100% Vf


Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 20, 2004
352
0
0
Serangoon Nth
#1
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
 

waileong

Deregistered
Feb 5, 2003
2,519
0
0
Visit site
#2
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.

dreamtheatre said:
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
 

Aug 20, 2004
352
0
0
Serangoon Nth
#3
waileong said:
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:)
 

Del_CtrlnoAlt

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2003
16,268
0
0
Outside the Dry Box.
Visit site
#4
dreamtheatre said:
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...
 

waileong

Deregistered
Feb 5, 2003
2,519
0
0
Visit site
#5
...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
===
dreamtheatre said:
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:)
 

Mar 27, 2005
1,164
0
0
Singapore
#7
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. =)
 

Aug 20, 2004
352
0
0
Serangoon Nth
#8
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 :D
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#9
When you shoot trans, you’ll 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 can’t 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.
 

waileong

Deregistered
Feb 5, 2003
2,519
0
0
Visit site
#10
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.


dreamtheatre said:
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 :)
 

Aug 20, 2004
352
0
0
Serangoon Nth
#11
waileong said:
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:)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom