Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Viewfinder coverage- What's the rational?

  1. #1

    Default Viewfinder coverage- What's the rational?

    Let's take a look before we begin

    Less than 100% coverage
    Pro-DSLR:-
    EOS 5D Mark II: Coverage Vertical / Horizontal approx. 98%

    NIKON D700: Approx. 95 % horizontal and 95 % vertical / Approx. 0.72 x


    100% coverage(aprox 100%)
    Advanced DSLR:-
    EOS 7D: Coverage Approx.100% (viewing angle: approx. 160)

    AND

    Pro-DSLR:
    The more expensive ones eg D3X/Alpha 900/EOS 1Ds Mark III

    If 100% are so-called made mainly for more expensive pro-DSLR(At least it seems), why is a Advanced model(not pro) EOS 7D having 100% coverage, and the price if compare with EOS7D's "main rivals of it's class", is not a big difference? (If is meant to be sales/market strategies, it doesnt seems to make sense to me as for eg Pro-DSLR mainly/generally target the slightly higher earning popularity) What I meant is eg During manufacture if D700 can increase from its 95% to 100%, I am pretty sure, consumers(again generally) would not mind flogging out perhaps 1k more.

    By not having the 100% coverage for the huge amount they would spend, instantly would turn some serious photographers away to other options.

    Anyone can enlighten me? =) im new :P
    Last edited by jojovan; 3rd November 2010 at 12:49 PM.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Viewfinder coverage- What's the rational?

    Quote Originally Posted by jojovan View Post
    If 100% are so-called made mainly for more expensive pro-DSLR(At least it seems), why is a Advanced model(not pro) EOS 7D having 100% coverage, and the price if compare with it's "main rivals", is not a big difference?
    Also consider that the 7D is on a 1.6x crop, while the others are full-frame. The optics and size of the pentaprism are very different for full frame.
    Alpha

  3. #3

    Default Re: Viewfinder coverage- What's the rational?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    Also consider that the 7D is on a 1.6x crop, while the others are full-frame. The optics and size of the pentaprism are very different for full frame.
    I understand what you mean. I am curious as I believe technology does allow all DSLR to have their viewfinder 100% coverage, why don't they do so? Everyone wish to see-and-get-what-they-shot.
    As my eg above, D700 is 95%, they can make it 100%, whey didnt they do that? I think there must be reason. There are people out there expecting/hoping it to be 100% and willing to pay more for it, at least I do =)
    Last edited by jojovan; 3rd November 2010 at 12:12 PM.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Viewfinder coverage- What's the rational?

    Quote Originally Posted by jojovan View Post
    Is not like people can't afford. =)
    That's a very silly thing to say. You think everyone earns Singapore salary?

    Anyway, read up:

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...wfinders.shtml
    Alpha

  5. #5

    Default Re: Viewfinder coverage- What's the rational?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    That's a very silly thing to say. You think everyone earns Singapore salary?

    Anyway, read up:

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...wfinders.shtml

    In my question, I already stated that "generally" and I do mean that they are people who is willing to pay more.

    Thanks for the link.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Viewfinder coverage- What's the rational?

    Quote Originally Posted by jojovan View Post
    In my question, I already stated that "generally" and I do mean that they are people who is willing to pay more.

    Thanks for the link.
    Those that are willin to pay more can do so. Then get a camera with 100% coverage. If you don't have fat wallets, get a cheaper cam.

    It's a very simple logic...
    Alpha

  7. #7

    Default Re: Viewfinder coverage- What's the rational?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    Those that are willin to pay more can do so. Then get a camera with 100% coverage. If you don't have fat wallets, get a cheaper cam.

    It's a very simple logic...
    So what you mean is that eg people who can't afford to pay buy D3x(100%), can go with D700(95%)? So can I say that the comparision is based on "you have money you get 100%, or else other wise"?

    If you read my question carefully enough, I am focusing more on the rational/technology behind when they make eg D700 with it's 95% and not 100%.(Of course I'm not asking why not 95.5%, why not 96% and so on)

    Care to share?

  8. #8

    Default Re: Viewfinder coverage- What's the rational?

    oh well, there goes any hope of a >100% coverage.

    Anyway, live-view is always at 100%?

  9. #9
    Member agws1970's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North East Singapore
    Posts
    365

    Default Re: Viewfinder coverage- What's the rational?

    Quote Originally Posted by jojovan View Post
    So what you mean is that eg people who can't afford to pay buy D3x(100%), can go with D700(95%)? So can I say that the comparision is based on "you have money you get 100%, or else other wise"?

    If you read my question carefully enough, I am focusing more on the rational/technology behind when they make eg D700 with it's 95% and not 100%.(Of course I'm not asking why not 95.5%, why not 96% and so on)

    Care to share?
    The rationale is that 100% VF cost more because the PentaPrism or PentaMirror array will be bigger, causing the camera to have to be made bigger. Also the extra size will cause orices to be higher as not only the array gets bigger, so does the casing/top housing. Just look at the top of PRO DSLR's compared to Advanced DSLR's. No doubt the technology is there, but does the consumer or enthusiast want the extra size and weight?
    Just compare the Nikon FE2 to the Nikon F3 specs and size and you should understand this difference. Rationale only makes sense when you compare apples to apples. Same format and not different formats. IIRC, the pentax 110 SLR camera also had full 100% VF and the flagship of the day (ME Super) 100% too. But the mid end models all made do with 95 percent.
    Also the smaller vf's are a carry over from film days when in the 80's manufacturers were challenged with bring out smaller cameras and needed to cut size and weight. In the 90's they cut it even more with some cameras coming in at 90% coverage. Consumers just accepted it because the printing process usually cut off about 8% of the area anyway. (36mm X 24mm printed on 3R 3"X4.5" )
    Hope this clarifies and chill out man, ask questions but dont be antagonistic. You attract more flies with honey than vinegar.
    Last edited by agws1970; 4th November 2010 at 10:39 AM.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Kiasu Nation
    Posts
    532

    Default Re: Viewfinder coverage- What's the rational?

    why not only build one camera model?

    since by your logic, there will always be people who can afford the best feature.

    Top can 100%, then all bottom model should have 100%, top can have 1 million ISO performance, bottom also must have 1 million ISO performance. Since people can afford mah. Like that all camera become the same?

    Product differentiation in here to stay. Dun even know what logic you talking about

  11. #11

    Default Re: Viewfinder coverage- What's the rational?

    Quote Originally Posted by jojovan View Post
    So what you mean is that eg people who can't afford to pay buy D3x(100%), can go with D700(95%)? So can I say that the comparision is based on "you have money you get 100%, or else other wise"?
    Isn't that the whole point of consumerism? People who can pay more get better goods, people who can't, just settle for less, not sure about what you are getting at though.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Viewfinder coverage- What's the rational?

    Quote Originally Posted by spree86 View Post
    Isn't that the whole point of consumerism? People who can pay more get better goods, people who can't, just settle for less, not sure about what you are getting at though.
    Exactly. I think he doesn't understand consumerism.

    TS, read the link I gave you. It explains why 100% VF coverage is expensive.
    Alpha

  13. #13

    Default Re: Viewfinder coverage- What's the rational?

    At first I thought it could be technology issue, thus I ask in newbie corner =). Ok guys, really nothing antagonistic. Thanks for all your time and I understood is money factor now. Cheers.
    Last edited by jojovan; 3rd November 2010 at 01:23 PM.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Viewfinder coverage- What's the rational?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    Exactly. I think he doesn't understand consumerism.

    TS, read the link I gave you. It explains why 100% VF coverage is expensive.
    Thanks for the link. =D

  15. #15

    Default Re: Viewfinder coverage- What's the rational?

    Quote Originally Posted by agws1970 View Post
    The rational is that 100% VF cost more because the PentaPrism or PentaMirror array will be bigger, causing the camera to have to be made bigger. Also the extra size will cause orices to be higher as not only the array gets bigger, so does the casing/top housing. Just look at the top of PRO DSLR's compared to Advanced DSLR's. No doubt the technology is there, but does the consumer or enthusiast want the extra size and weight?
    Just compare the Nikon FE2 to the Nikon F3 specs and size and you should understand this difference. Rational only makes sense when you compare apples to apples. Same format and not different formats. IIRC, the pentax 110 SLR camera also had full 100% VF and the flagship of the day (ME Super) 100% too. But the mid end models all made do with 95 percent.
    Also the smaller vf's are a carry over from film days when in the 80's manufacturers were challenged with bring out smaller cameras and needed to cut size and weight. In the 90's they cut it even more with some cameras coming in at 90% coverage. Consumers just accepted it because the printing process usually cut off about 8% of the area anyway. (36mm X 24mm printed on 3R 3"X4.5" )
    Hope this clarifies and chill out man, ask questions but dont be antagonistic. You attract more flies with honey than vinegar.
    Thanks for the well-explanation.

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
  •