If you do the math, you'll discover that the difference is so little that there's no way you could hand-hold the camera and crop for the difference anyway.
Let's take the extreme case and say that all of the loss is in one dimension - the height (which would increase the amount you're losing in the VF). The sensor size is 36 x 23.9 or 860.4 sq mm. 95% of that is 817.38. Dividing that by the 36mm width you get 22.705 mm. Subtracting that from the original height, you get 1.195mm or .5975 mm loss on each side top and bottom.
Unless you have the camera locked down on a tripod and are shooting straight lines, you're not cropping to within half a millimeter in the VF.
People who obsess about this as well as obsessing about the lens crop (which as best as I can figure on FX is 1.0138, which would make a 50mm lens 50.7mm) are very, every anal and need some help. I guess they store all their canned food with the labels facing out, perfectly aligned.
This is brick wall obsessing. Go out and take some pictures.
zoetmb wrote:
People who obsess about this as well as obsessing about the lens crop (which as best as I can figure on FX is 1.0138, which would make a 50mm lens 50.7mm) are very, every anal and need some help. I guess they store all their canned food with the labels facing out, perfectly aligned.
Yeah, well at least I can find all my canned food without having to spend a lot of time looking for it! Looks nice too when aligned that way.
zoetmb wrote:
If you do the math, you'll discover that the difference is so little that there's no way you could hand-hold the camera and crop for the difference anyway.
Let's take the extreme case and say that all of the loss is in one dimension - the height (which would increase the amount you're losing in the VF). The sensor size is 36 x 23.9 or 860.4 sq mm. 95% of that is 817.38. Dividing that by the 36mm width you get 22.705 mm. Subtracting that from the original height, you get 1.195mm or .5975 mm loss on each side top and bottom. .
Sorry, but the D700 *does* have a 100% coverage viewfinder... it's the big 3" (diagonal) one on the back of the camera. All you have to do is switch to Live View.
most 35mm SLRs of the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s were NEVER 100% viewfinders. There were some exceptions, like the high end eos, F4's F5's, F6. I seriously doubt working pros ever argued about 100% VF's.
Of course if it's 100% you want in a D700 sized body you could wait for the Sony A900 with it's 100% VF and the added bonus of a 24 MP Sensor (D3x/D4FX sensor?), built in IS, and a price that may be near or less than the D700.
i dont like the 95% either but am glad that they rather have 95% and built in flash (yes it is usefull) and they didnt chose to cripple it somewhere else against D3, like for example speed or so.
If it is for you SOOO important, get D300 or D3.
zoetmb wrote:
... I guess they store all their canned food with the labels facing out, perfectly aligned....
As a general rule, yes, that's how my cupboards are arranged. It's called organisation.
While I prefer a 100% viewfinder, I also find it rather simple to make the adaptation to a slightly reduced view. I find brightness of the viewfinder a greater issue than actual coverage.
I have been using a 5D for over a year now, do not worry aout the 95% coverage, you will hardly notice it. Just get a D700 and enjoy full frame photography! And do not forget to get a few wide aperture primes with it. Cheers. Fred
What you see thru the viewfinder and what is actually recorded on the sensor are two different things. Most non-pro models have less 100% coverage in the viewfinder. This should not be of concern to most folks since the actual sensor will cover slightly more than what you 'see'. So you won't be cropping things off accidentally.
If I may.....I would suggest you not buy a camera and just wait about 10 years. By then you can get the camera that wakes you up on the couch, drags you out side, tells you what you need to shoot, sticks to your forehead and shoots away. No need for you to do anything. Then you may even win the photo contest where every photo looks the same.
You've got to be kidding me. This is like the most pedantic issue to find... its a matter of centimeters in most cases and you can chimp on the LCD once you fire your shot anyways. I guarantee you that you aren't a good enough photographer to get the composition perfect to a matter of pixels on every single shot.
What a pathetic discussion. Can I laugh now or do I have to wait until later. Must be someone from the other Dark Side trying to stir up trouble because they can't be first anymore...awwww
Zoe, you're taking the fun out of photography.
