilled guys that depend on the proper image being seen before releasing the shutter. I must be a dinosaur but it' important to me that when I'm shooting client work, I don't have extraneous stuff in the frame and yes, it happens when I shift from a 1 series to the 5d.
Leon Noel wrote:
(who still frames with VF anyway, VF is for focusing aid, whether AF or MF , know your focal lengths! hence magnification will help you achieve more accurate focus)
Leon, I really have no idea where you are coming from with this, but unless you derive some sick entertainment wasting copious amounts of expensive pixels by cropping them out , I have a hard time believing that you are serious with this remark.
The sheer frustration of extrapolating what will end up inside the actual frame that is not visible by the less than 100% VF time and time again is very trying. And you really never do get over it. I really would like a 100% VF.
p.1 #10 · 100% VF on your next camera? (any model)
I thought the rational for having a sub-100% viewfinder was to ensure that you had some cropping space around your images, which would be especially important in 35mm film as you might have a negative carrier or slide mount just a bit smaller than your nominal film size. The tiny bit you have to crop to get your viewfinder composition back isn't really that big a deal, is it? Extra time, but you could write a pretty quick action for photoshop or lightroom I'd imagine, as this is a fixed quantity.
BTW, there are plenty of cameras with 100% viewfinders. Rangefinders, medium format cameras with waist-level-finders, digital PoS's, and large format view cameras (my weapon of choice)
p.1 #11 · 100% VF on your next camera? (any model)
James JK Kim wrote:
Leon, I really have no idea where you are coming from with this, but unless you derive some sick entertainment wasting copious amounts of expensive pixels by cropping them out , I have a hard time believing that you are serious with this remark.
The sheer frustration of extrapolating what will end up inside the actual frame that is not visible by the less than 100% VF time and time again is very trying. And you really never do get over it. I really would like a 100% VF.
Agree completely. In fact I had a sub 100% viewfinder that was off enough that it would frame in the VF a part of the subject that wouldn't end up on the sensor. Now that is frustrating- cut off feet that were visible in the VF!
p.1 #12 · 100% VF on your next camera? (any model)
walter23 wrote:
I thought the rational for having a sub-100% viewfinder was to ensure that you had some cropping space around your images, which would be especially important in 35mm film as you might have a negative carrier or slide mount just a bit smaller than your nominal film size. The tiny bit you have to crop to get your viewfinder composition back isn't really that big a deal, is it? Extra time, but you could write a pretty quick action for photoshop or lightroom I'd imagine, as this is a fixed quantity
BTW, there are plenty of cameras with 100% viewfinders. Rangefinders, medium format cameras with waist-level-finders, digital PoS's, and large format view cameras (my weapon of choice)
Yeah, and you are thrwing away pixels to get that cropping slop. I'd rather no exactly what I am going to get and if I want to leave some margin for composition, at leat I will see what margin rather than guess.
p.1 #14 · 100% VF on your next camera? (any model)
walter23 wrote:
I thought the rational for having a sub-100% viewfinder was to ensure that you had some cropping space around your images, which would be especially important in 35mm film as you might have a negative carrier or slide mount just a bit smaller than your nominal film size. The tiny bit you have to crop to get your viewfinder composition back isn't really that big a deal, is it? Extra time, but you could write a pretty quick action for photoshop or lightroom I'd imagine, as this is a fixed quantity.
BTW, there are plenty of cameras with 100% viewfinders. Rangefinders, medium format cameras with waist-level-finders, digital PoS's, and large format view cameras (my weapon of choice) ...Show more →
Sub 100% VFs are here for one reason and one reason only; it's a way for the mfg to sell a cheaper product.....
100% VFs are usually found only on pro caliber cameras. If people would start asking for better VFs, we'd all be better off. Apparently only Nikon gets it and Canon figures they can still save $10/camera....
p.1 #16 · 100% VF on your next camera? (any model)
I see the point guys, but then again it's very rare occasions when I got all the time and preparations needed to frame perfectly before pressing the shutter; most of the time it was the urge to make the shot and then go home pick out the best crops from the photo later. I know filling the frame to maximise pixel usage is always good but I think photojournalists (shooting events, candids) and sports shooters would have the same problem.
With that in mind, if I had to compromise then I'd rather have a VF that helps me focus better, how many times people have to bin a shot of a beautiful small bird because they found out the tree branch behind it stole the focus?
The argument of having things in the VF that will not show up in the sensor is of mis-alignment and that's another story. Each to their own I guess.
p.1 #17 · 100% VF on your next camera? (any model)
Well, it's an imperfect poll and I apologize for that, but the results are better than I expected. At this time, 2/3 of the respondents (67%) would like a 100% VF and that's a good sign.
What's also interesting is that 16% thought another option was more important, but I haven't read what those people would trade/prefer. If anyone that voted for another option comes back to check this if you would post what you prefer it would be great.
p.1 #18 · 100% VF on your next camera? (any model)
Leon Noel wrote:
I see the point guys, but then again it's very rare occasions when I got all the time and preparations needed to frame perfectly before pressing the shutter; most of the time it was the urge to make the shot and then go home pick out the best crops from the photo later. I know filling the frame to maximise pixel usage is always good but I think photojournalists (shooting events, candids) and sports shooters would have the same problem.
With that in mind, if I had to compromise then I'd rather have a VF that helps me focus better, how many times people have to bin a shot of a beautiful small bird because they found out the tree branch behind it stole the focus?
The argument of having things in the VF that will not show up in the sensor is of mis-alignment and that's another story. Each to their own I guess....Show more →
I don't understand your last point. what I had said was that with a cropped VF you don't see things in the VF that DO show up in the final image, not the other way around.
As for something stealing focus, I guess it can happen but again, this is a technique issue and it rarely happens to me outside, and never in the studio.
p.1 #19 · 100% VF on your next camera? (any model)
GeneO wrote:
Agree completely. In fact I had a sub 100% viewfinder that was off enough that it would frame in the VF a part of the subject that wouldn't end up on the sensor. Now that is frustrating- cut off feet that were visible in the VF!
p.1 #20 · 100% VF on your next camera? (any model)
I understand why you'd want a 100% viewfinder, but to be totally honest (and I hope Canon isn't listening!) it doesn't matter much to me. The 5D's viewfinder is plenty accurate enough for my uses. I typically lose a bit of frame leveling my landscapes anyway, so my pictures usually end up "98%" anyway.
I too would rather spend money on a larger/brighter VF than for better coverage. Especially now that we have Live View.
