That's actually what I thought too.. a bigger frame the screen sits in. A bit confused now. And not very impressed I have to refine my framing method or be faced with hours of PS cropping (anyone know if there's a batch crop function?)
Regards, Ryan ----- Original Message ----- From: "keller.schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:39 PM Subject: Re: viewfinder magnification > I don't quite buy that. What determines the size of the viewfinder image is the > size of the frame the screen sits in (as long as we are talking +/- a > millimeter). Make that frame a little bit larger and you have a 100% > viewfinder. Of course, all elements that attach to the mirror box have to be > 'accurate' but I don't see why that would be so difficult here. Even with a > 90% viewfinder I would have hoped that what I see is from the center portion of > the image, not from an edge... > > 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%. > > Sven > > > > Zitat von [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > > > > > > > > I believe the manufacturing tolerance of a 100% viewfinder is way too > > > > difficult and expensive. It is not difficult to understand why once you > > > have > > > > seen how the viewfinder is assemlbed. Every piece has to be 100% accurate > > > > (mirror, screen, pentaprism, eyepiece). Besides, even if the factory > > could > > > > do it at reasonable cost, the regional service centres can't. > > > > > > > > Alan Chan > > > > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > > > > > > > >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..) > > > > > > I think it might be too expensive. It might have other tradeoffs in > > > things like viewfinder image size. It's not impossible--most if not all > > > of Nikon's F-series pro cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage and I > > > believe at least one of their new pro digital cameras has 100% viewfinder > > > coverage. Shouldn't it even be easier given that the image area isn't as > > > big as the image area of film? > > > > > > OTOH, most Nikons have HUGE pentaprisms. That's not very Pentax-like. > > > > > > DJE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
