Since the viewfinder doesn`t have 100% coverage (95%), doesn`t that make them both a kind of Crops (1,05) in "real life"? I know their sensor are "FF", but........
I know, it`s a small difference, but it`s still there. 85mm won`t work as a 85mm, I`ve got to move backward with D700/5D compared with D3/1DsMKII.
I'm afraid this is above my head. Why should you have to crop in Photoshop because you're not seeing the extreme edges of the recorded image in the viewfinder?! You just have to factor that into your initial composition. And why on earth should that change the actual field of view of an 85mm lens on a 35mm sensor? Pls explain
Richard.P wrote:
I'm afraid this is above my head. Why should you have to crop in Photoshop because you're not seeing the extreme edges of the recorded image in the viewfinder?! You just have to factor that into your initial composition. And why on earth should that change the actual field of view of an 85mm lens on a 35mm sensor? Pls explain
It`s probably over my head as well :-).
Yes, I have to crop in PS because I don`t want what`s outside my initial composition. It`s difficult, and should not be necessary, to factor the extreme edges all the time.
When I`m using a 85mm on a FF I get ex. all of the body in the viewfinder, take the picture. What I get...all the body.
When I`m using a 85mm on a camera that shows me only 95%, I will not se all of the body from the same distance. I have to move back a little (yes, I know, it`s a small difference) in order to se all of the body.
Since I have to move back a little it will change the field of view, won`t it?
Since the distance to the object will increase, the dof will also be different, won`t it?
I guess from my perspective, my composition in the veiwfinder is a rough estimate anyway. I always adjust (crop) composition in pp even if it's ever so slightly and expect to do so with most of my shots. I use a d300 @ 1.5 crop and the 85mm / f1.8 is one of favorites.
I just try to get close with the camera and adjust as needed in pp
fcobb wrote:
I guess from my perspective, my composition in the veiwfinder is a rough estimate anyway. I always adjust (crop) composition in pp even if it's ever so slightly and expect to do so with most of my shots. I use a d300 @ 1.5 crop and the 85mm / f1.8 is one of favorites.
I just try to get close with the camera and adjust as needed in pp
I like to finish my composition "in the viewfinder". But if your composition in the viewfinder is a rough estimate, then I think you don`t have anything to worry about.
Unless you've been bothered by this issue before, I'd say don't worry too much. Using an S3, which didn't have a 100% viewfinder either, I never had a problem with a few extra pixels around the edges. Just get that D700 and don't look back
Richard.P wrote:
Unless you've been bothered by this issue before, I'd say don't worry too much. Using an S3, which didn't have a 100% viewfinder either, I never had a problem with a few extra pixels around the edges. Just get that D700 and don't look back
According to your logic you would have to crop with all bodies that don't have 100% viefinder, which includes most film bodies as well. Don't worry, you'll get used to it.
Hmm. The viewfinder was the thing I liked best about the D700 when I tried it out (next to the sensor, that is.) If you are currently using a D300 or D200, you will see a huge improvement with the D700 in this regard, despite being "only" a 95% viewfinder. You probably won't even notice the difference.
But everyone is different. If that is something you can't live with, I'd just say wait for a later version that has the 100% viewfinder or save up for the D3. I understand that used D3's are going for something in the neighborhood of $4300-4500 right now, and that is bound to come down. The size you can get used to. The price you just have to work up to. You could always rent a D700 when they become available and see what you think. Otherwise you are out of luck at the moment for cameras from Nikon.
Oh dear. You aren't going to like this bit of information, but neither the 5D or D700 are 'full frame'. The sensor size of the 5d is only 35.8 x 23.9 mm while the d700 is only 36.0 x 23.9 mm. Even if the viewfinders were 100% you still aren't getting the whole picture compared to a 'true' full frame 36 x 24mm film camera. Looks like a film camera and scanner are in your future.
I've a Canon 5D and Oly E3. The E3, despite being a 4/3 camera, offers a 100% view whereas the 5D is only 95%. In most instances I don't notice the difference when I am looking through the vf as both are big and bright, but I do sometimes wish the 5D were 100% when precise and accurate framing is a must.
BenV wrote:
I actually prefer the 95% over the 100%. I feel its less of a chance of getting someones arm cut off by the frame.
I agree with you on that.... I some times find that I compose tighter than I should have, and I find my self wishing for a bit more room. The 95% is like a built in safety factor... and when you break it down, it's only a matter of probably 5 pixels on either side...
