Why aren't viewfinder 100%

Thanks for everybody who has answered my other threads, I've learned a lot.
Here is another question: Why is it that on most dSLR the viewfinder
does not show 100% of the actual shot ?

Because they like to play with the minds of newbie's. "I could have sworn I
had his ears in the picture. Honest!"

R


wrote in message news:bXkXg.129376$R63.54512@pd7urf1no...
Thanks for everybody who has answered my other threads, I've learned a
lot.
Here is another question: Why is it that on most dSLR the viewfinder
does not show 100% of the actual shot ?

Hebee Jeebes wrote:
Because they like to play with the minds of newbie's. "I could have sworn I
had his ears in the picture. Honest!"

R

There is an assumption that pros will get the ears in (even though they
make the same mistakes) so pro cameras typically do have 100%
viewfinders rather than 95%.

wrote:
Thanks for everybody who has answered my other threads, I've learned a lot.
Here is another question: Why is it that on most dSLR the viewfinder
does not show 100% of the actual shot ?

Space, weight, desired degree of magnification in the viewfinder. The
assumption is that you are going to crop a little off the shot anyway.
Most photo prints do not match the aspect ratio of the picture. So if
you are going to print, say, 4x6 you are going to lose the edges.

wrote in message news:bXkXg.129376$R63.54512@pd7urf1no...
Thanks for everybody who has answered my other threads, I've learned a
lot.
Here is another question: Why is it that on most dSLR the viewfinder
does not show 100% of the actual shot ?


Cost. It takes time, and therefore money, to get a 100% view aligned
accurately with the sensor - film or digital. In addition the prism has to
be larger, and heavier etc. And, for many years there's been the argument
that slide frames are slightly smaller than the nominal full frame of
36x24mm.
Since the recent demise of film, I've been able to afford the purchase of
two Nikon F3s which I believe have 100% finders - and offer a relatively low
cost way to decide whether 100% is that important in your type of
photography.
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

I know. I have to agree.

It is crazy that they aren't 100% IMO. Especially on something like a 5D.


wrote in message news:bXkXg.129376$R63.54512@pd7urf1no...
Thanks for everybody who has answered my other threads, I've learned a
lot.
Here is another question: Why is it that on most dSLR the viewfinder
does not show 100% of the actual shot ?

wrote in message news:bXkXg.129376$R63.54512@pd7urf1no...
Thanks for everybody who has answered my other threads, I've learned a
lot.
Here is another question: Why is it that on most dSLR the viewfinder
does not show 100% of the actual shot ?

Manufacturing costs. The big issue is alignment ... to show 100%, the
alignment has to be close to dead on.

Stu wrote:
I know. I have to agree.

It is crazy that they aren't 100% IMO. Especially on something like
a 5D.

That is definitely an annoyance...not just on the 5D, but on any body that
isn't truly 100%--which is nearly all DSLRs. An example recently was a
shot I took where I carefully made sure that a concrete curb was out of the
lower portion of the frame...only to discover that the edge protruded into
the actual image--even though it wasn't visible in the viewfinder. I frame
very carefully when I shoot certain subjects and don't like finding surprise
opbjects at the edges of the frame. This meant cropping, which to me is a
waste of resolution. Yes, I should have caught it on the LCD, but I'm not a
chimper and tend to only glance at an occasional histogram.




wrote in message news:bXkXg.129376$R63.54512@pd7urf1no...
Thanks for everybody who has answered my other threads, I've learned
a lot.
Here is another question: Why is it that on most dSLR the viewfinder
does not show 100% of the actual shot ?

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

opbjects at the edges of the frame. This meant cropping, which to me is a
waste of resolution. Yes, I should have caught it on the LCD, but I'm not a
chimper and tend to only glance at an occasional histogram.

Yep... from the postings here, sounds like it's a left over from film days,
and I agree with your comment on lost of resolution.