Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: 100% Vf

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Serangoon Nth
    Posts
    352

    Default 100% Vf

    Hello, This is a question that has been at the back of my mind since I got my first SLR.

    What is the purpose of having 100% viewfinder coverage? As far as I know (which is not a lot) it is not practical to have this, all printed photos are croped about 10% anyway. If shooting with reversal, the mounting frame would also cover roughtly 10% of the picture. So if composing with a 100% viewfinder, wouldn't something be cropped during printing?
    Wouldn't a 90/92% viewfinder - like those found in non-pro bodies be more suitable?

    Is 100% viewfinder a 'must-have' for any professional usage? In terms of getting exact composition and translate it into prints.

    Please enlighten me on this.

    Thanks

    DT

  2. #2

    Default Read Mike Johnston

    1. You can tell a good pro lab not to crop.

    2. When you do big enlargements, you don't want to lose 10% of your negs for no reason.

    3. With scanners and inkjet printers, you can definitely get everything, wouldn't you be happier if you could see everything that your film can see?

    Read Mike Johnston's SMP column about 100% viewfinders to get all the other good reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by dreamtheatre
    Hello, This is a question that has been at the back of my mind since I got my first SLR.

    What is the purpose of having 100% viewfinder coverage? As far as I know (which is not a lot) it is not practical to have this, all printed photos are croped about 10% anyway. If shooting with reversal, the mounting frame would also cover roughtly 10% of the picture. So if composing with a 100% viewfinder, wouldn't something be cropped during printing?
    Wouldn't a 90/92% viewfinder - like those found in non-pro bodies be more suitable?

    Is 100% viewfinder a 'must-have' for any professional usage? In terms of getting exact composition and translate it into prints.

    Please enlighten me on this.

    Thanks

    DT

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Serangoon Nth
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong
    1. You can tell a good pro lab not to crop.

    2. When you do big enlargements, you don't want to lose 10% of your negs for no reason.

    3. With scanners and inkjet printers, you can definitely get everything, wouldn't you be happier if you could see everything that your film can see?

    Read Mike Johnston's SMP column about 100% viewfinders to get all the other good reasons.
    Thanks.
    So it is only useful if the lab is able to print the whole frame (?)

    I usually crop my phtots extreamley tight - touching the edges sometimes, becasue I don;t have 100% VF, the result is always exactly what I see in the VF. So you can perhpas see I am stuck in a situation where I need some of the 'extra' features of a pro-body but since I don't enalrge bigger than A4, I don't need a 'full frame view' which can be a disadvantage to me.

    Pls let me know the website of the article. Thanks.

    DT

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Outside the Dry Box.
    Posts
    16,268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dreamtheatre
    Hello, This is a question that has been at the back of my mind since I got my first SLR.

    What is the purpose of having 100% viewfinder coverage? As far as I know (which is not a lot) it is not practical to have this, all printed photos are croped about 10% anyway. If shooting with reversal, the mounting frame would also cover roughtly 10% of the picture. So if composing with a 100% viewfinder, wouldn't something be cropped during printing?
    Wouldn't a 90/92% viewfinder - like those found in non-pro bodies be more suitable?

    Is 100% viewfinder a 'must-have' for any professional usage? In terms of getting exact composition and translate it into prints.

    Please enlighten me on this.

    Thanks

    DT
    dunno about u, but i find that 100% view is a MUST... but den i dun have a camera with that... cos i find that whenever i do a composition, i felt its good in this view, den when i press the shutter, the output normally does not have the feel that i want, in the end, i would take another shot with a tighter crop to achieve that of the previous idea i want.

    i dun do printing so i not sure if printing really become 90+% anot...
    Logging Off. "You have 2,631 messages stored, of a total 400 allowed." don't PM me.

  5. #5

    Default You should google...

    ...But I'll help you this time around.

    http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-03-16.shtml

    Explains why most SLR viewfinders suck.

    Wai Leong
    ===
    Quote Originally Posted by dreamtheatre
    Thanks.
    So it is only useful if the lab is able to print the whole frame (?)

    I usually crop my phtots extreamley tight - touching the edges sometimes, becasue I don;t have 100% VF, the result is always exactly what I see in the VF. So you can perhpas see I am stuck in a situation where I need some of the 'extra' features of a pro-body but since I don't enalrge bigger than A4, I don't need a 'full frame view' which can be a disadvantage to me.

    Pls let me know the website of the article. Thanks.

    DT

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Serangoon Nth
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong
    ...But I'll help you this time around.

    http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-03-16.shtml

    Explains why most SLR viewfinders suck.

    Wai Leong
    ===

    Thanks Wai Leong Appreciate it

    DT

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,164

    Default

    Here are example of the Print Size:
    4R - 4x6 (1200x1800, 300dpi)
    5R - 5x7 (1500x2100, 300dpi)
    6R - 6x8 (1800x2400, 300dpi)

    If you read the proportion, they are not exact. So each size has different cropping. What I normally do is resize and crop them from 2000x3006 which is a converted result from my D70 NEF. Its quite tedious but it gives me time to reflect from my mistakes as well and since each images means a lot of work, it force me to do better next time round. =)

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Serangoon Nth
    Posts
    352

    Default

    OK, after reading the article, I can put this issue behind me for good. Thanks to Wei Leong's kind and generous help.

    Whoa, this means most SLR actually have an effective crop factor (in terms of printed output) of about 1.2 to 1.3X - so a 15mm fisheye will output a result as though shot with a 18~20mm! To take it positively, we can buy 'cheaper' lenses that don't score well at edge sharpness/brightness

    I think as long as we know exactly how our resutl will turn out, it is good enough. We, as the user, can get around the deficiencies in the design of non-100% VF system, but a 100%VF system cannot make up for the deficnency of our 'skill level' - or the lack of it

  9. #9
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default

    When you shoot trans, youíll need it, you will be viewing 100% of the image area.

    But sometime we want to make print from trans or negative, on full frame without any cropping, (using enlarger, not machine print) the last thing you want to know is something missing or additional which you canít see it in viewfinder before you clicki.

    That why some photographers still prefer using waist level finder on medium format SLR.

    Hope this help.

    Btw, there are 100% slide mounts avaliable, very expensive.
    Last edited by catchlights; 27th May 2005 at 10:13 AM.

  10. #10

    Default That is the wrong interpretation

    Nothing has changed just because you see less in the viewfinder. A 15 mm lens is still a 15 mm lens, it does not take on the properties of an 18 mm lens just because you crop the output.

    This is the biggest lie the DSLR manufacturers have propagated, that somehow your 35 mm lens gains a focal length multiplier, when in fact, what a DSLR does is to take only a smaller central portion of the image from the lens.


    Quote Originally Posted by dreamtheatre
    Whoa, this means most SLR actually have an effective crop factor (in terms of printed output) of about 1.2 to 1.3X - so a 15mm fisheye will output a result as though shot with a 18~20mm! To take it positively, we can buy 'cheaper' lenses that don't score well at edge sharpness/brightness

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Serangoon Nth
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong
    Nothing has changed just because you see less in the viewfinder. A 15 mm lens is still a 15 mm lens, it does not take on the properties of an 18 mm lens just because you crop the output.

    This is the biggest lie the DSLR manufacturers have propagated, that somehow your 35 mm lens gains a focal length multiplier, when in fact, what a DSLR does is to take only a smaller central portion of the image from the lens.

    Yes Wei Leong, I was refering to angle of view. The perspective remains the same. Thanks for confirming what I have been trying to tell some of my friends all these time

    DT

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •