Quoting "keller.schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I have always argued the *practicality* of any 100% viewfinder. A 95% finder > already shows *almost all* of the image: 95% of 24x36 is 23.4x35.1 > mm (for APS-C it is 23.5x15.7 vs. 22.9x15.3). No matter what application you > are > thinking of for either a negative or a slide, you will have a hard time > actually *using* more than 95% of it. A slide frame will cut away about 7% > and > any lab (including home printing) will probably cut away more. In that sense > it > is *correct* to show 95% as it gives you a better indication of what you will > eventually get than 100%.
Most people won't be wanting negatives or slides though. And home printing should still get all of the frame: I don't think any inkjets crop the picture. For on screen display too you will not lose anything so to me a non-100% viewfinder on DSLRs does not make sense. > > > > >This is probably a silly question which has been discussed to bits, > but > > I > > > > >was wondering if someone could give me the quick answer as to why it > was > > > > >too > > > > >hard to put a 100% viewfinder in the ist D (as opposed to the > > 90something > > > > >percent..)
