SLR users, do you really think you need a 100% coverage in your viewfinder? Or are the 90-95% coverage provided by most modern SLRs sufficient? Give your views here.
Regards
CK
Regards
CK
Do you need a 100% viewfinder?
- Thread starter ckiang
- Start date
- Status
M
Mouse
Guest
No, I don't believe you need 100% viewfinder. At least 92% is needed. Reason being the lab will normal crop your photo by that much. To be really safe, 94% is good enough.
If 100% viewfinder is what you are paying that extra buck, then don't waste your money. Unless you are performing the developing yourself in your darkroom.
If 100% viewfinder is what you are paying that extra buck, then don't waste your money. Unless you are performing the developing yourself in your darkroom.
About the only way you can print the full 100% even in the darkroom is if you print with the edges of the neg included.
Remember also that normal printing sizes aren't always even in 35mm dimensions.
Slide masks mask the frame.
But with digital, that changes... a 100% viewfinder becomes very useful with digital SLRs because you really do get the full frame with d-slrs.
Remember also that normal printing sizes aren't always even in 35mm dimensions.
Slide masks mask the frame.
But with digital, that changes... a 100% viewfinder becomes very useful with digital SLRs because you really do get the full frame with d-slrs.
M
Mouse
Guest
Jed, you're right. I am only talking about film SLR. Me no experience yet with digital cameras....you know...old as dinosaurs cannot keep up...
Wow, this is interesting. About as many people think they need 100% viewfinders as those who don't. Maybe those who voted "Yes" and share why they think so. Especially if they are shooting film (digital is another story).
Regards
CK
Regards
CK
There are a few reasons why I would prefer a 100% viewfinder , if not for the SIZE and PRICE of a pro SLR.
1) When using bellow style lens hood that can ZOOM in or out to accomodate different focal length, you can see if there are any vignet at the edge of your slide.
2) If you use pro slide mounts, the full frame of your slide will be shown on the wall. Therefore, a 100% viewfinder will prevent you from guessing what might or might not be appearing on the area not shown by a 90% viewfinder.
3) If all the camera makers are producing 100% viewfinder for composition, including P&S, then I won't see why the print makers still insist on giving us a "NOT SO NORMAL" normal print size. We may after all, get a true 35mm full frame printed at consumer price, instead of wasting the valuable area on the edge of it.
1) When using bellow style lens hood that can ZOOM in or out to accomodate different focal length, you can see if there are any vignet at the edge of your slide.
2) If you use pro slide mounts, the full frame of your slide will be shown on the wall. Therefore, a 100% viewfinder will prevent you from guessing what might or might not be appearing on the area not shown by a 90% viewfinder.
3) If all the camera makers are producing 100% viewfinder for composition, including P&S, then I won't see why the print makers still insist on giving us a "NOT SO NORMAL" normal print size. We may after all, get a true 35mm full frame printed at consumer price, instead of wasting the valuable area on the edge of it.
Hmm... serious question here. What brand are you using? I'm using Gepe ones and they're not 100%.
The different print sizes are a legacy. To be honest with digital we should move to the A scale of working, since there is a common, easy ratio between A0, A1, A2 through to A6. The problem with printing 100% is that it's very difficult to get really 100%, your registration will need to be perfect with each frame. That's why I doubt we will see lots of 100% slide mounts or printing 100%. Even in the darkroom working with your negs by hand it's very difficult to get a full frame print without having some of the outside border show in the print.
Jed, just to be fair, I took a physical measurement of the slide mount pocket. It is 23 * 35 mm.
This actually covers 95.8% vertical and 97.2% horizontal of a full 35mm frame area. Not really a huge difference to my eyes, but I don't deny the fact that it is my mistake to assume 100%.
Jed, the above dimension is measured from the Kaiser Slide mount w/o glass.
This actually covers 95.8% vertical and 97.2% horizontal of a full 35mm frame area. Not really a huge difference to my eyes, but I don't deny the fact that it is my mistake to assume 100%.
Jed, the above dimension is measured from the Kaiser Slide mount w/o glass.
Ok, 
By your numbers that's about 96-97% overall, which is what is found on the semi-pro cameras like the EOS3 and F100.
The point is 1mm is a lot when you magnify the original. With 100% viewfinders you find yourself having to compensate down, as in to make leeway for the stuff that will get cropped... so it's a reverse situation.
By your numbers that's about 96-97% overall, which is what is found on the semi-pro cameras like the EOS3 and F100.
The point is 1mm is a lot when you magnify the original. With 100% viewfinders you find yourself having to compensate down, as in to make leeway for the stuff that will get cropped... so it's a reverse situation.
Jed, 96-97% is excellent. but not the 90% vertical & 92% horizontal found on the Elan series.
"With 100% viewfinders you find yourself having to compensate down, as in to make leeway for the stuff that will get cropped"
Yes, I agree, looks like too much isn't always better
"With 100% viewfinders you find yourself having to compensate down, as in to make leeway for the stuff that will get cropped"
Yes, I agree, looks like too much isn't always better
- Status
Similar threads
